Staff of Moses

[Indy's_main_man]

Well this is old but it's the first time i've seen it:

http://www.veederandld.20m.com/anthronews/41102.html

[bob]

I am personally sceptical that any artifact like this can actually be located, it just doesn't seem how the world works to me.

The theory however is very interesting, and I may buy the book.

[westford]

"But I have spent a lot of my time telling people ancient Egypt is about ordinary people and not about treasure or some really important people."

Amen to that sentiment.

[TombReader]

Ditto that Amen.

[whipem]

I'm just annoyed how skeptical they are of Moses' existence. Well, I guess they have to say "the Biblical figure of Moses" because there is no definite proof of his existence, but there are loads of evidence.

[Johan]

Well not exactly that much evedence....maybe if they were looking in ther right spot for the 40 years in the Wilderness. They need to go to Saudi Arabia.

[whipem]

Speaking of evidence, I heard my pastor mention in a sermon that a official in Israel (may have been a Roman, I'm not sure) recorded Jesus' crucifixion (he wasn't a believer, either, it was his job).

Hope this isn't too off-topic, it is related to archaeology.

[blur]

I'm sure he did. Most of that era and what Jesus did is documented.

[Johan]

Too bad people treat the documents as fiction

[Finn]

You hit the tip of the nail with that, Johan... people treat those factual docs as <i>fiction</i>, but they have no trouble treating the Good Book as complete <i>fact</i>. What irony.

[TombReader]

Just out of curiosity...where can I see these factual documents?

[Finn]

For one of their kind, go to Google, type in "Dead Sea Scrolls".

(Not all fact, maybe... but parts'o'it. Lots of stuff there that goes against what the Good Book says, too.)

Then there are those made by the Roman historians. If you want to see them, I think there are some in the Vatican National Archive. Are you a Catholic?

[TombReader]

No,I'm not.I have read bits of the DSS was not aware that their validity had been authenticated.Have they?

[Finn]

It's stuff the church left out when assembling the Bible... why would they have left it out if it was simply a work of fiction? ;)

Okay, but seriously though... nothing in those scrolls have been validated as fact or fiction (same goes with the Good Book, btw) but if you want to read things that truly are considered facts, you really should learn some Latin and get into the Holy Archive.

[cadvalon]

I'm really sorry but... jesus life documented? moses existence documented? sure? i study in a catholic school and high school and i have a few friends that are catholic priests and historicians and no one can find any "factual document"
i not saying jesus or moses did not existed, that's matter of faith, but there is not factual and undiscutible "proofs"

[Johan]

is the Bible not an historical document that records the life and existance of these men? Documents of the same kind are good for other historical figures! Why are these documents not good enough when it comes to Jesus and Moses? Is it because they have done things that are beyond our puny faithless minds?

[cadvalon]

Short way, no, the bible was not an historical document (not in that meaning of historical) it is a religious text. Religious text aren't good factual historical documents, why? lack of objectivity and indemonstrable facts (yes, miracles) personal faith can't be a proof for any "scientific" historician (you know a lot of people has not the same faith)

[Indy's_main_man]

I'd disagree, after all the bible was written by those who lived these experiences and then documented them.

so it is historically accurate.

did anyone hear they believe they found the cave in which john the baptist baptised Jesus? (sorry if it's OT)

[Pale Horse]

Originally posted by cadvalon
Short way, no, the bible was not an historical document (not in that meaning of historical) it is a religious text. Religious text aren't good factual historical documents, why? lack of objectivity and indemonstrable facts (yes, miracles) personal faith can't be a proof for any "scientific" historician (you know a lot of people has not the same faith)

I must disagree, and I will cite my source, in case someone wants to argue the validity of the Bible as a historical document.


In fact, the only historical literature of antiquity that has emonstrated unerring accuracy with regard to archaeological verification is the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Majority Greek text of the New Testament. Or as Nelson Glueck -- a preeminent archaeologist in that region -- remarked: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." [Rivers in the Desert; History of Neteg] Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969.

This is speaking of historical facts like the rise and fall of Jeruselum, Kings that reigned during the time of the Judges, important figures like Nebuchadnezzar, Herod, Sheshonk I, and a host of other characters not named here. In this age of information, with recording devices all around us, we still can't determine if there was a "Swift Boat Attack" or not (not that it matters to current issues in my mind). Considering that there is almost 1000 years of facts to dispute, if you will, I think it is safe to say that no evidence can be found refuting the historical claims found in the Bible. And it's certainly not for lack of trying...

We can talk about philosophy and faith in a differnt thread at a different time.

[DaFedora]

Time for some scholarly expertise:

My syllabus of 'History of Rome', pp. 181-185 concerns testimonies of non-Christians who witnessed the gradual growth and success of Christianity.

The earliest external testimonies come from Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and the "Testimonium Flavianum" (ascribed to Flavius Iosephus).

Tacitus (Annals XV, 44) speaks of the fire in Rome in 64 AD: emperor Nero, suspected of having started the inferno himself, puts a people called 'Chrestiani' to blame for the disaster. Some of them are found guilty, not on the charge of arson, but of 'hate against humanity' (odium humani generis). Some are to be schredded by dogs, some stabbed onto burning crucifixes, lit like candles. Emperor Nero was kind enough to offer the space of his own private gardens to display the crucifixions. Tacitus holds no sympathy for their religion, which he characterizes as 'pernicious superstition' (exitiabilis superstitio). However, he feels sorry for them and believes they deserve mercy, because their deaths does not serve public interest but just the cruelty of a single man.

In his 'Life of Nero' (Vita Neronis, 14), Suetonius alludes to the same events, though without mentioning the fire. He writes that, under Nero's administration, correctional actions are taken against Christians in the sense that they're punished by death. He describes them as a bunch of people that have surrendered themselves to a new and dangerous superstition (superstitio nova ac malefica).

About 110 AD, Pliny the Younger is governor of Bithynia and asks his emperor Traianus instructions on how to treat the Christians. Traianus responds that he does not have to hunt them down. When they are reported or charged of a crime, Pliny must put them to justice, unless they're prepared to offer 'to our gods'. Pliny is ordered to disregard anonymous charges, because this gives a bad example and doesn't respond to the spirit of their aera (nec nostri saeculi est, Plinius Minor, Epistulae X, 97).

Finally, there's the famous 'Testimonium Flavianum', a passus in the 'Antiquitates Iudaicae' (XVIII, 63-64) presumably by the hand of Flavius Iosephus. In this work, published around 93-94 AD, the author acclaims that Jesus Christ did miracles, had a high appeal towards Jews and Greeks, and appeared alive before his pupils on the third day after his death. This passus is considered to be a complete or at least partial interpolation inserted later on, dated approximately 300 AD.

If you're interested, my syllabus proceeds with the prosecutions of the Christians, which was a very gradual but mainly unplanned project in the eyes of the Romans. Notably, the most important evolutions in this complex scheme can be found under the emperors Domitian (81-96 AD), Hadrian (117-138 AD), Tertullian (see his 'Apologia' about 200 AD), Decius (249-251 AD), Valerian (253-260 AD), Diocletian (284-305 AD) and his 'Caesar' (co-emperor) Galerius.

You should all never forget that the Bible (itself being a 'compilated' work of several texts) is in the first place a work of a religious community that wanted to transfer the message of Revelation, salvation, forgiveness (mostly through the Gospels) and primarily appeals to human moral and beliefs.

[cadvalon]

Yes i know all that records but in fact all of them demostrate that in that time existed a christian comunity and what they say.
Tacitus was clearly anti-nero, and well he is a lot of things but no objective talking about Nero.

As i rememeber, i haven't the text here in home, flavius josephus says: " christians says that he did miracles" and some historicians believe that this sentence, an the other where i mentioned Jesus, was a later interpolation (again, i haven't the source here, sorry)

The controversy really exists, for example i have two teachers in Roman history: one "demostrated" that Jesus existed the other "demonstrated" that he didn't.

I don't trying to say that "jesus did not existed, i have proofs!" i'm only saying that existing proofs was not enough for indisputable sentences. In fact i believe that Jesus, a man called Jesus who founded a new religious comunity, really existed but there isn't uncontroversial proofs, only partial evidence.

Again the bible as historical materials but it is not an historical text (even Catholic Church admited it) it has narrative, metaphoric and mithological materials too, and it can't be accepted as historical as a whole. Biblical studies and historical investigation has changed a lot since 1969.

[Johan]

You have to remember that back in the day church and state were one. Those that were rulers were said to be appointed by God...example "King David". So this HISTORICAL DOCUMENT is labelled by people like you as "religious text" but in reality they are one in the same.
What about the parts in the bible that show no revelance to religeous issues but rather show the blood lines of families and ansestors. This is recorded HISTORY!