Possible earliest evidence of Christianity resurrected from ancient tomb...

[jammindude]

Just thought this might make for interesting discussion...

https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57387803/possible-earliest-evidence-of-christianity-resurrected-from-ancient-tomb/?tag=cbsnewsTwoColLowerPromoArea;fd.morenews

In an ancient tomb located below a modern condominium building in Jerusalem, archaeologists have found ossuaries -- bone boxes for the dead -- bearing engravings that could represent the earliest archaeological evidence of Christians ever found.

The tomb has been dated to before A.D. 70, so if its engravings are indeed early Christian, they were most likely made by some of Jesus' earliest followers, according to the excavators.

One of the limestone ossuaries bears an inscription in Greek that includes a reference to "Divine Jehovah" raising someone up. A second ossuary has an image that appears to be a large fish with a stick figure in its mouth. The excavators believe the image represents the story of Jonah, the biblical prophet who was swallowed by a fish or whale and then released.

Together both the inscription and the image of the fish represent the Christian belief in resurrection from death. While images of the Jonah story became common on more recent Christian tombs, they do not appear in first-century art, and iconographic images like this on ossuaries are extremely rare.

"If anyone had claimed to find either a statement about resurrection or a Jonah image in a Jewish tomb of this period I would have said impossible -- until now," James D. Tabor, professor and chairman of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and one of the excavators, said in a news release issued by the university.

[snapple]

That's cool 

[rumborak]

Very cool. Wouldn't be surprised though if the interpretation of the imagery is gonna stir some controversy.

On a related note, it was very cool to see very early Christian caves when going to Cappadocia, Turkey. They hid inside these limestone formations that were very inaccessible, and the only stuff you could see from the outside was a tiny hole (through which you would enter.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/RQ1qdZXGJrOvpfKMj0lIB9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/2BKtsOnHvfEanbsHytqp0dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

rumborak

[jammindude]

I won't deny that a big point of interest to me (on a personal note) is that they found the name "Jehovah" in the excavation.   It has long been held that 1st Century Jews (and the contemporary fledgling Christian community) did not use that name at all.   This evidence would seem to overturn that. 

[rumborak]

BTW, one part I didn't understand is, why would Jonah's story become a common Christian burial decoration? You would think they would choose something more distinctly Christian.

rumborak

[Adami]

I won't deny that a big point of interest to me (on a personal note) is that they found the name "Jehovah" in the excavation.   It has long been held that 1st Century Jews (and the contemporary fledgling Christian community) did not use that name at all.   This evidence would seem to overturn that.

I can't speak for 1st century jews, but Jehovah isn't actually a name. It's just a version of a word that we're not allowed to speak, thus making it speakable. But as far as I know, the word has been around in the text form since the hebrew began. We wrote it, we just never spoke it. So seeing it engraved doesn't really say anything.

[yeshaberto]

my guess is Jesus' reference to him being in the ground for three days and Jonah being in the belly of the whale.  When you read Jonah 2, it seems like some of the statements he makes in his prayer in the whale could be understood and messianic

[jammindude]

I won't deny that a big point of interest to me (on a personal note) is that they found the name "Jehovah" in the excavation.   It has long been held that 1st Century Jews (and the contemporary fledgling Christian community) did not use that name at all.   This evidence would seem to overturn that.

I can't speak for 1st century jews, but Jehovah isn't actually a name. It's just a version of a word that we're not allowed to speak, thus making it speakable. But as far as I know, the word has been around in the text form since the hebrew began. We wrote it, we just never spoke it. So seeing it engraved doesn't really say anything.

Lest we get sidetracked...we will have to agree to disagree. 

[j]

Pretty cool discovery.  I'm a little curious about the accuracy of the interpretation of the engravings, I wish there was more detail in the article.

And those are sweet pictures rumbo.

-J

[Adami]

I won't deny that a big point of interest to me (on a personal note) is that they found the name "Jehovah" in the excavation.   It has long been held that 1st Century Jews (and the contemporary fledgling Christian community) did not use that name at all.   This evidence would seem to overturn that.

I can't speak for 1st century jews, but Jehovah isn't actually a name. It's just a version of a word that we're not allowed to speak, thus making it speakable. But as far as I know, the word has been around in the text form since the hebrew began. We wrote it, we just never spoke it. So seeing it engraved doesn't really say anything.

Lest we get sidetracked...we will have to agree to disagree.

Disagree about what? I said a few things, you can't disagree with every single one of them.

[jammindude]

BTW, one part I didn't understand is, why would Jonah's story become a common Christian burial decoration? You would think they would choose something more distinctly Christian.

rumborak

Original Christianity was not this new diametrically opposed new thing that was against all things Jewish....

...If anything, they used OT texts to *prove* that the prophecies had been fulfilled in Jesus.  Jesus himself referenced Jonah in stating that what happened to Jonah was a foreshadowing of what was about to happen to himself.    "For just as Jo′nah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (Matt 12:40)

[jammindude]

I won't deny that a big point of interest to me (on a personal note) is that they found the name "Jehovah" in the excavation.   It has long been held that 1st Century Jews (and the contemporary fledgling Christian community) did not use that name at all.   This evidence would seem to overturn that.

I can't speak for 1st century jews, but Jehovah isn't actually a name. It's just a version of a word that we're not allowed to speak, thus making it speakable. But as far as I know, the word has been around in the text form since the hebrew began. We wrote it, we just never spoke it. So seeing it engraved doesn't really say anything.

Lest we get sidetracked...we will have to agree to disagree.

Disagree about what? I said a few things, you can't disagree with every single one of them.

I think we cleared it up in our PM....

[Adami]

Haha sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to you. I should probably pay more attention.

[hefdaddy42]

I won't deny that a big point of interest to me (on a personal note) is that they found the name "Jehovah" in the excavation.   It has long been held that 1st Century Jews (and the contemporary fledgling Christian community) did not use that name at all.   This evidence would seem to overturn that.

I can't speak for 1st century jews, but Jehovah isn't actually a name. It's just a version of a word that we're not allowed to speak, thus making it speakable. But as far as I know, the word has been around in the text form since the hebrew began. We wrote it, we just never spoke it. So seeing it engraved doesn't really say anything.

I would take issue with the part about "we just never spoke it."  There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible (OT) against speaking it, and in fact it frequently says things like "those who call on the name of Y--H will be saved."  As far as I can tell, the prohibition against speaking the Name at all is a relatively late teaching by the Pharisees, from whom came rabbinic Judaism, which certainly forbids the speaking of the Name.  But I see no evidence whatsoever that the ancient Jews had any compunctions against speaking the Name, at least under certain circumstances.

[Super Dude]

I won't deny that a big point of interest to me (on a personal note) is that they found the name "Jehovah" in the excavation.   It has long been held that 1st Century Jews (and the contemporary fledgling Christian community) did not use that name at all.   This evidence would seem to overturn that.

I can't speak for 1st century jews, but Jehovah isn't actually a name. It's just a version of a word that we're not allowed to speak, thus making it speakable. But as far as I know, the word has been around in the text form since the hebrew began. We wrote it, we just never spoke it. So seeing it engraved doesn't really say anything.

I would take issue with the part about "we just never spoke it."  There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible (OT) against speaking it, and in fact it frequently says things like "those who call on the name of Y--H will be saved."  As far as I can tell, the prohibition against speaking the Name at all is a relatively late teaching by the Pharisees, from whom came rabbinic Judaism, which certainly forbids the speaking of the Name.  But I see no evidence whatsoever that the ancient Jews had any compunctions against speaking the Name, at least under certain circumstances.

I don't really know for sure when it started, but then that chronology would still apply to 1st century Jews. Wikipedia maintains that the practice of never uttering the word Yahweh started in the 3rd century B.C.E.

Edit: Never mind, I see what you're saying. Sorry bout that.

I won't deny that a big point of interest to me (on a personal note) is that they found the name "Jehovah" in the excavation.   It has long been held that 1st Century Jews (and the contemporary fledgling Christian community) did not use that name at all.   This evidence would seem to overturn that.

I can't speak for 1st century jews, but Jehovah isn't actually a name. It's just a version of a word that we're not allowed to speak, thus making it speakable. But as far as I know, the word has been around in the text form since the hebrew began. We wrote it, we just never spoke it. So seeing it engraved doesn't really say anything.

Lest we get sidetracked...we will have to agree to disagree. 

I'm sure I'm making a huge mistake here and just opening a totally counterproductive can of worms, but there is no disagreeing with the fact that Jews are forbidden to speak the true name of God. Jehovah is an Anglicization of that name, which is יהוה‎. We can use that name if we write it, and that's always been true, but we're simply not allowed to utter it.

[hefdaddy42]

The thing I find interesting is that this prohibition against any Jew ever pronouncing the Name is a product of rabbinic Judaism, which again started with the Pharisees, who were basically the only real organized group of Jews left after the Roman Wars and the destruction of Jerusalem.  I often wonder what would have been the ramifications on modern Judaism if some of the other groups such as the Sadduccees and Essenes had survived that time (neither of those groups apparently bought into the Pharisees use of an "oral law" which eventually became the Talmud etc).

Of course, the Karaite Jews don't subscribe to the oral law, either, but my understanding is that they are a very small group.

[Super Dude]

Yeah, I'm sure the other groups survive in traces somewhere among us. I mean, like any social group within a culture, I'm sure they weren't totally homogenous with such rigid boundaries.

[juice]

Cool news. 

[jammindude]

The official report is out as a PDF.   Are we allowed to post links to PDF's??  It's a 47 page document, so it's fairly good size....


EDIT:  I figured maybe code tags would be acceptable.

Code: [Select]

https://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Tabor2.pdf