ARCHEOLOGY OF JESUS: NEW STUFF

[Robert F. Smith]

Ariel Sabar, "Unearthing the World of Jesus," Smithsonian, 46/9 (Jan-Feb 2016):42-55,122-130.

I just rec'd the latest issue of the Smithsonian in the mail today, and it features a long cover-story on the full range of archeological discoveries which flesh out the world of Jesus, from the Galilee to Jerusalem.  However, it features a very recent and significant 2009 discovery in Galilee, that of the only known first-century synagogue in Galilee.  The Gospels have Jesus preaching in synagogues in the Gallil, but till now none from his time had ever been found, leading some critics to doubt the Gospel accounts.  Now we have a very interesting one (with mosaics, frescoes, and a quartzite altar), uncovered by a survey which was not even looking for anything in particular, at Magdala.

The head of the excavation, Dina Avshalom-Gorni has even held bar mitzvahs for her sons in it, remarking that her eldest son's bar mitzvah there was the first Jewish celebration there in 2,000 years.  This should not only provide prophetic perspective, but also give us pause before dismissing the Book of Mormon just because archeology cannot yet justify every single claim it makes for itself.

[VideoGameJunkie]

It's not that archeology doesn't justify EVERY claim of the Book of Mormon, it's that there is no archeology or artifacts or skeletons that have been able to justify ANY claim of the BOM being historical.

[Duncan]

I know some people are upset or were anyways that synagogues are mentioned in the BOM even though allegedly they didn't come into existence after Nephi had left 

[Cold Steel]

From a purely theological standpoint, I believe things turned out just as they were intended. Moses doesn't seem to reflect poorly on the first incident, of Jacob buying the birthright from Easu, and contemptuously adds that in making this outrageous transaction, Esau thus "despised his birthright." In truth, he was nowhere near death, for he ate heartedly and departed. There was no deception here, except that I doubt Esau had any intention of following through on the deal, despite his oath. 

As for stealing the blessing, this was deception. But though Jacob may have deceived his father, Isaac, he could not deceive God, who fulfills the blessings. It was Jacob's lot to receive the blessings of the land and of the priesthood. Also, Jacob himself was victim of heartbreaking deception twice in his life. First, when his father-in-law Laban switched his daughter, Leah, for Rachel, requiring an additional seven years of service from Jacob to make things right. The second time was when his sons deceived him into thinking his beloved son, Joseph, had been slain by wild beasts. 

 

[Calm]

Wrong thread, Cold Steel, I think.

 

Very interesting, Robert.  Thanks for bringing it up.  Love that her sons were able to celebrate suchhistorically significant religious ritual in such a historically significant religious place (though if I understand correctly, the current ceremony is not from bilbical times).  It brings the past community forward and ties the present one back into the past so well.

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

It's not that archeology doesn't justify EVERY claim of the Book of Mormon, it's that there is no archeology or artifacts or skeletons that have been able to justify ANY claim of the BOM being historical.

Interestingly enough, archaeology doesn't justify any claim of the Bible being of divine origin, either.  You can confirm through archaeology that King David existed, for example, although this wasn't the case until 1993, but you cannot confirm any supernatural claim whatsoever.  For this reason, archaeology is overrated.  Without the witness of the Holy Spirit, Jesus of Nazareth is merely a historical religious figure, on par with Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh, and Buddha.  Without this witness, the Bible has no better standing than any other religious text ever written, including the Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), the Koran, the Ásatrú (modern Paganism), the works of Bahá'u'lláh (the Bahai faith), the Gathas (Zoroastrianism), or for that matter the Principia Discordia (Discordianism). 

In other words, the historicity of the Bible (or relative historicity, at least) does not prove the Bible is true.  It merely confirms what the Bible seems to be, which is a document of ancient origin with some historical accuracy, and whose writers were convinced that God was involved somehow.

The exceptional matter of the Book of Mormon is simply this: if ever an artifact were to be discovered to confirm any significant claim in the book, this would have the effect of proving that Joseph Smith was a genuine prophet, and everything that follows from this.  For example, a confirmation that a particular ancient city in Mesoamerica had the name Zarahemla, or a tomb is discovered whose occupant is confirmed to be a man named Lehi, or Nephi.  The reason for this should be plain, but just to shine it up a bit, the claimed origin of the book is that it was revealed to Joseph Smith by a heavenly messenger.  If the book were confirmed to be historical, then this would simultaneously confirm that Joseph Smith was a genuine prophet of God.  And would have the side-effect of proving that God exists.  Except, of course, with those people who are basically refuseniks.  And they're allowed to be, of course.

The archaeological evidences which have been discovered so far are actually persuasive.  In my opinion, at least.  All of these are Old World archaeology.  The city of Nahom, for example.  The due east pathway taking the Lehites to Bountiful, which nicely correlates with an ancient spice trading route from Nahom to a coastal area, which correlates with the availability of certain resources Nephi needed to build a ship.

Now regardless of whether any archaeological evidence in the New World will ever justify any historical claim, it doesn't matter to me.  I have a spiritual confirmation that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.  I pass Go and collect all my tokens.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Stargazer

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

It's not that archeology doesn't justify EVERY claim of the Book of Mormon, it's that there is no archeology or artifacts or skeletons that have been able to justify ANY claim of the BOM being historical.

Perhaps you'd like to CFR that completely false statement, VGJ.  What book or article have you read making that ridiculous claim?  Moreover, do you actually know anything about archeology (old world or new world archeology)?  Could you give us a brief explanation for such a view, with specific examples?  Are you at all familiar with the discussions we have had on this subject on this board in the past?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/25/2015 at 6:16 PM, Duncan said:

I know some people are upset or were anyways that synagogues are mentioned in the BOM even though allegedly they didn't come into existence after Nephi had left 

Here is my analysis:

In Acts 15:21, the origin of the synagogue is ascribed to Moses,^[1] and one may reasonably suggest that the Book of Mormon uses the term “church” or “synagogue” to translate well-known OT terminology:  Hebrew ˁēdâ “congregation (of Israel)” (as in Ex 12:3,19,47, 1QS 5:20, 1QM 2:1,3,7, 3:4,11),[2] or qol qĕhal ˁădat yîśrāʼēl  “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel” (Ex 12:6), and Greek LXX/NT synagōgē "congregation" (Numbers 27:17, 31:16, Matthew 9:35-36, Acts 13:43) = Syriac ˁedta "church" (early Semitic Christianity) = early Greek Chris­tian synagōgēn "assembly" (James 2:2, KJV marg rdg "synagogue") = Jewish "synagogue" (Mat 4:23, Rev 3:9) = Hebrew qĕhal, qāhāl, LXX Gk ’ekklēsia "an assembly called together,[3] congregation" (Deuteronomy 31:30, 1 Kings 8:14), "assembly" (Ezekiel 23:24) = NT "church" (ʼekklēsia Matthew 16:18, Revelation 22:16); cf. Acts 2:42 Greek koinōnia.

Indeed, Jewish scholars I. Levy & J. Weingreen see the origin of the synagogue as during the 1st Temple period (re Psalm 116:17, Isaiah 1:11,15); note the miqrāʼēy qōdeš “holy convocations, sacred assemblies” in Leviticus 23:2,4, 2 Kings 4:23, Isaiah 4:5), which might seem to jibe with Book of Mormon claims in 1 Nephi 4:26, 2 Nephi 26:26, Alma 21:4, 31:12, etc.^[4]  Psalm 74:8 môˁădêy-’ēl "syna­gogues of God" (KJV); meeting-places of God" (NKJV), "place(s) where God was worshipped" (NIV) = "synagogues" (LXX, Versions, and Midrash); Elath Ostracon bêt kenisa bî-Yrušalem "the synagogue in Jerusalem" (BASOR 84:4-5).  Jeremiah & Ezekiel seem to refer to meeting-houses estab­lished in the wake of destruction of the 1st Temple: Jeremiah 39:8 Bet ha-ˁam (= "synagogue of the people," Rashi & Kimhi on Midrash); Ezekiel 8:6, 14:1, 20:1, "assembly of Elders" (ziqnēy yîśrāʼēl); Ezekiel 11:16 "little sanctuary" (miqdāš mĕˁaṭ = "synagogue").

There may be a cultic parallel (even a synagogue precursor) among the "roofed or open-air" meeting rooms typically attached to private Egyptian chapels on the north side of the New Kingdom (Ramesside) work-town at Deir el-Medina in western Thebes: Each meeting-room had two benches along the walls, with curved backs, with the names of the twelve owners on them.  So that those in such a room could see every­thing, low walls separating such a room from the pronaos, leading to an ark-like naos for the divine statue.^[5]  Indeed, Eric Meyers states that “in function as well as form, the proseuchē had much in common with contemporaneous Egyptian temples” i.e., in third century B.C. Egypt.^[6]  He bases this claim on the existence of 3^rd century B.C. Greek inscriptions in the Fayyum which mention synagogues as places of prayer.  These, taken together with the existence of Jewish “cult centers” or temples outside of Palestine (at Elephantine, Leontopolis, and possibly ʼAraq el-ʼAmir), lead Meyers to conclude that “cult centers and the earliest synagogues exist alongside one another from Hellenistic times on.”^[7]

 

^[1] Encyclopedia Judaica 15:580.

[2] Apart from Qumran, ˁēdâ is not attested after the 9^th century B.C., being replaced by qāhāl in the postexilic period (J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 4-5).  Cf. ancient Egyptian ˁdt “covenant-stipulations; conspiracy” = Akkadian adû, adē “vassal treaty, formal agreement” (Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion, 271-272).

[3] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 645.

^[4] J. W. Welch, "Synagogues in the Book of Mormon," in J. W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (FARMS/Deseret, 1992), 193-195, citing esp. Joseph Gutmann, The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology, and Architecture (N.Y.: Ktav, 1975), citing J. Weingreen.

^[5] N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, trans. I. Shaw (Oxford/ Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1992), 283.

^[6] Meyers, “Synagogues,” in Meyers, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, V:122.

^[7] Meyers in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI:252.

 

Edited December 26, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

A very important discovery at the Magdala Synagogue is the Magdala Stone, which is described in the article on pp. 124, 126.  I summarize it here:

Rina Talgam (Hebrew Univ art historian) has a book coming out in 2016 which will provide detailed analysis of the Magdala Stone, found in the only 1^st century synagogue known from Galilee.

She considers the Magdala Stone to be a three-dimensional representation of the Jerusalem Temple, with symbols arranged sequentially on its top and sides from front to back as those important holy objects would be encountered in the Temple itself:  the Great Menorah with jugs of wine beside it, then columned arches, altars, and oil lamps on each side, on top the Twelve-Loaf Table of Shewbread, and also a Twelve-leaf Rosette between Palm-shaped columns (representing the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies), with fire-spitting Wheels of God’s Chariot at the end.

[Coreyb]

It's beautiful 

[volgadon]

Cursi has also been found.

[VideoGameJunkie]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you'd like to CFR that completely false statement, VGJ.  What book or article have you read making that ridiculous claim?  Moreover, do you actually know anything about archeology (old world or new world archeology)?  Could you give us a brief explanation for such a view, with specific examples?  Are you at all familiar with the discussions we have had on this subject on this board in the past?

I think I'd rather CFR you what archeological evidence of the people of the Book of Mormon has been found? Where have weapons, chariots, skeletons of the hundreds of thousands that died in the great wars, or fossils been found to prove the legit history of the people in the BOM? We don't even have the gold plates themselves as evidence. I would like just one sword or artifact or skeleton with DNA from that era. Did God hide all the evidence of the people on purpose, while evidence of other civilzations keep being found? I'll withdraw my CFR and skepticism with even 1 tiny shred of an artifact or skeleton. There were big wars with hundreds of thousands of people killed. Surely something would be left behind. Just give me something to work with. Anything.

Edited December 25, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I think I'd rather CFR you what archeological evidence of the people of the Book of Mormon has been found?

There is far less evidence for the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus. There is no evidence for anything in the Bible dating before 1200 BC. At least there are some excuses for the Book of Mormon

1. "The vast majority of the texts that have remained postdate the Book of Mormon"

2. "The next critical difference is the availability of documents. The Old World is document rich" "

3. "In the Maya area, the most important ruins were abandoned and had no current city or significant population at the time of the Conquest. Their locations were lost to time in many cases, to be revealed only when jungles were peeled back to reveal them. "

Edited December 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

There is far less evidence for the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus. There is no evidence for anything in the Bible dating before 1200 BC. At least there are some excuses for the Book of Mormon

1. "The vast majority of the texts that have remained postdate the Book of Mormon"

2. "The next critical difference is the availability of documents. The Old World is document rich" "

3. "In the Maya area, the most important ruins were abandoned and had no current city or significant population at the time of the Conquest. Their locations were lost to time in many cases, to be revealed only when jungles were peeled back to reveal them. "

So it's possible Genesis and Exodus are just made up stories?

[Coreyb]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So it's possible Genesis and Exodus are just made up stories?

Not possible, almost certainly 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I think I'd rather CFR you what archeological evidence of the people of the Book of Mormon has been found? Where have weapons, chariots, skeletons of the hundreds of thousands that died in the great wars, or fossils been found to prove the legit history of the people in the BOM? We don't even have the gold plates themselves as evidence. I would like just one sword or artifact or skeleton with DNA from that era. Did God hide all the evidence of the people on purpose, while evidence of other civilzations keep being found? I'll withdraw my CFR and skepticism with even 1 tiny shred of an artifact or skeleton. There were big wars with hundreds of thousands of people killed. Surely something would be left behind. Just give me something to work with. Anything.

I asked nicely for a CFR.  You are not permitted to ignore such a request on this board.  You either cite your source, or admit that you have no evidence to back up what you say.  Those are our rules here, and you need to comply.

Meantime, you clearly missed the point of the discovery recently of an item which was previously unknown in 1st century Galilee -- a synagogue -- the absence of which did not disprove the Gospel accounts of Jesus preaching in synagogues.  Thus, you believe that any absence of something in the archeological record (so far) means that it never existed.  This is a fallacy committed only by those knowing nothing of archeology.

As to your above statement, it is made in complete ignorance of the presence of many of the items you mention.  You don't know of them because you don't read archeological publications and know nothing about the Americas in ancient times.  I strongly recommend that you read Brant A. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).  That might get you up to speed on this overall subject.  I also deal with the archeological evidence in my Aug 8, 2014 FairMormon lecture “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf . 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So it's possible Genesis and Exodus are just made up stories?

You may want to read David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy (Kofford, 2014), which is the first of three volumes on the OT.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, volgadon said:

Cursi has also been found.

Yeh, but it dates later than the 1st century, and is technically in the lower Golan.

[VideoGameJunkie]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I asked nicely for a CFR.  You are not permitted to ignore such a request on this board.  You either cite your source, or admit that you have no evidence to back up what you say.  Those are our rules here, and you need to comply.

Meantime, you clearly missed the point of the discovery recently of an item which was previously unknown in 1st century Galilee -- a synagogue -- the absence of which did not disprove the Gospel accounts of Jesus preaching in synagogues.  Thus, you believe that any absence of something in the archeological record (so far) means that it never existed.  This is a fallacy committed only by those knowing nothing of archeology.

As to your above statement, it is made in complete ignorance of the presence of many of the items you mention.  You don't know of them because you don't read archeological publications and know nothing about the Americas in ancient times.  I strongly recommend that you read Brant A. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).  That might get you up to speed on this overall subject.  I also deal with the archeological evidence in my Aug 8, 2014 FairMormon lecture “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf . 

I have no evidence to back up my claim.

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So it's possible Genesis and Exodus are just made up stories?

What do you think? 

[Gervin]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2015 at 7:41 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

It's not that archeology doesn't justify EVERY claim of the Book of Mormon, it's that there is no archeology or artifacts or skeletons that have been able to justify ANY claim of the BOM being historical.

You're exactly right.

[Danzo]

18 minutes ago, Gervin said:

You're exactly right.

Silly statement, no understanding of evidence. Just showing your willful ignorance.

You might not find the evidence persuasive, not you cannot, with a straight face say there is no evidence whatsoever.

Here are some book of Mormon claims that I think are fairly uncontroversial with archaeologists.

 

1.  There were people in the Americas during the book of Mormon time period.

2.  There were Cities in the Americas at this time.

3.  They were made from cement.

4.  There were wars.

5.  They used weapons.

6.  They had written language.

7.  They had human sacrifice.

8.  They used fortifications in war.

I am sure there is more than this, but I think that these are fairly uncontroversial.

You might not be persuaded by the evidence, as is your right,  but you  cannot say there is no evidence.

 

 

 

 

[Gervin]

8 hours ago, Danzo said:

Silly statement, no understanding of evidence. Just showing your willful ignorance.

You might not find the evidence persuasive, not you cannot, with a straight face say there is no evidence whatsoever.

Here are some book of Mormon claims that I think are fairly uncontroversial with archaeologists.

 

1.  There were people in the Americas during the book of Mormon time period.

2.  There were Cities in the Americas at this time.

3.  They were made from cement.

4.  There were wars.

5.  They used weapons.

6.  They had written language.

7.  They had human sacrifice.

8.  They used fortifications in war.

I am sure there is more than this, but I think that these are fairly uncontroversial.

You might not be persuaded by the evidence, as is your right,  but you  cannot say there is no evidence.

If I'm not persuaded then I'm essentially saying, "there is no evidence."  

Do you believe that "evidence" should adhere to some generally agreed-upon standards?

[Danzo]

On 12/29/2015 at 8:10 PM, Gervin said:

If I'm not persuaded then I'm essentially saying, "there is no evidence."  

Do you believe that "evidence" should adhere to some generally agreed-upon standards?

In law, we do try to adhere to some generally agreed-upon standards.

Evidence of something is something relevant if  "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" (Federal Rules of Evidence 401)

When I represent someone in court, I offer "evidence" for my position, these consist of witness testimony, objects, records, even "historical records" , etc.

The other side presents their "evidence"

 

The trier of fact (A judge, in my case) listens to evidence and decides who's evidence is more convincing, and makes a decision.  Even if my evidence fails to convince the judge, he doesn't stop calling it "evidence", or say "there is no evidence". He just says the other side has more convincing evidence, or my evidence fails to persuade.

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Danzo

[Gervin]

On 12/30/2015 at 1:49 PM, Danzo said:

In law, we do try to adhere to some generally agreed-upon standards.

Evidence of something is something relevant if  "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" (Federal Rules of Evidence 401)

When I represent someone in court, I offer "evidence" for my position, these consist of witness testimony, objects, records, even "historical records" , etc.

The other side presents their "evidence"

 

The trier of fact (A judge, in my case) listens to evidence and decides who's evidence is more convincing, and makes a decision.  Even if my evidence fails to convince the judge, he doesn't stop calling it "evidence", or say "there is no evidence". He just says the other side has more convincing evidence, or my evidence fails to persuade.

 

Obviously, when it comes to law there are specific criteria and standards that apply to rules of evidence.  Archaeology also has standards and accepted protocols for presenting findings and reaching conclusions based on these findings.  

If someone claims that there is archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, is it reasonable to request how the claims adhere to these accepted standards or protocols?