Food & Drink2 mins ago
Dead Sea Scrolls
16 Answers
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written around the time of Jesus, do they mention Him or any of his deeds?
TIA
TIA
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 4GS. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They were all written considerably before the time Jesus was supposedly alive - about 300 BC - and it's all bits from the Old Testament, plus a few commentaries and some non-Kosher books that didn't make the OT (did I really just say that?).
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls
The nearest contempory historian to Jesus was Jospephus.
His work has a highly contraversial passage at least part of which is a pretty blatent later addition.
He says "around this time Jesus a wise man ....he was the Christ..."
Which might as well have been written in crayon - remember Josephus was Jewish not Christian.
But that doesn't necessarily mean it's all a later addition although it could be.
There's a wikipedia entry here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus #Testimonium_Flavianum
But it's a highly contraversial topic and personally I', willing to trust Wikipedia on dull things but not when it gets emotive.
Look at the discussion tab for the entry and you'll see what I mean
His work has a highly contraversial passage at least part of which is a pretty blatent later addition.
He says "around this time Jesus a wise man ....he was the Christ..."
Which might as well have been written in crayon - remember Josephus was Jewish not Christian.
But that doesn't necessarily mean it's all a later addition although it could be.
There's a wikipedia entry here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus #Testimonium_Flavianum
But it's a highly contraversial topic and personally I', willing to trust Wikipedia on dull things but not when it gets emotive.
Look at the discussion tab for the entry and you'll see what I mean
And yet was insufficiently impressed to become a follower it seems?
It sounds as if you're referring to the testamonium
Note that section about Origen's commentary about Josephus from about 240 - he comments on Josephus' mention of James as the Brother of Jesus but surprisingly says nothing about the rather more remarkable first reference, the testamonium.
Remember too that the oldest copy of Josephus comes from the 9th century .
I think you have to try pretty hard to believe that bit
However the later reference to James as the brother of Jesus is quite remarkable as most scholars seem to think that's genuine.
Provides a few problems for Catholic beliefs of Mary as Virgin until her assumption
It sounds as if you're referring to the testamonium
Note that section about Origen's commentary about Josephus from about 240 - he comments on Josephus' mention of James as the Brother of Jesus but surprisingly says nothing about the rather more remarkable first reference, the testamonium.
Remember too that the oldest copy of Josephus comes from the 9th century .
I think you have to try pretty hard to believe that bit
However the later reference to James as the brother of Jesus is quite remarkable as most scholars seem to think that's genuine.
Provides a few problems for Catholic beliefs of Mary as Virgin until her assumption
As school of thought says that Joseph already had a family when he was bethrothed to Mary, aparently scholars (not Catholic I hasten to add) think he was a widower making James His step brother.
Also a lot of people assume that the word 'Virgin' means girl who has not had sexual intercourse, however in pre medieval times it simply meant 'young girl'
Also a lot of people assume that the word 'Virgin' means girl who has not had sexual intercourse, however in pre medieval times it simply meant 'young girl'
It was mentioned in Dogma (sorry to take this down a level) about the fact that Jesus goes from age 12 to the age of 33. I always did wonder what happened in that space time. Maybe it would be good for a mini series? A bit like Smallville?
I'm sure that if such a person existed he would have had brothers and sisters too. I always thought that was an interesting notion.
I'm sure that if such a person existed he would have had brothers and sisters too. I always thought that was an interesting notion.
Matthew 13 is fairly definitive, in my opinion:
54
He came to his native place and taught the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, "Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds?
55
Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?
56
Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?"
57
And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house."
58
And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith.
54
He came to his native place and taught the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, "Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds?
55
Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?
56
Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?"
57
And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house."
58
And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith.
I do know, about the "step brother/sister" thing.
I'm being mischievous.
Clanad's references are great but the point of Josephus is that if the second mention is genuine and (that is an "if") we have an independant mention of Jesus from outside of the Bible.
I don't think though that means that Josephus went and interviewed people and collected evidence the way a modern historian would. He certainly wouldn't be above a little invention that suited his purposes.
But any corroboration is better than simply believing everything you read from a book that starts of making people out of clay and talking snakes
I'm being mischievous.
Clanad's references are great but the point of Josephus is that if the second mention is genuine and (that is an "if") we have an independant mention of Jesus from outside of the Bible.
I don't think though that means that Josephus went and interviewed people and collected evidence the way a modern historian would. He certainly wouldn't be above a little invention that suited his purposes.
But any corroboration is better than simply believing everything you read from a book that starts of making people out of clay and talking snakes
The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68A.D. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus and in a few other sources, but not in the New testament.
Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the 825 to 870 separate Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.
Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the 825 to 870 separate Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.
4GS, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that Josephus interviewed people who knew Jesus. We don't actually know of anyone who knew Jesus; Paul, who introduced Jesus to the world in AD55, didn't; the unknown gospel writers certainly didn't and there are no writings by anyone who did.
Josephus wasn't born until AD38 and his writings were at the end of the 1st Century when everyone connected with Jesus (if he existed) would have been long dead.
The only local historians writing during the supposed lifetime of Jesus never mention him.
(A certain lady will now acccuse me of repeating myself, but when you have a new class you are obliged to give the same lesson again!)
Josephus wasn't born until AD38 and his writings were at the end of the 1st Century when everyone connected with Jesus (if he existed) would have been long dead.
The only local historians writing during the supposed lifetime of Jesus never mention him.
(A certain lady will now acccuse me of repeating myself, but when you have a new class you are obliged to give the same lesson again!)
There is a simlar situation with King Arthur, Robin Hood, Atlantis and Troy. It doesn't stop people believing in the myth as real, or searching for the truth.
Whether ancient historians wrote about a peasant Jewish aggetator that was crucified along with millions of other people under Roman dominance seems immaterial to those who still believe in what is possibly a belief in a myth and legend that still survives today.
Stories of King Arthur were written about 500 years after his supposed existence, but it didn�t stop him being included in the 100 Greatest Britons list!
Whether ancient historians wrote about a peasant Jewish aggetator that was crucified along with millions of other people under Roman dominance seems immaterial to those who still believe in what is possibly a belief in a myth and legend that still survives today.
Stories of King Arthur were written about 500 years after his supposed existence, but it didn�t stop him being included in the 100 Greatest Britons list!
1 to 16 of 16
