The Development of the English Bible - ERASMUS

During John Wycliffe's life, he was not called down for translation of the scripture into English. He was called down because translation of the scripture began to change and alter his views and teachings with regard to the then Catholic Church. John Wycliffe's primary wrong was that he  appealed to of the authority of the Bible, instead of giving deference to the authority of the existing Catholic authority and Pope. It wasn't until after his death in 1384 that "the church" declared in 1408 the province of Canterbury declared it an offense punishable by imprisonment to be convicted of reading Wycliffe's translation. In 1414 a law was enacted requiring all persons found reading the Bible in English to "forfeit land, catel, life, and goods from their heyres for ever."  That same provincial synod decreed " that henceforward no unauthorised person shall translate any portion of Holy Scripture into English, or any other language, under any form of book or treatise ; neither shall any such book or treatise, or version made either in Wycliffe's time or since, be read either in whole or in part, publicly or privately, under the penalty of the greater excommunication, till the said translation shall be approved either by the bishop of the diocese, or, if necessary, by a provincial council."  This was in an effort to contain what they felt were subversive teachings to the detriment of the authority of "Christ's Holy Vicar - the Pope."  However, the seeds of what became known as "The Reformation" had begun.

Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (October 28,1466? – July 12, 1536) was the next in succession to the English Bible's formation. While he did not translate a direct Greek-English version, his development and desire of mastery of Greek laid the foundations for others. A Dutchman by birth, he entered monastical life due to severe poverty. He went on to accept a post as secretary to Henry of Bergan, Bishop of Cambray because of his proficient knowledge and use of Latin.  From there he attended the University of Paris. In 1499, while in England, Erasmus was particularly impressed by the Bible teaching of John Colet. This prompted him, upon his return from England, to master the Greek language, which would enable him to study theology on a more profound level and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation. 

He was an early proponent of religious toleration, and enjoyed the sobriquet "Prince of the Humanists"; he has been called "the crowning glory of the Christian humanists." He prepared important new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament, which was to be considered the language of the scholars. 

His works were censored by the Catholic Church and he argued with Luther.  They raised questions that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation.  Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and was contemporary with Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Tyndale, and Ulrich Zwingli. Yet,  while he was critical of the Church, he did not join the cause of the Reformers and remained committed to reforming "the Church" from within. He also held to the concept of free will, which some Reformers rejected in favor of the "doctrine of predestination." His middle road approach disappointed and even angered scholars in both camps. Though unlike them, he chose to remain with the "Catholic Church" because he detested dissenting as against the law of God. 

It is said of Erasmus, that he laid the egg of the Reformation and Luther and others hatched it. It is interesting that he chose the road of moderation, when so many were for total dissent.  Much can be owed to him and his desire to master the original languages of the scripture, and of his overall attitude. In an age of anger and rebellion, he stood out commanding not only the learning, but the application of the scripture's teaching.

Jim

The Wycliffe Bible - the First ENGLISH Version

In this second article on the development of the English translation of the Bible, we will center on John Wycliffe (1328 – December 31, 1384) was an English Scholastic philosopher, lay preacher, translator, reformer and university teacher at Oxford in England. Wycliffe was a man known for his dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century preaching anti-clerical  and biblically-centered reforms. He was one of the earliest opponents of the authority of the Pope influencing secular power. Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common language, during a time when "the church" held a very closed view that interpretation of the scripture and God's will could only be done by Priests and Clergy within the church.  Wycliffe held that the Bible alone was authoritative and, according to his own conviction and that of his disciples, was fully sufficient for the government of this world (De sufficientia legis Christi). He then set about to make it so.

Wycliffe's translation was based directly from the Latin Vulgate into common English of the period in the year 1382. The Latin Vulgate was a standardized translation of the scripture texts into Latin by Jerome (382-405 a.d.) who was commissioned to do so by Pope Damascus I. Prior to that, the Vetus Latina was a collective name given to the Biblical texts in Latin that  became the standard Bible for Latin-speaking Western European Christians. These however had many grammatical errors and thus a common more easily understood source was sought. Using the Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe translated from Latin to English what became known as Wycliffe's Bible. While there were many English renditions of various books of the bible before Wycliffe, his is the first compiled edition of the entire bible into English. It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament. Wycliffe's Bible appears to have been completed by 1384, with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John Purvey and others after his death in 1388 and 1395. While Wycliffe died of natural causes, The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on May 4, 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church for his translation against the will of "the church." It was decreed that his books be burned and under command from Pope Martin V his remains were exhumed, burned, and the ashes cast into the river Swift which flows through Lutterworth. 

While not a direct translation of the scripture from the original Hebrew or Greek Texts, this was a monumental effort for its day, and was the first foray of the development of the Bible into common English. It was hand written, as there was no typeset for the day. Wycliffe stated,  "Even though there were a hundred popes and though every mendicant monk were a cardinal, they would be entitled to confidence only in so far as they accorded with the Bible." 

Jim

Preliminary report on Khirbet Qeiyafa for 2010-2011 | Ferrell's Travel Blog

Preliminary report on Khirbet Qeiyafa for 2010-2011 | Ferrell's Travel Blog:

'via Blog this'

Preliminary report on Khirbet Qeiyafa for 2010-2011

Posted on April 20, 2012 | Leave a comment

A preliminary report for the 2010-2011 archaeological seasons has been published by the Israel Antiquities Authority in Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel. The report is written by  Yossi Garfinkel, Sa‘ar  Ganor  and Michael Hasel.

My photo shows the Iron Age, four-chamber, gate with a view toward Tel Azekah.

Iron Age Gate with a view toward Azekah. Photo by Ferrell Jenkins. May, 2011.

The full report with 11 photographs (or plans) is available here. The report concludes,

The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly reveal an urban society that existed in Judah already in the late eleventh century BCE. It can no longer be argued that the Kingdom of Judah developed only in the late eighth century BCE or at some other later date.

The current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 2012) carries two article relating to the Qeiyafa ostracon. One is by Christopher A. Rollston who asks the question, “What’s the Oldest Hebrew Inscripton?” He responds that each of four inscriptions he considers (Qeiyafa, Gezer calendar, Tel Zayit, and Izbet Shartah) predate Old Hebrew.

The other article is by Gerard Leval. In “Ancient Inscription Refers to Birth of Israelite Monarchy” he summaries the French-language article by “Emile Puech, the senior epigrapher of the prestigious École Biblique et Archaéologique Française in Jerusalem.” Puech draws the following conclusion:

Moreover, the inscription seems to memorialize (or, in Puech’s words, is “a witness to”¹⁸) the transition not from one king to another (from Saul to David), but rather from the period of the judges to the monarchy—thus from Samuel and his sons to Saul.¹⁹

If Puech is correct, the Qeiyafa Ostracon is the only archaeological artifact referring to Israel’s first king. And it is the earliest non-Biblical confirmation of the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.

Leval’s article is available online at BAR here.

This information is sure to create a lot of discussion.

Anatomy of the Soul (RJS):

'via Blog this'

Anatomy of the Soul (RJS)

April 17, 2012 By RJS Leave a Comment

I was given a book recently,  Anatomy of the Soul by Curt Thompson, that connects with ideas we have discussed in a number of different posts – from those on Joel Green’s bookBody, Soul, and Human Life to  a series on Science and Sin. The topic also connects with posts on Science and Christian Virtue exploring ideas developed by NT Wright in his book After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. If interested you can find these posts in the Science and Faith tab at the top of the blog – scroll down to the topic heading Science, Faith, and Being Human.

Anatomy of the Soul explores the relationship between brain and mind and looks at the impact a better understanding of this relationship might have on both spiritual practices and relationships. Neuroscience is a booming field of study today, attracting large numbers of undergraduate majors and active graduate level research programs. Experimental techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET)  have been used to explore the relationship between brain activity and a variety of different kinds of stimuli. The subject is fascinating and our understanding of brain function is growing quickly. The image above comes from the NIMH site – where much more information is available.

Dr. Thompson is a psychiatrist in private practice, and this book comes from his study and experience in this context. At first glance this seems to be the kind of  popular self-help book I pass over at the book store The publisher’s blurb is no help:

Do you want to improve your relationships and experience lasting personal change? Join Curt Thompson, M.D., on an amazing journey to discover the surprising pathways for transformation hidden inside your own mind. Integrating new findings in neuroscience and attachment with Christian spirituality, Dr. Thompson reveals how it is possible to rewire your mind, altering your brain patterns and literally making you more like the person God intended you to be.

There are places in the book (and I have not finished the book yet) where there does seem to be an over emphasis of self-help and an under emphasis on the power of God to transform. There are also some statements about God that leave me scratching my head …  But the book also introduces some interesting ideas worth some discussion.

To what extent is transformation something we leave to God through the Holy Spirit?

To what extent is transformation a process we participate in and actively pursue?

What we do, who we associate with, and how we choose to relate to people changes our brain. In turn these changes in the brain influence what we do, who we choose to associate with, and how we are able to relate with people. To a certain extent the brain, like a muscle but in even more profound ways, can be modified and trained through the practice of either vice or virtue.

In chapter three of Anatomy of the Soul Dr. Thompson outlines various aspects of the brain -looking at both left brain and right brain ideas as well as a top-down model of the brain. In the context of this background he describes how the brain changes through various stages of human development, from early infancy through adolescence.

Thompson also discusses briefly the neuroplasticity of the brain. While the accepted paradigm some twenty years ago was that the brain stopped changing and growing once an individual reached adulthood – this idea has been modified if not overturned by more recent research. The brain can continue to develop and change as new neural connections are formed and old ones are bypassed throughout are lifespan. The process is faster and easier in youth, but it does not vanish with age.

Dr Thompson suggests three activities that enhance this growth (p. 47):

Aerobic exercise at least 45 minutes a day, five days a week. This is good for the heart and good for the brain.

Focused attention exercises – here he gives prayer as an example, something he will return to in a later chapter.

Novel learning experiences – the brain needs constant and creative exercise. Learn a language, learn to play an instrument, learn to build furniture, learn to repair a car …

At the end of this chapter Dr. Thompson brings up a big topic for us in the church.

Have you ever wondered if, when people begin to follow Jesus, they really experience the change he promised? And if so how does it happen and what role, if any, does the individual play? Does this sound like a distant rumbling of what you have heard echoed before, that God is a God who changes us?

Of course we have stock theological answers like “It’s through the power of the Holy Spirit.” Or, “He does it by grace, and that’s a mystery.” Great.

While there certainly is truth in those statements, giving a theological answer to someone’s agony over his or her failed attempt to overcome a pornography addiction or to forgive an abusive parent usually produces only guilt. …

But what happens when we begin to consider that we can change the way our brains are wired? Perhaps it can point us to what God is up to when he invites us to love him and give us hope that the tools he’s built within each one of us can help us move toward lasting change. (p. 47-48)

Here we hit a real road block for many – to what extent does our theology allow us to participate in our transformation and sanctification? Perhaps this is just another form of what Tim Keller calls “religion” (see Ch. 11 of The Reason for God). Religion leads to a belief in salvation through moral effort while the gospel is salvation through the grace of God. The idea of transformation or sanctification through the effort of shaping one’s own brain treads dangerously close to self-help in place of reliance on God and his mercy and power.

To what extent are we in control of our transformation?

To what extent can we participate in transformation?

Is training for moral behavior and godliness similar to training for a marathon or is it something to leave in the hands of God?

Getting Our Bible

THE BIBLE!  An astounding book comprised of writers spanning centuries that all speak about the same thing - GOD!   2 Pet. 1:20,21 states, "But you need to realize that no one alone can understand any of the prophecies in the Scriptures. The prophets did not think these things up on their own, but they were guided by the Spirit of God."  So, this brings up an interesting question - How did we get our Bible? 

Old Testament writers depended on scribes, men who patiently copied the Scriptures by hand when extra copies were needed and when the original scrolls became too worn. Even so they did not always avoid technical mistakes in copying at of some points. The original Hebrew language slowly changed, and after the dispersion of the Jews into Persia, Babylon, and Assyria, the Aramaic language was adopted  by the Jews during these years of exile. Being a Semitic (Languages spoken by nations descending from Noah's son Shem - Gen.10:21-31) Language, the Jews were able to adapt the Aramaic language to stand for the same words, phrases, and meanings. Around 300 B.C., with the evolving empire of Alexander the Great, Greek became the dominant and spoken language, even through the time of Jesus. The scriptures which were still in Aramaic, were now translated into Greek, and its publication was called the "Septuagint."  Both the Aramaic and the Greek versions were in existence during the time of Jesus, and both He and his apostles freely quoted from them in the New Testament record. 

During the time of the apostles and the church of the first century, Common Greek was the spoken language and the New Testament was written entirely in this language. But - going from Greek to English - HOW DO WE KNOW IF IT WAS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY AND THINGS WERE NOT LEFT OUT OR FORGOTTEN?

Concerning the correctness of translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Aramaic, to Greek,  and the writing of the Greek in the New Testament, the Bible itself says the following:

• 2 Tim.3:16,17 "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." 
• Rom 15:4  "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope." 

Copies of manuscripts of the original scriptures dating as far back as 500 B.C. have been preserved intact. New Testament manuscripts dating from the latter part of the first century have been found preserved, lately among these as recent as March 2012, fragments of the gospel of Mark have been found and authenticated.  Comparing these with other versions produced through the years, demonstrates the contextual correctness of the newer English renditions of the scripture. 

Development of the Major English versions of the Bible evolved as follows:

• 1320-1384 A.D. John Wycliffe - translated the first Bible into common English of his day from the Latin version of the scriptures.
• 1525-1530 A.D. William Tyndale - translated the Bible into common English, from the Greek text of Erasmus
• 1609-1611 A.D. The King James Version - translated the Bible from both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts by 47 different scholars of the day.
• 1881-1884 A.D. The Revised Version - was a revision of the King James Version, developed by English and American scholars.
• 1900-1901 A.D. The American Standard Bible - was promoted as the first word for word translation of the Bible, especially in the New Testament.
• 1950-1952 A.D. The Revised Standard Version - is the authorized version of the American Standard Bible, copyrighted in 1928 and finished in 1952.
• 1970-1971 A.D. The New American Standard - is a revision of the American Standard Version, and was written with the intent of obtaining the most accurate translation from the earliest manuscripts available to translators.
• 1977-1978 A.D. The New International Version - was developed to obtain the best translation of the scriptures, while maintaining accuracy, clarity, and literary style.
• 1980-1982 A.D. The New King James Version - was developed by 119 biblical scholars to improve the accuracy of and to promote the purity of the original King James Version.

In upcoming articles, we will look into the development of these versions, their biases and how God's word is preserved intact.

Jim

The Naked Bible » Baptism as Spiritual Warfare

The Naked Bible » Baptism as Spiritual Warfare:

'via Blog this'

Baptism as Spiritual Warfare

Posted By MSH on April 9, 2012

Over the weekend I had occasion to send a friend some pages from my Myth That is Truefirst draft that pertained to a difficult passage, 1 Peter 3:14-22. I could hardly believe I had not posted on it before (searched for it and came up empty). So, I’ve decided to include it at some point in the podcast series on baptism. I’ve actually been present in a church where the pastor, working through 1 Peter, actually announced he was skipping the passage because it was too strange. True, it’s weird, but it’s actually quite comprehensible against the backdrop of what I call the divine council worldview. So, here it is.

1 Peter 3:14-22

14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 And now the antitype—that is, baptism—saves you, not be means of a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience on the basis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

The overall theme of 1 Peter is that Christians must withstand persecution and persevere in their faith. That much is clear in this passage. But what’s with baptism, the ark, Noah, and spirits in prison? And does this text say that baptism saves us?

Typology as an Interpretive Key

To understand what’s going on in Peter’s head here we have to understand a concept that scholars have called “types” or “typology.” Typology is a kind of prophecy. We’re all familiar with predictive verbal prophecy—when a prophet announces that something is going to come to pass in the future. Sometimes that comes “out of the blue,” with God impressing thoughts on the prophet’s mind that he utters. On other occasions, a prophet might take an object or perform some act and tell people that the thing or action prefigures something that will happen. Ezekiel was notorious for this, like the time God told him to shave his head and beard, weigh it the balances, and then burn a third of it, beat a third of it with a sword, and scatter the last third to the wind to visually portray the future of the city of Jerusalem (Ezek. 5:1-12). But we only know what Ezekiel’s antics meant because they are spelled out in his prophecies. Ezekiel 5 tells us these are prophecies and what the fulfillment would be. Types work differently.

A type is basically an unspoken prophecy. It is an event, person, or institution that foreshadows something that will come, but which isn’t revealed until after the fact. For example, in Romans 5:14 Paul tells us that Adam was a tupos of Christ. This Greek word means “kind” or “mark” or “type”—it’s actually where “typology” comes from. Paul was saying that, in some way, Adam foreshadowed or echoed something about Jesus. In Adam’s case, that something was how his act (sin) had an effect on all humanity. Like Adam, Jesus did something that would have an impact on all humanity—his death and resurrection. Another example would be Passover, since it prefigured the crucifixion of Jesus, who was called “the lamb of God.” The point is that there was some analogous connection between the type (Adam) and its echo (Jesus), called the “anti-type” by scholars.
So how does this relate to our weird passage in 1 Peter?  Peter uses typology in 1 Peter 3:14–22. Specifically, he assumes that the great flood in Genesis 6-8, especially the sons of God event in Genesis 6:1-4, typify or foreshadow the gospel and the resurrection. For Peter, these events were commemorated during baptism. That needs some unpacking.

Genesis 6 Backdrop

There are tight connections between Genesis 6:1-4 and the epistle of 2 Peter and Jude, whose content mirrors 2 Peter is many ways. Peter and Jude Peter were very familiar with Jewish tradition about Genesis 6 in books like 1 Enoch, and believed them. 1 Enoch 6-15 describes how the sons of God (also called “Watchers”) who committed the offense of Genesis 6:1-4 were imprisoned under the earth (the Underworld) for what they had done. The Watchers appealed their sentence and asked Enoch, the biblical prophet who never died (Gen 5:21-24), to intercede for them. 1 Enoch 6:4 puts it this way:

“They [Watchers] asked that I write a memorandum of petition for them, that they might have forgiveness, and that I recite the memorandum of petition for them in the presence of the Lord of heaven.”

God sent back his response by way of Enoch, who went to the imprisoned spirits and announced to them that their appeal had been denied (1 Enoch 13:1-3; 14:4-5):

1 “And, Enoch, go and say to Asael, ‘You will have no peace.
A great sentence has gone forth against you, to bind you.
2   You will have no relief or petition, because of the unrighteous deeds that you revealed, and because of all the godless deeds and the unrighteousness and the sin that you revealed to men.’ ”
3   Then I went and spoke to all of them together. And they were all afraid,
and trembling and fear seized them.

1 Enoch goes on to describe the prison term as until the end of days—language that refers to the end times.
2 Peter 2:4 (cp. Jude 6) makes specific reference to the episode of Genesis 6:1-4 and the imprisonment of fallen angels in the Underworld. The incident was also on Peter’s mind when he wrote his first epistle—and our strange passage. Peter saw a theological analogybetween the events of Genesis 6 and their fallout with the gospel and the resurrection. In other words, he considered these events to be types or precursors to New Testament events and ideas.

Just as Jesus was the second Adam for Paul, Jesus is the second Enoch for Peter. Enoch descended to the imprisoned fallen angels to announce their doom. 1 Pet 3:14–22 has Jesus descending to these same “the spirits in prison,” the fallen angels, to tell them they were still defeated, despite his crucifixion. God’s plan of salvation and kingdom rule was still intact. In fact, it was right on schedule. The crucifixion actually meant victory over every demonic force opposed to God. This victory declaration is why 1 Pet 3:14–22ends with Jesus risen from the dead and set at the right hand of God—above all angels, authorities and powers.

Choosing Sides

So how does this relate to baptism? It explains the logic of the passage. Here’s the relevant part once more:

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 And now the antitype—that is, baptism—saves you, not be means of a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience on the basis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

The two underlined words in verse 21 need reconsideration in light of the divine council worldview. The word most often translated “appeal” (eperotema) in verse 21 is best understood as “pledge” here, a meaning that it has in other material.¹  Likewise the word “conscience” (suneidesis) does not refer to the inner voice of right and wrong here as it does elsewhere.  Rather, the word refers to “an attitude or decision that reflects one’s loyalty,” or “conscientiousness,” a usage that is also found in other contexts.²

Baptism is not what produces salvation. It “saves” us in that it first involves or reflects a heart decision: a pledge of loyalty to the risen Savior. In effect, baptism in New Testament theology is a loyalty oath, a public avowal of who is on the Lord’s side in the cosmic war between good and evil.³  But in addition to that, it is also a visceral reminder to the defeated fallen angels. Every baptism is a reiteration of their doom in the wake of the gospel and the kingdom of God. Early Christians understood the typology of this passage and its link back to the fallen angels of Genesis 6. Early baptismal formulas included a renunciation of Satan and his angels for this very reason.⁴ Baptism was—and still is—spiritual warfare.

1. Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (“With a revised supplement, 1996”; Rev. and augm. throughout; Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1996), 618. ↩
2. William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; 3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 968. ↩
3. This naturally pertains to adult / believer’s baptism, or baptism that has a recipient in view who can make a faith decision. In the case of infant baptism (at least in terms of the biblically-coherent view I describe here for those who want to baptize infants, contra the way it gets “explained” in the reformed creeds, creating theological problems), the idea would be that the “loyalty statement” is made by the parents in their act of baptizing the infant, thus putting it into the community of faith that has the truth — the gospel — which truth must still be believed for salvation. ↩
4. See here for example. ↩

He's NAKED AGAIN!

  I am your chosen one. You won't leave me in the grave or let my body decay

                                                                                                                                     Psa 16:10

Simcha Jacobovici (aka "The Naked Archaeologist") and James Tabor author of "The Jesus Dynasty" are at it again. Headlines once again surface that the grave of Jesus and his family have been found and that they have the "ossuaries (bone boxes)" to prove it.   According to Bill Rambo in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press Apr.7,2012, "Tabor and Jacobovici argue an elaborate tale of suppression of particulars of Jesus' life as presented by the New Testament and other records, rejected by later church fathers in order to cement a particular interpretation of Jesus' life and death."  A further quote states, "Resurrection, the authors (Jacobovici and Tabor) say was not the resuscitation of the physical body, but the translation of humanity to a different kind of embodiment."

Forget Jacobovici and Tabor, forget what you've heard, forget everything regarding the subject! The scripture states regarding God,  "The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. Psa 119:160 "  So, let's see what GOD says about the tomb, and the resurrection.  The most eloquent presentation on the facts from an EYEWITNESS of the events is Peter on Pentecost in Acts 2.

1. Jesus the Nazarene - a historical figure that skeptics and believers agree existed was  a man attested to  men by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst. The general populace of the day knew this, recorded this, and the impacts of his works and deeds. His life and death are recorded items in scripture and history! It cannot be denied!
2. Jesus claimed He would rise from the grave  (Lk.24:46-48; Jn.2:19,20) , not  be "translated to another kind of embodiment!"  So, here are some interesting things to consider:

• If the Resurrection did NOT happen, why did the Jewish leaders and Romans conspire to cover it up(Mt.28:13-15)?  This was something that not only was circulated at the time of its happening, but the writer of the gospel says it was still circulating at the time he wrote this down.  So - if Jesus did not mean what He said, and it did not happen - then why try to cover it up?
• God stated in the Psalms (Psa.16) regarding his Messiah, "BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY."  That God knew and Jewish scholars took this to mean that the Messiah was would never see death or his body decay is attested in this verse. That the scholars understood this is evident that they knew that David the author of the Psalm was in his grave with his bones in their ossuary were a fact.  Therefore David could not be the one spoken of because of the fact HE WAS STILL IN THE GRAVE (Acts 2:29). That they knew the difference between "transition of embodiment"  and resurrection is obvious in this statement.
• There were witnesses to Jesus' being alive after the crucifixion (Acts 2:32; Jn.20:20-31; 21; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor.15:6) by those that were there and saw it, those outside of the apostles themselves, and to Paul among the first generation of believers after). 

Now the question arises, why should I believe Jacobovici and Tabor?  They have speculation and theory.  We have GOD'S WORD, GOD'S PROMISE, Eyewitness testimony to the events and Witness testimony outside of those closest to Jesus that all say that He was.  My conclusion based on this is what Peter states in Act 2:36  "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." 

Jim

The Empty Tomb | Ferrell's Travel Blog

The Empty Tomb | Ferrell's Travel Blog:

'via Blog this'

The Gospel of Mark provides a brief account of the events of the first day of the week after the crucifixion of Jesus. The women went to the tomb of Jesus to anoint his body. The approach of the Sabbath did not allow this on Friday.

1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

These grieving women were concerned about the removal of the large stone that had been rolled over the tomb opening and sealed by the Roman authorities. They were surprised when they discovered that the stone had already been removed.

3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back–it was very large.

Perhaps they thought that some others, unknown to them, had come to provide the same service. They were alarmed to see the young man in a white robe.

5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed.

The message was an unexpected one, but one that they were to share with his disciples and Peter and to tell them to update their appointment calendar to include a meeting with Jesus in Galilee.

6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 16:1-8 ESV)

The message that these women took with them was that the tomb was empty and that Jesus had risen from the grave. From this time forward He would be acknowledged by believers as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).

An empty Roman period tomb with a rolling stone. Photo by Ferrell Jenkins.

Reclining in the Upper Room | Ferrell's Travel Blog

Reclining in the Upper Room | Ferrell's Travel Blog:

'via Blog this'

Reclining in the Upper Room

Posted on April 5, 2012 | 1 Comment

Each of the Gospels tell us something about the last supper Jesus ate with His disciples prior to the crucifixion. Matthew says,

Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’”  And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.  When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. (Matthew 26:17-20 ESV)

Both Mark and Luke inform us that the room was a “large upper room furnished” (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12). Leon Morris comments on these arrangements.

The householder would show them a large upper room furnished. This last word is literally ‘spread’ and probably means that there would be couches ready with coverings spread over them (Moffatt translates ‘with couches spread’). They followed instructions and prepared the meal. (Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 323.)

There is in the portion of the Old City of Jerusalem called Mount Zion (which really isn’t) a room known as the Cenacle (Latin) or the Room of the Last Supper. The tradition goes back further, but the building as we see it today dates back to the time of the Franciscans in 1335 A.D. (Murphy-O’Connor, The Holy Land).

The traditional room of the Last Supper on Mount Zion. Photo by Ferrell Jenkins.

Jim Fleming has specialized in recreating the world of the Bible for modern students. He says,

Rather than picturing small round or rectangular standing tables, these words would have called to mind a room with a large U-shaped triclinium dining table with cushions.

Persons lying down to eat would recline around the outside of the table with the upper body supported on their left elbow. At large tricliniums the food was served from the center of the U-shaped table. (The World of the Bible Replicas)

Here is a drawing of a typical Roman triclinium.

Triclinium. Credit: 1000 Bible Images.

And here is a photo of a reconstructed triclinium at the Explorations in Antiquity Center in LaGrange, Georgia [Take the kids with you.]. The photo is courtesy of David Padfield.

Triclinium at Explorations in Antiquity Center. Photo by David Padfield.

Some of our English versions correctly use the term recline, reclined, orreclining, in the passages relating to eating meals in New Testament times. The KJV and the NKJV use “sat down” or similar terminology. Knowing that the concept of reclining is not understood by modern readers, some translations use a dynamic equivalent such as “took his place at the table” (CEB; NET, with a note of explanation).

Remember what you have learned here the next time you come across one of these references in your reading of the New Testament.

For a summary of the last week of the ministry of Jesus prior to the crucifixion, see here.