I just read this article a few minutes ago. The link I saw implied that a discovery was made that would make me question my beliefs, so I clicked. And...it said a tablet was found that foretold a savior would be born, die, and rise again in three days...As you can imagine, my world is shattered.

I'm still real new to this walk, so I'm just now paying attention to a lot of these types of articles. One odd one I keep seeing is a "scholar" stating, "He didn't exist, but if he did, he didn't do it the way you believe, so you're wrong either way." This seems to be a variation on that theme.
Larder | 07.07.08 - 6:12 pm | #

The tablet may actually be successful in defeating one apologetic argument used most often by N.T. Wright and William Lane Craig (I'm sure others use it too, I just see them use it most often). That argument is that the notion of a suffering savior (who is later resurrected) would be completely foreign to the 1st century Jewish people.

So now many skeptical scholars will say that this idea wasn't that taboo after all and that the Disciples modified this idea into/around Jesus. However, I'm not convinced at this point that the text says what they are making it out to say. Here is a link to a translation published in Biblical Archaeology Review (in the JAN/FEB issue!!):

http://bib-arch.org/news/dss-in-...-stone- news.asp
Jon | 07.07.08 - 7:41 pm | #

Discovering that the idea of a "suffering savior" may predate Jesus by a hundred years is supposed to somehow SUPPORT Christianity?

Here in the real world it looks like we now have a good idea where part of the Jesus myth came from.

This looks to me like substantial evidence against Christianity.
DJM | 07.08.08 - 2:40 am | #

Oh, for goodness' sake. The idea of the suffering saviour isn't evidence against Christianity at all. What do you think Philip was pointing out to the Ethiopian official about the book of Isaiah?!
Paul | Homepage | 07.08.08 - 3:38 am | #

"Here in the real world it looks like we now have a good idea where part of the Jesus myth came from."

But "we" already had a "good idea where part of the Jesus myth came from" before this tablet. It was Osiris! It was some other pagan god/figure! No, wait, it was a development of later theologians! Hold on, it was both!

If it turns out that the concept of a suffering and resurrecting messiah was in Jewish thought preceding Christ, that certainly seems to me (and many others, based on the reactions I'm seeing on various forums) to be a vindication for orthodox belief. Granted, now that I'm looking more closely at the actual tablet data it seems that any groundbreaking revelation may be more of a stretch - but the 'this will disturb Christians!' spin on the topic is so amusingly forced.
Nullasalus | 07.08.08 - 5:39 pm | #

I've read several books by authors from the Jesus Seminar--Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, and John Dominic Crossan--and found their scholarship to be well-informed.

On the other hand, the books I've read from the conservative/evangelical/literalist side have been underwhelming, in particular those by Lee Strobel.

Could you recommend a book which is a good counter to the scholarship of the Jesus Seminar? Thanks.
Kris | 07.09.08 - 11:11 pm | #

Kris,

If your perspective is you want to see first rate contemporary Christian scholarship for the sake of comparison, then I'd suggest the works of N. T. Wright. If you are a believer, perhaps new to the faith, I'd suggest R. C. Sproul or John Piper.
heddle | 07.10.08 - 7:10 am | #