next »

TRAILBLAZERS
for students

ArchaeoFind
Archaeology News
Articles
Browse Attachments
Calendar
Downloads
Forum
Gallery
Links
Member Map
Our News Feeds
Submit Article
Tag Cloud
Video Channel

Trailblazers
Play Phaos
Chat
Trailblazers: Virtual Tours
History's Hinge - 'Ain Jalut

[Solomon]

It makes my blood run cold, Bart, when I consider how this all came about and where it leaves us. To take my analogy of Nazi Occupied Europe further:

The Big Lie: The phrase was used (on page 51) in a report prepared during the 1939-45 war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

    His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Solomon

[Bart]

Thank you, that is much more understandable. It is indeed a relevant point to consider. It is telling that other chroniclers of the era likewise make no mention of the man or the movement either. A specific focus on the Jews and their history certainly ought to have made mention. If it is known that Josephus did not intentionally leave out other important figures of the era,  then the conclusion drawn, and the view held, would be  reasonable.

- Bart

[Sovereign]

Papyrus fragment of Gospel of St Mark. 3rd century CE

Gospel of Mark
Solomon:
Sicarii at Gesthemane
"This NT account places sicarii among the people of Jesus at the same time as Judas the Sicarius is said to have betrayed him. If this account was anything other than black propaganda, this might be confusing.

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous and written in Greek "sometime between the late 60s or the early 70's" - that is, after the First Jewish Revolt."


Gospel according to Mark
"By modern New Testament Scholars the Gospel according to Mark is considered as the oldest of the existing gospels. It is dated to around 70 CE, because of the nature of its reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in chapter 13.

In Mark we hear that Jesus says that the temple of Jerusalem will soon be destructed. It is assumed that Mark can have included these prophecies to bring weight to his gospel, since this actually happened, in 70 CE. This is our most important way of dating Mark. Beyond this, the dating is not founded in any traditional historical sources, but is reconstructed on the base of secondary sources.

Early tradition claims that the gospel was written in Rome. This is connected to the notion where John Mark wrote down from the narration of disciple Peter. But this is highly doubtful as the John Mark was a Jew, and there are clear indications in the text that the author of the gospel was not Jewish."

Whoever and whatever early Christians were, there can be no dispute that they were Jewish. If the author of Mark is not Jewish - and the text is written in Greek - then I for one am certain that the text is fraudulent.


FORGERY IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK?
(A summary of an extract.)
The original ending of Mark:
Some of the oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark, the Sinaitic (circa 370 CE) and Vatican (circa 325 CE), end at Mark 16:8.  Papyrus-45 (a.k.a. P-45) is an even older version of Mark, but it is incomplete; none of its text from Mark 16 has survived. Various additions after Mark 16:8 appear to have been added later by unknown Christian forgers. One addition was quoted in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century CE.

The most ancient full manuscripts of Mark end mid-sentence with Mark 16:8. A variety of endings appear in later manuscripts:

The Longer Ending: This consist of verses 9 to 20, and is the ending found most often in Biblical translations.

The Shorter Ending: One Old Latin manuscript, the Codex Bobiensis, has survived from circa 400 CE. It contains a "shorter ending" in place of the "long ending."

The Freer Logion: This is an apparent forgery in which a copyist inserted text between Mark 16:14 and 16:15. It has been found only in one Greek manuscript, Codex Washingtonensis (a.k.a.  Codex W) which dates from the late 4th or early 5th century CE. It has been preserved in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, DC.

References:
   1. "Mark, Chapter 16, New American Bible," Footnote 2 at: http://www.usccb.org/nab/
   2. Mohamed Ghounem & Abdur Rahman, "Gospel of Mark?," at: http://www.geocities.com
   3. R.E. Brown, et al., "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary," Pearson PTP, (Reissued 1989). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
   4. Jim Snapp II, "The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20," at: http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkOne.html
   5. C.M. Laymon, Ed, "Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible", Abingdon Press, Nashville TN (1991), P. 670-671
   6. Jamieson et al, "The New Commentary on the Whole Bible", Tyndale, Wheaton IL (1990), P. 155-157
   7. J.R. Kohlenberger III, "Precise Parallel New Testament", Oxford University Press, New York NY, (1995)
   8. "Mark 16:19-20 - Authentic and Inspired," The Revival Fellowship at: http://www.trf.org.au/mk16.htm


AUTHORSHIP
All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time.

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, VOCABULARY, AND STYLE
It has always been the common opinion that the Second Gospel was written in Greek, and there is no solid reason to doubt the correctness of this view. We learn from Juvenal (Sat., III, 60 sq.; VI, 187 sqq.) and Martial (Epig., XIV, 58) that Greek was very widely spoken at Rome in the first century. Various influences were at work to spread the language in the capital of the Empire. "Indeed, there was a double tendency which embraced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand among slaves and the trading classes there were swarms of Greek and Greek-speaking Orientals.


Authorship of Marks Gospel
Who was Mark who Wrote the Gospel?

The text of the Gospel According to Mark does not specifically identify anyone as the author. Not even ?Mark? is identified as the author ? in theory, ?Mark? could have simply related a series of events and stories to someone else who collected them, edited them, and set them down in the gospel form. It wasn't until the second century that the title ?According to Mark? or ?The Gospel According to Mark? was affixed to this document.

A number of people in the New Testament ? not only Acts but also in the Pauline letters ? are named Mark and anyone of them could potentially have been the author behind this gospel. Tradition has it that the Gospel According to Mark was written down by Mark, a companion of Peter, who simply recorded what Peter preached in Rome (1 Peter 5:13) and this person was, in turn, identified with ?John Mark? in Acts (12:12,25; 13:5-13; 15:37-39) as well as the ?Mark? in Philemon 24, Colossians 4:10, and 2 Timothy 4:1.

It seems unlikely that all of these Marks were the same Mark, much less the author of this gospel. The name ?Mark? appears frequently in the Roman empire and there would have been a strong desire to associate this gospel with someone close to Jesus. It was also common in this age to attribute writings to important figures of the past in order to give them more authority.

This is what Christian tradition has handed down, however, and to be fair, it?s a tradition that dates back pretty far ? to the writings of Eusebius around the year 325. He, in turn, claimed to be relying upon work from an earlier writer, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who wrote about this around the year 120:

      ?Mark, having become Peter?s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order.?

Papias' claims were based upon things he said he heard from a "Presbyter." Eusebius himself is not an entirely trustworthy source, though, and even he had doubts about Papias, a writer who evidently was given to embellishment. Eusebius does imply that Mark died in the 8th year of Nero?s reign, which would have been before Peter died ? a contradiction to the tradition that Mark wrote down Peter?s stories after his death. What does ?interpreter? mean in this context? Does Papias note that things were not written ?in order? to explain away contradictions with other gospels?

Even if Mark did not rely on Peter as a source for his material, there are reasons to argue that Mark wrote while in Rome. For example Clement, who died in 212, and Irenaeus, who died in 202, are two early church leaders who both supported a Roman origin for Mark. Mark calculates time by a Roman method (for example, dividing the night into four watches rather than three), and finally, he has a faulty knowledge of Palestinian geography (5:1, 7:31, 8:10).

Mark's language contains a number of "Latinisms" ? loan words from Latin to Greek ? which would suggest an audience more comfortable with Latin than in Greek. Some of these Latinisms include (Greek/Latin) 4:27 modios/modius (a measure), 5:9,15: legi?n/legio (legion), 6:37: d?nari?n/denarius (a Roman coin), 15:39, 44-45: kenturi?n/centurio (centurion; both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrach?s, the equivalent term in Greek).


The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Dennis R. MacDonald. Book Review
I'm pleased to introduce Dennis R. MacDonald, John Wesley Professor of New Testament at the Claremont School of Theology and author of the recent book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. Professor MacDonald has agreed to take time out of his schedule to talk to us about his book and his research into the origins of the New Testament. To quote from the publisher's description of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark:

    In this groundbreaking book, Dennis R. MacDonald offers an entirely new view of the New Testament gospel of Mark. The author of the earliest gospel was not writing history, nor was he merely recording tradition, MacDonald argues. Close reading and careful analysis show that Mark borrowed extensively from the Odyssey and the Iliad and that he wanted his readers to recognize the Homeric antecedents in Mark's story of Jesus. Mark was composing a prose anti-epic, MacDonald says, presenting Jesus as a suffering hero modeled after but far superior to traditional Greek heroes.

    Much like Odysseus, Mark's Jesus sails the seas with uncomprehending companions, encounters preternatural opponents, and suffers many things before confronting rivals who have made his house a den of thieves. In his death and burial, Jesus emulates Hector, although unlike Hector Jesus leaves his tomb empty. Mark?s minor characters, too, recall Homeric predecessors: Bartimaeus emulates Tiresias; Joseph of Arimathea, Priam; and the women at the tomb, Helen, Hecuba, and Andromache. And, entire episodes in Mark mirror Homeric episodes, including stilling the sea, walking on water, feeding the multitudes, the Triumphal Entry, and Gethsemane. The book concludes with a discussion of the profound significance of this new reading of Mark for understanding the gospels and early Christianity.

Austin writes:

I'd like to start out by asking a couple of general questions; others with questions or comments should feel free to jump in at any time.

1. Why do you think that no one has written about this relationship before? If some of the parallels are so obvious, surely they must have caught someone's attention?

    DRM: Perhaps later in the discussion I will be able to give some evidence that ancient readers saw the relationship of these stories to Homer, but I'll restrict myself briefly to the history of recent scholarship. There is no one cause of this scholarly oversight. One cause surely is the desire by many traditional Christians to view the Gospels as historically reliable. For these people, the notion that Mark wrote alternative mythologies would be heretical. Most critical scholars of the New Testatment, like myself, were schooled in a method called formcriticism that seeks to trace units in the gospels (or other Jewish or Christian narratives) to antecedent stages of transmission. So, for example, some scholars would argue that a particular tale was based on a misunderstood historical event; another may suggest a genesis in early Christian preaching, or magical practices, or popular legends. The origin of these stories, then, come from antecedent traditions, not from a creative author interacting with classical Greek models.

    This is not to say that I am alone in comparing the Gospels to other ancient literature; indeed, this has been done repeatedly for at least fifty years. What sets my book apart is that it compares the earliest Gospel (Mark) with Greek epic, not with Jewish books, including the Jewish scriptures, not with contemporary Greek prose. Another reason for the oversight of the Homeric epics is, of course, widespread ignorance about the Iliad and the Odyssey in our culture, including biblical scholars.

    By the way, the oversight should not be too surprising in light of the significant differences between the gospels and epic. Homer's writings are poetic, written in a language barely recognizable by many later Greek readers, polytheistic, violent and somewhat naughty.

2. I imagine that your thesis must have upset some people...what sort of reception has your book received, both in academia and among general readers?

    DRM: Well, I suppose no author thinks her or his book gets as much response as it should, but that has been my experience. I am gratified that some readers have called it a watershed in the study of the Gospels; I think it should be. Most scholars in the field seem intent on avoiding it, for if I am correct, nearly everything written on early Christian narrative is flawed. Conservative Christians, of course, have not been overjoyed, but some evangelical types recognize that I am not arguing that Mark took over these stories from Homer uncritically. Indeed, he often rewrote the stories to show that Jesus was superior to the likes of Odysseus, Hector, Achilles. One unanticipated use of my work has been by atheists who use it to show that the gospels are not historical. I think most of us have known that for a long time. My work shows, however, that the author of the earliest gospel knew he was not writing history and expected his readers to recognize it as a fictional alternative to the dominating fictions of Greek religion.

That is an interesting point. If the author *expected* people to see the work as basically fictional and serving a religious (or political, or social) purpose, then that should change how we read the Gospels. Today, people writing "history" are doing something very different from what authors in the ancient world had in mind when they wrote "history" or narratives. But everyone seems to forget that.

Considering your work on how other early Christian and Jews works may have made use of ancient Greek literature... do you suppose that one of the changes which scholars need to consider is that early Christianity (and perhaps even Judaism of the time) rely much more heavily upon Greek influences than has been assumed? I know that scholars have long noted many ways in which Greek philosophy impacted early Christianity, but perhaps because of Greek mythology, the impact was larger than previously thought.

Perhaps Christianity owes more to Athens than to Jerusalem? Or at least, more than we realize.

    DRM: YES! Scholars long have recognized potential influence of Greek philosophy on the New Testament, especially on Pauline letters, but the influence of Greek mythology, especially Homeric poetry, has gone unrecognized. I have litte doubt that behind the mass of early Christian narratives, both in and outside the New Testament lies a mimetic (imitative) substratum awaiting exploration. I find a new potential parallel almost every month, especially in the so-called apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.

Do you feel that such parallels suggest that the intended audience for these works was primarily Roman/Greek/Gentile? How would Jewish audiences reacted to such parallels... would they have simply not noticed? Might they have been upset at a supposedly Jewish Messiah being compared to Greek gods and heroes?

    DRM: Austin, my work merely confirms conclusions made by others that Mark's primary audience was Greek-speaking and gentile. Jews are spoken of as others and, more important, rather basic Jewish practices need to be explained to the reader. What is more, the explanations sometimes are off the mark (sorry for the unintended pun) making it likely that the author himself was gentile. That said, it also is true that the author has a rather sophisticated knowledge of the Septuagint (Greek Bible) and may expect some of his readers to recognize biblical allusions.

    No, if Jewish readers saw what Mark was doing I doubt they would have been particularly upset. Several Jewish poets had imitated Homer and so did the author of the Book of Tobit, in my opinion. What probably made them more upset was Mark's claim that Jesus was a Messiah but not a son of David, that it was Jewish authorities, not Romans, who killed Jesus, and that Jesus was superior to all Jewish antecedents.

As I understand it, Jews and Christians were not so strongly differentiated in the first couple of centuries - graveyards are identical while churches and synagogues are very similar in style and decoration. Would the writing of such documents have helped to split Christianized Jews from other Jews in the community?

    DRM: I doubt that Homeric influence on early Christian writings played anything other than a modest role, if any, in the split between Christians and other Jews. Judaism of the period was so diverse and so many other issues were more important that such imitations, if noticed at all, would have had little to contribute. On the other hand, I think it interesting that Mark and Luke/Acts, the books most laden with Homeric influence, also are stridently anti-Jewish.

3. Do you think that any other early Christian documents besides Mark were written to emulate Homer or other ancient literature?

    DRM: Indeed they did. My first book, Christianizing Homer, demonstrated imitations of Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, and Plato by the author of the Acts of Andrew (ca. 200). I have published several articles on Homeric imitations in the Book of Tobit (Jewish), the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles. I also see similar imitations in other Christian apocryphal texts. I think we are at the beginning of breaking the code of ancient religious narrative.

What is your opinion of the work of the Jesus Seminar? Does it, as is claimed, produce a consensus among scholars about what is most likely true and original, free of later mythologizing?

Or are the critics right when they say that it is more anattack on conservative and fundamentalist readings of the Bible, motivated more by theological disagreements than by objective scholarship?

    DRM: Your questions are appropriate but difficult to answer. First, any claim to produce a consensus is overstated. The most one might claim is that this self-selected group of critically trained scholars have dicussed and voted on the likely authenticity of information about Jesus in early Christian texts. This is, in fact, what is usually claimed, but sometimes seminar members claim more--especially some of the organizers.

    The Seminar itself is not monolithic religiously; indeed, some of the members are quite traditional, including more than a few ministers and priests. Some of the members, however, are bitter to traditional Christianity and their scholarship and rhetoric occasionally reflect that bias. This is by no means the case for everyone.

Blair writes:

Thank you for taking the time to come here and discuss your book.

I only have two immediate questions. First, is Mark the only gospel that emulates the Odyssey and the Iliad or do the other gospels attempt to do the same?

    DRM: Matthew and John, in my view, have some connections with so-called topoi of Greek poetry but they apparently do not imitate the epics as thoroughly as Mark. Luke, on the other hand, imitates Homeric epic repeatedly. For example, compare the story of the recognition of Jesus by the disciples on the road to Emmaeus that ends the gospel with the ending of the Odyssey, where Laertes recognizes Odysseus by the scar on his leg. I've published several articles on Homeric imitation on the Acts of the Apostles (including the shipwreck in ch. 27 and the famous "we-passages"), and I'm now working on a book on Acts showing that Peter's prison break in ch. 12 and Paul's farewell in ch. 20 are strategic and profound imitations of passages in the Iliad.

Second, if Mark was intent on emulating these stories then how does that affect Christianity, and more specifically, Jesus himself.

    DRM: How will my work effect contemporary Christianity?

    For the most part churches seem to survive, even thrive, quite oblivious to biblical scholarship. I expect the same will be true of my work. That said, if I am correct, I would think the following conclusions would follow.

    1. We need a new appreciation of early Christianity as a multicultural phenomenon, borrowing both from Jerusalem and Athens, as you aptly put it.

    2. The church needs to accept its own mythology as a mythology. Myth is not falsehood; in fact, myth is how religions express their highest values. In addition to appreciating myth, the church should learn to appreciate aesthetics as a theological enterprise: to value creativity, art, and literature. Too often theologians and others have conversed with science and history ignoring myth, art, and creativity.

    3. The church needs to accept the fact that we can know amazingly little about the historical Jesus. One implication of my work is to shrink the already slender information about Jesus that can be critically recovered.

    4. I would hope that my work would promote conversations between Christians and adherents of other religions without prejudice.

Who is your intended target for your book?

    DRM: I thought it necessary to pitch the book for two audiences: first for scholars so that the documentation and argumentation is sufficient to avoid disdain, but second for the generally literate reader familiar with comparative approaches to narratives. I don't know if I've succeeded, but I'm delighted the book is already used in some college literature courses.

    Sure, I think some people will fear "putting Jesus and Zeus on an equal pedestal," but this response surely is superficial. The differences are substantial and significant: what we need is a comparative attutide to religious fiction. By the way, "religious fiction" probably produces fewer misunderstandings than "mythology."

    I, myself, have been a member of the Jesus Seminar, and I still go to meetings now and then, but my approach is almost 180 degrees to theirs. I don't think we need Christianity based on history but not myth (even without God), but a Christianity conscious of its own "religious fictionality," but also open to scientific and historical findings.

Can we be sure that the gospel(s) are emulating Odyssey or Iliad or should we dig deeper and see if all three are emulating a previous work or a cultural clich??

    DRM: It is to treat this question that I have developed my criteria for mimesis: (1)accessibility, (2) analogy, (3) density, (4) order, (5) distinctive traits, and (6) interpretability. The most important of these is distinctive traits, the presence of features not found in oral traditions or literature conventions generally, features that bind two texts into a hermeneutical, chemical reaction. Authors ancient and modern use such distintive traits to alert the reader to compare the next with the target. Favorite flags are proper nouns, locations, titles, unusual words or phrases, or inversions. I don't deny the use of general conventions in the composition of early Christian narratives, but many such narratives raise flags that point to well-known literature models.

For the layperson in the church, do you think there is a distinctive path they should take in order to reach the point where they can make such comparative approaches? I know there is no specific path, because each of us kind of makes it up as we go along, but we all seem to flow in the same general direction. Is there a generalized approach?

    DRM: I am writing two books now: one more scholarly than the other, but both intended to be more accessible. One I am calling "Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?" which will analyze only three stories, all in Acts. I hope that by dealing with stories about the apostles I will avoid the debates about Jesus and that by dealing with only three stories somewhat more completely, I will make my case in more detail.

    The second book might be called Homer for the reader of the New Testament (Greek epic for dummies?). Here I plan to work my way through both the Iliad and the Odyssey, providing new prose translations of seminal passages and providing notes, bibliography, etc. I know the Homeric epics are long, difficult both in Greek and in English, loaded with historical and literary difficulties, and, in large measure, inaccessible to all but the expert. I want to provide a reference guide to address this. If anyone has an idea how best to do this, I'm all ears. I'm just now designing this work.

Keepwe writes:

I'm pleased to be able to say that I had read the book even before it was assigned as homework for the assistant moderators and it was very interesting. I think you've definitely made the idea plausible. A question though: have you ever done a null test for spotting parallels? That is, have you ever sat down with another randomly chosen text, Moby Dick, say, and conscientiously looked for parallels to Homer?

    DRM: Keepwe, great question. As you know, in the book I use six criteria for evaluating parallels between any two works: accessibility of the model, parallel imitations, density of parallels, order of parallels, distinctive traits, and interpretability. I would use these criteria on any putative parallels.

    But that is not precisely to your point. Take your example, I fully expect that in Moby Dick, a sea adventure of epic proportions, one may find lots of parallels to the Odyssey (as one can in Ulyse's Gold or O Brother, where Art Thou?). When one writes a sea adventure one is likely to use literary motifs and props characteristic of the genre. This, in my view, is not necessarily mimesis. If the author wishes the reader to recognize the echoes with Odysseus by using distinctive devices or motifs not generally found in sea adventures, one then is more likely to make the case for imitation. There is a slippery slope from quotation to allusion to echo, with many intermediary points. This ambiguity may be frustrating, but it makes reading exciting.

    If you have an idea about how to test this method further with your nul reading, I'd love to hear about it.

Susannah writes:

Why didn't Mark have Jesus married as Odysseus was? And if Mark invented so much about Jesus, then what was the purpose of doing that in the first place?

    DRM: Susannah, I presume Mark did not have Jesus married because Jesus was not married. Mark didn't invent Jesus!

    Mark's purpose in creating so many stories about Jesus was to demonstrate how superior he was to Greek heroes. Few readers of Mark fail to see how he portrays Jesus as superior to Jewish worthies, such as David or Moses or Elijah. He does the same for Greek heroes. In other words, the earliest Evangelist was evangelizing.

    One example: at the end of the Iliad Hector is buried and remains so. The death of Jesus shares many traits with the death of Hector, but by the end of the gospel he has been raised from the dead, unlike Hector. Virtually every narrative in Mark with parallels to Homer shows such emulation tilted in favor of Jesus. He is more compassionate, more powerful, wiser, and more innured to suffering than the likes of Odysseus.

You say that Jesus was a real person, but that Mark created stories about Jesus to prove that he was superior to the Greek heroes. What I'd like to know is, what was there about Jesus in the first place that made Mark want to mythologise him at all? Jesus was obviously worthy of being mythologized at least in Mark's eyes, but why? What was so special about Jesus that made Mark want to do this?

And another point: was the claim to be the Son of God just another example of mythology or did Jesus actually claim that?

    DRM: Let me begin with your second question. I know of no critical New Testament scholar who holds that Jesus understood himself as the Son of God, unless what he meant by Son of God was child of God or, better, agent of God, like a prophet. It is somewhat more likely that he spoke of himself as the Son of Man, but there is reason to question that as well.

    Jesus must have been a remarkable teacher, a charismatic presence, and a religious innovator. But it probably was his unjust execution by the powers-that-were that propelled his reputation, much like the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. made of him a hero larger than life. In addition, rumors of sightings of Jesus after his death generated the notion that he had been exalted or raised, rather like the deification of Heracles after his death. The combination of Jesus' teachings, charismatic presence, and tragic death surely was powerful religious chemistry.

What I'd like to know is, why did it take so long for a gospel to be written about Jesus? One would think that something would have been written about him at the time rather than 60 years later. To me that seems to suggest that his impact on society at the time wasn't so great, and that only later, perhaps for political reasons, was he turned into a hero.

    DRM: The time span between Jesus' death and Mark is about 40 years. It is likely, however, that some of Jesus' sayings were recorded somewhat earlier, as in Q (the likely hypothetical source behind Matthew and Luke other than Mark).

    Your assessment of the growth of Jesus' popularity probably is correct. The Roman/Jewish historian Josephus knew of Jesus and the movement around him, but does not give it much significance. The same is true of other Roman historians prior to the end of the second century CE (e.g., Suetonius and Tacitus). Jewish sources from the period also say little concerning Jesus. Even so, the expansion of Christianity in Europe in the 50s and 60s is quite impressive (Paul's mission, for example).

Rob writes:

Professor MacDonald -- I hear you to be arguing that while Mark wants his book to be read in light of Homer, he particularly wants Jesus to be seen as *greater* than Homer's heroes. Perhaps I'm getting too caught up in wordings, but how much of Mark's argument concerned "greater" and how much concerned "different" ( e.g., echoing Deutero-Isaiah's suffering servant -- does that have an equivilent in Homer?)?

    DRM: Rob, no. You are not quibbling over words; the distinction between greater and different is important. In the lingo of intertextuality one might call greater "transvaluation" that implies a denigration of that which is imitated. One then might call different from "revaluation" which does not imply a denigration. I think both are happening in early Christian imitations of Homeric epic, though I am not sure the authors would have been alert to the differences. For example, in several respects Jesus is LIKE Odysseus: wise, able to endure great hardship, a friend of the divine, etc. To be sure, Jesus is different from Odysseus, but there is no implied critique of Odysseus here. In other respects, however, Jesus is greater than Odysseus: he can calm the sea, he does not blind a savage but exorcises him, he does not inflict violence but endures it.

    It would be interesting to compare the suffering servant tradition with the Odyssey, but I've not tried it. I'm suspicious for several reasons: suffering is a universal problem, as our Buddhist friends quite rightly point out.

Apollonius writes:

Is it not ironic that during Homeric times the Greek world was still narrow and uncharted, and yet the Iliad and Odyssey are full of adventure in a very physical sense, whereas by the time of Mark, when the world was wide and even humbler folk could travel the whole Mediterranean, Jesus is portrayed as someone who never strayed far from his native land?

    DRM: Well, I guess there is an irony here, but two things should be said. First, Jesus doesn't travel far and wide in Mark because Jesus himself did not travel far and wide. Again, Mark is not inventing Jesus or all of the traditions about him. Second, while it is true that travel in the Roman Empire was more common than in Homer's day, it would be a mistake to think of Homer's world too narrowly. References to amber suggest travel to northern Europe; references to Ethiopians in the east and west suggest awareness of a larger world; references to Egypt and perhaps the Black Sea are impressive; the story of the Laestrygonians speaks of a land where the sun never sets and the Cimmerians live where the sun never shines, suggesting knowledge of the far north. Furthermore, parallels between the epics and stories from India and especially the middle east evidence broad cultural contact.

Rundarren writes:

The thesis of your book is so fascinating. I gotta read it soon. I must admit my ignorance of Homeric epics, but I'm familiar with Mark--I've even read it in the Greek original. If your hypothesis is correct, which it seems likely, how do you suppose the author has blended and balanced together the writing of the gospel with Homeric and Old Testament patterns? Because it seems to me that the author was very conscious of some Old Testament patterns in the formulation of the gospel. For example, the number of healing stories (12 Jews and one gentile - Mark 7:26 - healed), of names of men Jesus called (12 apostle and Levi), and of loaves of bread (12 total loaves in the two feedings and one in the boat, where the feedings are reviewed - Mark 8:14-21) are exactly the same - thirteen - which seems too coincidential for it to represent anything other than an allusion to some Old Testament symbol, perhaps the 13 actual tribes of Israel, that is, the 12 (lay) tribes and the (priestly) tribe of Levi. Also, the narrative pattern in Mark 3:7-19 seems to allude to Moses and the exodus story perfectly: 1) the coupling of two Greek terms unique in Mark, 'anachorein' (to withdraw - 3:7) and 'plethos' (multitude - 3:7, 8) to describe Jesus withdrawing to the sea with a special crowd following him seems to allude to the exodus of Moses and the Hebrews to the Sea of Reeds, 2) the fact that Jesus, in a boat, used the sea to escape from the crowd (3:7-9) seems to allude to the Hebrews using the parted sea to escape from the Egyptian army, 3) the utterance of the unclean spirits "You are the Son of God!" to Jesus (3:11) seems to allude to the doxology of the Hebrews immediately after the destruction of Egyptian army by the sea, and 4) Jesus going up the mountain and appointing twelve apostles (3:13-19) seems to allude to Moses going up Mount Sinai to make a covenant with Yahweh for the "twelve" tribes of Israel. These examples of Old Testament allusions are but a few of many, many Old Testament allusions that are apparent in Mark. So how would you explain how the author could possibly consciously structure the writing of the gospel based on the story and symbolic patterns in BOTH Homeric epics and the septuagint?

    DRM: What a wonderful question! I agree entirely. Mark is an equal opportunity imitator. Mark's indebtedness to the Septuagint (the Hebrew Bible in Greek) is profound, extending well beyond the explicit citations. I hope someday someone will write a commentary that takes into account all of the literary influences, including, in my view Homer and at least one play of Euripides I have not yet studied sufficiently.

    So let's say Mark borrows from the LXX and from Greek literature. This would conform to the widespread practice of eclecticism, of imitating several works at once. The idea is this: one way of composing a narrative superior to one's primary model is to use other models as well, as many as five models, according to rhetoricians. The example (sexist by our standards) was a sculptor assigned to make a statue of Helen, the most beautiful of Greek women. No one mortal woman would have all the desireable traits, so the sculptor asked the city for five models, from which he took features eclectically to produce his statue. In the case of Mark (and Luke-Acts) there was a religious reason for doing so: to claim the literature, religion,and traditions of Jews for interpreting Jesus. Ancient rhetoricians would have recognized Mark's blending and approved of it formally.

Thanks to Professor MacDonald for taking the time to talk to us and for writing such an interesting book. I encourage people to take a look at, because it provides a different perspective on origins of the Gospels.

[Solomon]

The above cross-references to much else here, though to this in particular:
Villa of the Papyri: Piso and Seneca
Here is a serious attempt to seek the origin of the New Testament.  The author sees the inspiration coming from the pen of the Roman philosopher, statesman, dramatis, Lucius Annaeus Seneca (often known simply as Seneca, or Seneca the Younger).

Seneca's longest play, Hercules on Oeta, portrays the death and deification of Hercules. The hero is betrayed by those close to him, but, free from his mortal body, his celestial spirit conquers death ? in essence, a resurrection. Given the distrust held by Stoics for those who grasp for power, it is more than possible that Seneca wrote a drama in which a low-born, counter-hero ? a Stoic no less ? suffers the same Noble Death. It could then have been plagiarised for the "Passion Week" of the Jesus saga.

Solomon

[Sovereign]

The Gospel of Mark
This anonymous gospel was the first to be written, between 60 and 80CE, by a Roman convert to Christianity. It was copied word-for-word and used extensively by Matthew and Luke, as their primary source although they edited some details. Nevertheless, the gospel author didn't meet Jesus, wrote in Greek, not Hebrew, and was not a Jew. It is unlikely that Mark knew any Jews. There was no-one to correct his blunders about Jewish life, such as misquoting the 10 commendments, attributing God's words to Moses, and having Jews buy things on the Sabbath.
The Gospel of Mark has undergone many changes and there are several ancient versions. The oldest versions of Mark all end at Mark 16:7.
The Gospel of Mark contradicts the other gospels on many points and contains internal inconsistencies, some of these were later fixed by Matthew and Luke when they made their own copies of Mark. Half way through the second century the Christian proto-orthodox had come to call it 'Mark', although the author is unknown.

Origins of the Gospel of "Mark"
The author of Mark wrote in a form of 'Latinized' Greek after (or shortly before) the destruction of the Temple in 70CE, which he mentions. He must have been born 30-50CE. He wrote in either Rome or Syria. The Latin-Greek is similar to the written language of Rome, and 'sense of persecution' also hints that Mark wrote in Rome, where Nero was the worst for persecuting Christians . "Mark" was Written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100), who both use Mark as a source. It was the most extensive source for the other gospels, and there are only about 30 verses that were not copied or used by the authors of Matthew and Luke. Despite this, Mark did not actually meet Jesus nor speak the same language as him.

The Gospel of Mark was written anonymously was not known as a Gospel of 'Mark' for over a hundred years. When Christians came to name the Gospels, they picked 'Mark', who they thought should be a disciple of Peter, who in Greek mythology was associated with the Egyptian god Petra, the gate guardian of Heaven.

As a Roman, Mark directed his writings at a Roman audience. He feels it is required to explain Jewish customs, and does not bother to explain Roman culture to his readers. Yet he did not extensively understand Jewish culture, and his gospel once even misquotes the 10 commandments! He commits other errors that no Jew (no long term friend of Peter) could have committed such as having Jews buy things on the Sabbath, of quoting Moses instead of God, and confusing other things. Many such things are described on this document by Steven Carr, attached to the end of this page.

Contents of the Gospel of Mark
The gospel of Mark does not describe the history of Jesus, or his virgin birth. These parts of the New Testament's stories were added by Matthew, 30 years later, who assimilated other myths into the legends.

[Solomon]

Let's be absolutely clear on this:

1. Two of the three Synoptic Gosepls - Matthew and Luke of the New Testament in the Bible - are based on the other, Mark.

2. Mark is an anonymous document written in Greek, by a Gentile, probably in Rome.

3. Mark uses themes from Greek Homeric epics (amongst others).

4. Mark contains numerous errors and internal inconsistencies.

5. The author did not know the biblical Jesus.

In my view, this destroys the religious credibility of Mark completely. In doing so, it also destroys that of the other two synoptic gospels. That leaves the New Testament - and Christianity - with nothing very much of historicity.

The Emperor has no clothes.

Happy Christmas!

Solomon

[Administration]

Mandaeism
Mandaeism or Mandaeanism (Mandaic: mandaiuta), or in Islamic terms Sabianism (Arabic: صابئية), is a blanket term for the religion of the Mandaeans (Classical Mandaic mandaiia, Neo-Mandaic Mandeyānā), who are the followers of Mandā d-Heyyi (Mandaic manda ḏ-hiia "Knowledge of Life").

They consider Adam, Noah, and John the Baptist as prophets, but not Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad. Mandaeism is a monotheistic religion with a strongly dualistic worldview.

Mandaeism is practised primarily in southern Iraq and the Iranian province of Khuzestan, as well as among a small diaspora population in Europe, Australia, and North America.

Mandaean beliefs
Before attempting a description of the essential beliefs and fundamental tenets of Mandaeism, it is important to recognize that it is the religion of the Mandaean people, and any description of Mandaeism ultimately requires a description of their way of life. Unlike other religions such as Christianity or Islam, Mandaeism is not based upon conformity to religious creeds and doctrines. In fact, the only requirement to be a Mandaean is that one is born to a Mandaean mother. Furthermore, Mandaean theology seems unsystematic; topics such as eschatology, the knowledge of God, the afterlife, and so on are not addressed in a systematic manner. Even though the corpus of Mandaean literature is quite large, and contains much information regarding each of these issues and many more, a single basic guide to Mandaean beliefs and doctrines for the lay person does not exist (akin to the Nicene Creed, the Five Pillars of Islam, or Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith). Additionally, few Mandaeans outside of the priesthood are familiar with this corpus.

Mandaeans do not recognize Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad; like Christians and Muslims, however, they acknowledge John the Baptist, whom they revere as one of their greatest teachers. They also have a hierarchical clergy, practice frequent baptism, and hold public worship on Sundays. They believe in peace above all else.

Fundamental tenets
According to E.S. Drower in the introduction to The Secret Adam, the Mandaean Gnosis is characterized by nine features, which appear in various forms in other gnostic sects:

   1. A supreme formless Entity, the expression of which in time and space is creation of spiritual, etheric, and material worlds and beings. Production of these is delegated by It to a creator or creators who originated in It. The cosmos is created by Archetypal Man, who produces it in similitude to his own shape.
   2. Dualism: a cosmic Father and Mother, Light and Darkness, Right and Left, syzygy in cosmic and microcosmic form.
   3. As a feature of this dualism, counter-types, a world of ideas.
   4. The soul is portrayed as an exile, a captive: her home and origin being the supreme Entity to which she eventually returns.
   5. Planets and stars influence fate and human beings, and are also places of detention after death.
   6. A saviour spirit or saviour spirits which assist the soul on her journey through life and after it to 'worlds of light'.
   7. A cult-language of symbol and metaphor. Ideas and qualities are personified.
   8. 'Mysteries', i.e. sacraments to aid and purify the soul, to ensure her rebirth into a spiritual body, and her ascent from the world of matter. These are often adaptations of existing seasonal and traditional rites to which an esoteric interpretation is attached. In the case of the Naṣoreans this interpretation is based upon the Creation story (see 1 and 2), especially on the Divine Man, Adam, as crowned and anointed King-priest.
   9. Great secrecy is enjoined upon initiates; full explanation of 1, 2, and 8 being reserved for those considered able to understand and preserve the gnosis.

Mandaeans believe in marriage and procreation, and in the importance of leading an ethical and moral lifestyle in this world, placing a high priority upon family life. Consequently, Mandaeans do not practice celibacy or asceticism. Mandaeans will, however, abstain from strong drink and red meat. While they agree with other gnostic sects that the world is a prison governed by the planetary archons, they do not view it as a cruel and inhospitable one.

Mandaean scriptures
The Mandaeans have a large corpus of religious scriptures, the most important of which is the Genzā Rabbā or Ginza, a collection of history, theology, and prayers. The Genzā Rabbā is divided into two halves ? the Genzā Smālā or "Left Ginza" and the Genzā Yeminā or "Right Ginza". By consulting the colophons in the Left Ginza, Jorunn J. Buckley has identified an uninterrupted chain of copyists to the late 2nd or early 3rd c. C.E. The colophons attest to the existence of the Mandaeans during the late Arsacid period at the very latest, a fact corroborated by the Harrān Gāwetā legend, according to which the Mandaeans left ancient Israel after the destruction of First Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 b.c., together with the Jews exiled to Babylon, and settled within the Arsacid empire. Although the Ginza continued to evolve under the rule of the Sassanians and the Islamic empires, few textual traditions can lay claim to such extensive continuity.

Other important books include the Qolastā, the "Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans," which was translated by E.S. Drower. One of the chief works of Mandaean scripture, accessible to laymen and initiates alike, is the sidra ḏ-iahia, the book of John the Baptist, which includes a dialogue between John and Jesus. In addition to these works, there are also many other religious texts such as ritual commentaries, which are generally only consulted by the members of the priesthood. The language in which the Mandaean religious literature was originally composed is known as Mandaic, and is a member of the Aramaic family of dialects. It is written in a cursive variant of the Parthian chancery script. The majority of Mandaean lay people do not speak this language, though some members of the Mandaean community resident in Iran (ca. 300-500 out of a total of ca. 5,000 Iranian Mandaeans) continue to speak Neo-Mandaic, a modern version of this language.

Chief prophets
As indicated above, John the Baptist (Mandaic iahia iuhana) is recognized by the Mandaeans as well as Christians and Muslims, but is accorded a higher status in Mandaeism than in either of the other two communities. There exists a widespread (but erroneous) belief that the Mandaeans consider John the Baptist to be the founder of their religion, analogous to Jesus within Christianity. In fact, they maintain that he was merely one of their greatest teachers; according to their beliefs, Mandaeism was the original religion of Adam.

Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a m?iha kdaba or "false prophet,"" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John. The word k(a)daba, however, derives from two roots in Mandaic: the first root, meaning "to lie," is the one traditionally ascribed to Jesus; the second, meaning "to write," might provide a second meaning, that of "book;" hence some Mandaeans, motivated perhaps by an ecumenical spirit, maintain that Jesus was not a "lying Messiah" but a "Book Messiah", the "book" in question presumably being the Christian Gospels. This seems to be a folk etymology without any support in the Mandaean texts.[3]

Likewise, the Mandaeans believe that Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad were false prophets, but recognize other prophetic figures from the Noahide monotheistic traditions, such as Nuh (Noah), his son Sam (Shem), and his son Ram (Aram), and consider the latter three to be their direct ancestors, in addition to Adam, his sons Hibil (Abel) and ?itil (Seth), and his grandson Anu? (Enosh).

Influences
According to the Fihrist of ibn al-Nadim, Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, was brought up within the Elkasaites (Elcesaites or Elchasaite) sect. The Elkasaites were a Christian baptismal sect which may have been related to the Mandaeans. The members of this sect, like the Mandaeans, wore white and performed baptisms. They dwelled in east Judea and northern Mesopotamia, whence the Mandaeans claim to have migrated to southern Mesopotamia, according to the Harran Gawaitā legend. Mani later left the Elkasaites to found his own religion. In a remarkable comparative analysis, Mandaean scholar S?ve-S?derberg demonstrated that Mani's Psalms of Thomas were closely related to Mandaean texts. This would imply that Mani had access to Mandaean religious literature. This leads to the question of just how close the origins of the Elkasaites, the Manichaeans, and the Mandaeans are to one other.

Other associated terms
Within the Middle East, but outside of their community, the Mandaeans are more commonly known as the Ṣubba (singular Ṣubbī). Likewise, their Muslim neighbors will refer to them collectively as the Sabians (Arabic الصابئون al-Ṣābiʾūn), in reference to the Ṣabians of the Qur'an. Occasionally, the Mandaeans are also called the "Christians of St. John" (a misnomer, since they are not Christians by any standard), based upon preliminary reports made by members of the Barefoot Carmelite mission in Basra during the 16th century.

Other groups which have been identified with the Mandaeans include the "Nasoraeans" described by Epiphanius and the Dositheans mentioned by Theodore Bar Kōnī in his Scholion. Ibn al-Nadim also mentions a group called the Mughtasila, "the self-ablutionists," who may be identified with one or the other of these groups. The members of this sect, like the Mandaeans, wore white and performed baptisms.

Whether it can be said that the Elkasaites, the Mughtasila, the Nasoraeans, and/or the Dositheans are to be identified with the Mandaeans is a separate question. While it seems certain that a number of distinct groups are intended by these names, the nature of their sects and the connections between them are less than clear.

[Administration]

Iraq's Mandaeans 'face extinction'
The Sabian Mandaeans - one of the oldest religious groups in the world - are facing extinction, according to its leaders.

They claim that Islamic extremists in Iraq are trying to wipe them out through forced conversions, rape and murder.

The Mandaeans are pacifists, followers of Adam, Noah and John the Baptist.

They have lived in what is now Iraq since before Islam and Christianity.

More than 80% have been forced to flee the country and now live as refugees in Syria and Jordan.

Even there they do not feel safe - but they say western governments are unwilling to take them in.

Victim voices
There are thought to be fewer than 70,000 of the Sabian Mandaeans spread across the world - only 5,000 are left in Iraq.

Nine-year-old Selwan likes watching cartoons and playing football.

But he is too scared to leave his flat. The other children tease him.

He has burns all down the side of his face and on 20% of his body.

He was kidnapped by Islamic militants who forced him to jump into a bonfire - because he is Mandaean.

Now his family lives in a tiny flat in a slum in Damascus.

I meet Luay. He is too scared to be identified and does not want to use his full name.

He was dragged off the street by armed men and forcibly circumcised - a practice not allowed in the Mandaean religion.

He is 19 and is now unlikely ever to find a bride from his own faith.

Worse, he was forcibly converted. That means in the eyes of those same extremists if he now declares himself Mandaean he is apostate.

That makes him a traitor to Islam, who may be murdered. He says he will not be safe in any Muslim country.

'Convert or die'
Then there is Enhar, raped by a gang of masked men in front of her husband - because she would not wear a veil.

Mazen used to be a prosperous jeweller. Now he lives in a cramped flat, with his wife and children. Water drips through the ceiling.

His legs are peppered with machine-gun wounds, he can barely walk.

Shoaki wears a Manchester United hat and shows me the scars where a gang beat and cut him with a knife - he watched his brother murdered in front of him.

Mandaean elders use words like annihilation and genocide - they believe Islamic militants, both Sunni and Shia, offer them two choices - convert or die.

"Some will not consider us people of the book... they see us as unbelievers, as a result our killing is allowed," says Kanzfra Sattar, one of only five Mandaean bishops left worldwide.

[Administration]

Johannite
The Johannites are a sect of Gnostics who reject Jesus Christ, and instead posit that the true savior of the world (sent to fulfill Old Testament prophecy) was in fact John the Baptist, as he was performing baptisms before Jesus' birth.

Some descendants of the original adherents to this doctrine are the Mandaeans, a group of Assyrian Gnostics who claim existence before John, claiming to be followers of the original Adamic religion. They believe that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all false prophets.

The Johannites
(1) The Mandaeans

    "O People of the Book, you follow no good until you observe the Torah and Gospels (Jesus) and that which is revealed to you by your Lord (Koran). Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and those who are the Sabeans, and the Christians, whoever believes in The One God, and the last day and does good. . . they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve."
         - Koran 5: 68-69

Background
"The followers of John the Baptist are a people called 'Mughtasilah', which means, 'Those Who Wash Themselves'....Today we call these people the Sabeans. The Sabeans include an order called the Mandaeans. They are to be considered Children of the Books, and as such, are to be considered holders of the Word of God."
     - "Way #10: The Messiah Projects: Jesus, Son of Isis"

The Mandaeans are "a small [not more than 20,000 adherents] but tenacious community which dwells in Iraq, follow an ancient form of Gnosticism, which practices initiation, ecstasy and some rituals which have been said to resemble those of the Freemasons."
     - Arkon Daraul, Secret Societies

The Mandaeans "take their name from 'Manda' which means secret knowledge."
     - Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

The Mandaeans, often called the Christians of Saint John, trace their origins to Palestine followed by exile to Harran, a center of gnosticismg, and then south to Mesopotamia.

"...During the first three centuries A.D., there were certain Mandaean or Johannite sects, especially in the region of the Tigris-Euphrates basin, who honored John [the Baptist], not Jesus, as their prophet. Indeed, one of these sects still exists. According to its thinking, John was 'the true prophet', while Jesus was 'a rebel, a heretic, who led men astray, betrayed secret doctrines.'"
     - Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy

"The Mandaeans of southern Iraq...are Nasoreans who were driven out of Judah whose migration can be accurately dated to AD 37; it therefore seems almost certain that the man that persecuted them was Saul (alias Paul) himself."
     - Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

"...Paul arrives as the first Christian missionary in Corinth and in Ephesus, only to discover to his amazement that there seemed to be churches already there. On making inquiries he discovers that they are the Church of John the Baptist. He believed that the Ephesians and Corinthians would, therefore, be delighted to discover that he represented Jesus Christ, the one prophesied to come after John. Not so; they had never heard of such a prophecy."
     - Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince, Turin Shroud - In Whose Image? The Shocking Truth Unveiled

    "While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when [or after] you believed?'
    They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'
    So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'
    'John's baptism,' they replied.
    Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized into [or in] the name of the Lord Jesus."
         - Acts 19:1-5

"In Acts 19:1-7 Luke refers to a group whom Paul met in Ephesus who knew only John's baptism of repentance. But since they are said explicitly to be 'disciples' (a term Luke always uses to refer to followers of Jesus) this passage provides very slender support for the existence in the first century of groups who saw John rather than Jesus as the Messiah."
     - Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 167

"Elements of the languages indicate that the community is of Jewish origin. One of the texts of the Mandeans tell about a flight of a group called 'Nasoreans', from areas that probably were in today's Jordan, to the Mesopotamian region, in the times of the Jewish wars following the destruction of Jerusalem in year 70 AD. The Mandeans appears first to have gained a strong position in Babylon, but lost this with the appearance of the Sassinids in year 226. In the time of Mani, there have been contacts between him and the Mandeans, resulting in both love and hate."

"With the arrival of Islam in Iraq, in 636, the Mandeans were considered as the third 'people of the book', as the mysterious Sabians of the Koran. But the Mandeans still faced a difficult relationship with Islam, and Muhammad is in their writings called the 'demon Bizbat'. The Mandeans moved from the cities to the marshlands in Southern Iraq. It is first in modern times that the Mandeans have moved back to the cities, especially Baghdad and Basra, where they now work as gold and silver smiths, and as iron smiths and boat builders. Mandeans are also found in medium-sized towns between Baghdad and Basra. Some small groups of Mandeans even live in Iran, in cities like Ahvaz and Shushtar in the south-western corner of the country."
     - Tore Kjeilen, Encyclopaedia of the Orient

[Solomon]

Coordinates: 32?42′07″N, 35?18′12″E
Modern-day Nazareth is nestled in a hollow plateau some 1,200 feet (350m) above sea level, located between 1,600 foot high hills that form the most southerly points of the Lebanon mountain range.[1] It is about 25 km from the Sea of Galilee and about 9 km west from Mount Tabor.

Earliest History & Archaeological Evidence
Archaeological research has revealed a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles from Nazareth, dating roughly 9000 years ago (in what is known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B era).[2] The remains of some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge horizontal headstone structures, some of which consisted of up to 3 tons of locally-produced white plaster. Decorated human skulls found have led archaeologists to believe that Kfar HaHoresh was a major cult center in that remote era.

B. Bagatti (the principle archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth) has unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artefacts,[9] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century CE onward.

In the mid-1990s, shopkeeper Elias Shama discovered tunnels under his shop near Mary?s Well in Nazareth. The tunnels were eventually recognized as a hypocaust (a space below the floor into which warm air was pumped) for a bathhouse. The site was excavated in 1997-98 by Y. Alexandre, and the archaeological remains exposed were ascertained to date from the Middle Roman, Crusader, Mamluk and Ottoman periods.

Non-biblical textual references to Jewish or Judaean settlement in the area do not occur until around 200 AD, when Julius Africanus, cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.7.14), speaks of Nazareth as a village "of Judea", and in the same passage tells of desposunoi, or relatives of Jesus, who came from Nazareth and nearby Cochaba and kept the records of their descent with great care. Also, an alleged martyr named Conon, who died in Pamphylia under Decius (249-251), declared at his trial: "I belong to the city of Nazareth in Galilee, and am a relative of Christ whom I serve, as my forefathers have done" (Clemens Kopp, Die heiligen St?tten der Evangelien [The Holy Places of the Gospels], Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg, 1959: page 90)..

In 1962, a Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea, dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century, mentions Nazareth as one of the places in which the priestly family of Hapizzez was residing after Bar Kokhba?s revolt (132-135 CE).

[Solomon]

Plastered skull from the PPNB site of Kfar Hahoresh

Archaeology: Volume 56 Number 6, November/December 2003
Pre-Christian Rituals at Nazareth
by David Keys

Archaeological investigations near Nazareth--Jesus' boyhood home--have revealed that the area was a major cult center 8,000 years before the time of Christ.

Excavations at Kibbutz Kfar HaHoresh, less than two miles from the town center, have so far unearthed strangely decorated human skulls and evidence for unusual, complex burials. "This is the first example in the Levant of a purely religious complex from this remote period," says excavation director Nigel Goring-Morris of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "This is a totally new type of site." The cult center seems to have serviced the religious needs of villagers a few miles away.

So far the remains of 65 people have been unearthed--but hundreds more are expected to be found as excavations continue. Many of the remains were interred as part of complex rituals. One partly disarticulated, headless man had been laid to rest on top of a pile of 250 aurochs (wild ox) bones, while at least four children were buried with fox mandibles. Several other individuals were interred with what may have been heirloom flint tools. Archaeologists at HaHoresh have also discovered a remarkable prehistoric "work of art": 50 human bones seemingly arranged in the shape of an animal, possibly an aurochs or a wild boar. This image was constructed, it seems, to mark the burial place of around a dozen people.

Three specially enhanced human skulls have also been discovered. Each of them had been deliberately defleshed after death and overlaid with lime plaster modeled to form facial features. Two of the skulls had then been painted red--one with red ocher, the other with a red pigment that must have come from quarries far to the north in what is now central Turkey. Red pigment, presumably signifying the blood of life, is known to have been painted onto corpses or skeletons in many ancient societies, probably as a form of sympathetic magic designed to help the deceased achieve life after death.

The discovery of several lime kilns at the site suggests that the plaster used for the skulls and for sealing many of the graves was manufactured on-site. Ten thousand years ago these burials must have been an extraordinary sight, for the white plaster grave surfaces--some covering up to 850 square feet--had been deliberately burnished by mourners or devotees to such an extent that the graves probably shimmered in the sun. Some burials were overlaid with up to three tons of plaster.

Even at this early time, 400 generations ago, society may well have been quite rigidly stratified. While at least a quarter of the population of the area at the time were thrown into village rubbish pits left in abandoned houses after death, others appear to have been taken to Nazareth, where their remains were treated with due deference.

? 2003 by the Archaeological Institute of America
www.archaeology.org/0311/newsbriefs/nazareth.html


Archaeology & Anthropology Field School at Kfar HaHoresh
Kfar HaHoresh is a small, 9,000 year old site nestled in the Nazareth Hills of Lower Galilee, Israel. The Early Neolithic cultures of the region are the earliest agricultural societies in the world. The Kfar HaHoresh excavations reveal it is a unique mortuary and cult centre serving neighbouring lowland village communities.

Finds include many human skeletons and secondary burials sealed under lime-plastered surfaces. Spectacular remains include human skulls with the facial features modelled in lime-plaster. One was found with an otherwise complete but headless gazelle carcass. Other unique associations of human and animal remains are also documented at the site. These provide evidence for the emergence of differential status.

Abundant chipped stone, ground stone tool and exotic (mineral, sea shell) finds attest to extensive exchange networks. The animal remains from cult contexts and for food are numerous - although most were hunted, some may relate to incipient animal domestication. There is evidence for extensive lime-plaster manufacture at the site; an experimental program of this early pyrotechnology is being conducted on-site.

[Solomon]

Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls

Pope OKs opening of St. Paul's tomb
Investigators to remove plug from stone coffin, insert probe

Eighteen months after the sarcophagus believed to have once contained the remains of St. Paul the apostle was positively identified by Vatican archaeologists, Pope Benedict XVI has given his approval to plans by investigators to examine the interior of the ancient stone coffin with an optical probe, according to a German Catholic paper.

As WND reported in 2005, the sarcophagus was discovered during excavations in 2002 and 2003 around the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls in south Rome.

"The tomb that we discovered is the one that the popes and the Emperor Theodosius [A.D. 379-395] saved and presented to the whole world as being the tomb of the apostle," said Giorgio Filippi, a specialist with the Vatican Museums.

The excavation was conducted after the administrator of St. Paul's basilica, Archbishop Francesco Gioia, received inquiries about the location of the apostle's tomb from thousands of pilgrims visiting during the Jubilee Year of 2000.

Over the centuries, the basilica grew over the small church built at the burial site early in the 4th century. While the authenticity of the site � or at least, the authenticity conferred by the actions of Theodosius � was not in doubt, repeated enlargements and rebuildings, as well as a fire in 1823, meant the exact location of the sarcophagus was lost for many years.

"There has been no doubt for the past 20 centuries that the tomb is there. It was variously visible and not visible in times past and then it was covered up. We made an opening (in the basilica floor) to make it visible at least in part," Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, archpriest of the basilica, told Reuters last year.

An initial survey of the basilica enabled archaeologists to reconstruct the fourth century building's original shape.

The Vatican team found the sarcophagus during a second excavation under the basilica's main altar.

Under the altar, a marble plaque is visible, dating to the 4th century, bearing the inscription "Apostle Paul, martyr."

Surprisingly, said Filippi, "nobody ever thought to look behind that plaque," where the Vatican team found the sarcophagus.

"We tried to X-ray it to see what was inside but the stone was too thick," said Montezemolo.

Since the rediscovery of the tomb, measuring approximately eight feet long, four feet wide and 3 feet high, archaeologists have cleared away centuries of debris and plaster that surrounded the site. According to Kath.net, investigators have been given permission to remove a plug with which the coffin has been sealed so an endoscopic probe can be inserted and images of the contents captured.

"Absolute proof that it holds St. Paul's bones is impossible," Leonard Rutgers, an archaeologist at the University of Utrecht who visited the excavation, told Archaeology magazine in April.

St. Paul's remains were removed from the original burial site in A.D. 258, according to documentary evidence, reburied in another part of Rome, and then moved back to the site of the basilica when it was built over the original church in the late fourth century.

"So they were schlepping these bones around a lot," says Rutgers. "It's hard to say if the remains in the sarcophagus itself belong to the saint. But it is still a significant late-fourth-century burial."

The Bible does not state how Paul died. Many scholars believe he was beheaded in Rome in about A.D. 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The "apostle to the gentiles," as he described himself, was the most prolific of all the New Testament writers.

Basilica di San Paolo fuori le Mura � known in English as the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls or St Paul-without-the-Walls � is one of five churches considered to be the great ancient basilicas of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church counts among them St. John Lateran, St. Lawrence outside the Walls, St. Mary Major, and St. Peter's. Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, named in 2005, is the current archpriest of this basilica.

History
The basilica was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine I over what was believed to be the burial place of Saint Paul, where it was said that, after the Apostle's execution, his followers erected a memorial, called a cella memoriae, over his grave. This first edifice was expanded under Valentinian I.

In 386, Emperor Theodosius I began the erection of a much larger and more beautiful basilica with a nave and four aisles with a transept; the work including the mosaics was not completed till the pontificate of Leo I. In the 5th century it was even larger than the Old St. Peter's Basilica. The Christian poet Prudentius, who saw it at the time of emperor Honorius, describes the splendours of the monument in a few, expressive lines. As it was dedicated also to Saints Taurinus and Herculanus, martyrs of Ostia in the 5th century, it was called the basilica trium Dominorum ("basilica of Three Lords").

Under Gregory the Great (590-604) the basilica was again extensively modified: the pavement was raised, in order to place the altar directly over Paul's tomb. A confession permitted the access to the Apostle sepulchre. In that period there were two monasteries near the basilica: St. Aristus's for men and St. Stefano's for women. Services were carried out by a special body of clerics instituted by Pope Simplicius. In the course of time the monasteries and the clergy of the basilica declined; Pope Saint Gregory II restored the former and entrusted the monks with the care of the basilica.

As it lied outside the Aurelian Walls, the basilica was damaged the Saracen invasions in the 9th century. In consequence of this Pope John VIII fortified the basilica, the monastery, and the dwellings of the peasantry, forming the town of Joannispolis (Italian: Giovannipoli: it existed until 1348 when an earthquake totally destroyed it.

In 937, when Saint Odo of Cluny came to Rome, Alberic II of Spoleto, Patrician of Rome, entrusted the monastery and basilica to his congregation and Odo placed Balduino of Monte Cassino in charge. Pope Gregory VII was abbot of the monastery and in his time Pantaleone of Amalfi presented the bronze doors of the basilica maior, which were executed by Constantinopolitan artists. Pope Martin V entrusted it to the monks of the Congregation of Monte Cassino. It was then made an abbey nullius. The jurisdiction of the abbot extended over the districts of Civitella San Paolo, Leprignano and Nazzano, all of which formed parishes; the parish of San Paolo in Rome, however, is under the jurisdiction of the cardinal vicar.


The Holy Door

The graceful cloister of the monastery was erected between 1220 and 1241.

From 1215 until 1964 it was the seat of the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria.

On 15 July 1823 a fire, started through the negligence of a workman who was repairing the lead of the roof, resulted in the almost total destruction of the basilica. Alone of all the churches of Rome, it had preserved its primitive character for 1435 years. The whole world contributed to its restoration. The Viceroy of Egypt sent pillars of alabaster, the Emperor of Russia the precious malachite and lapis lazuli of the tabernacle. The work on the principal facade, looking toward the Tiber, was completed by the Italian Government, which declared the church a national monument.

The basilica was reopened in 1840, but it was reconsecrated only fifteen years later at the presence of Pope Pius IX with fifty cardinals. On 23 April 1891 an explosion at Porta Portese destroyed the stained glasses.

On 31 May 2005 Pope Benedict XVI ordered the Basilica to come under the control of an Archpriest. That same day he named Archbishop Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo as its first archpriest.


Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, Archpriest of Rome's Basilica of St. Paul's Outside-the-Walls, shows the passageway through which one side of St. Paul's stone coffin is visible
Photograph by Alessandra Tarantino/AP

Excavation of the tomb of St. Paul
The chronicle of the Benedictine monastery attached to the basilica mentions, in regard to this rebuilding, the finding of a big marble sarcophagus on top of which were two slabs with the words "Paulo Apostolo Mart(yri)" (To Paul the Apostle and Martyr). However, unlike other sarcophagi found at that time, this was not mentioned in the excavation papers.

On 6 December 2006, it was announced that Vatican archaeologists had discovered, beneath the altar, a sarcophagus that may perhaps contain the remains of the Apostle. A press conference was held on 11 December 2006[4] gave more details of the work of excavation, which lasted from 2002 to 22 September 2006, and which was begun after pilgrims to the basilica during the Jubilee year of 2000 expressed disappointment that the Apostle's tomb could not be visited or touched. A decision is pending on whether to examine the inside of the sarcophagus to see if it contains human remains. In fact, the sarcophagus has not yet been extracted from its position, so that only one of its two narrow sides is visible.

A curved line of bricks indicating the outline of the apse of the Constantinian basilica was discovered immediatedly to the west of the sarcophagus, showing that the original basilica had its entrance to the east, like Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. The larger 386 basilica that replaced it had the Via Ostiense (the road to Ostia) to the east and so was extended westward, towards the river Tiber, changing the orientation diametrically.