1 John 5

Introduction

As I begin to write this paper, I have recently seen internet stories about how people keep reporting seeing Tasmanian Tigers. This animal has been officially extinct since back in the 1930's, yet people still think they are seeing them, sometimes within the familiarity of their own backyard. Some "experts" admit that while unlikely this is possible. A couple ornithologists reported possibly hearing an Ivory Billed Woodpecker deep within an old growth swamp a few years ago also, again well after the species was reportedly extinct, but actually within the realm of possibility if this was the last, or one of the last, surviving birds. The last reported sighting of the Dodo bird came well after the last official sighting, but still quite some time ago, and was reported by a slave that had escaped his master and made it through a jungle where Dodoes had once lived. Now to pull from the records of UFO's, there were multiple reports of triangular shaped UFO's over some parts of the USA at night, or in the darkness, for a couple decades prior to the announcement that a new, triangular shaped bomber (the B-1) had been developed. We cannot be exactly certain what was seen or heard in any of these cases, but they fall into a probable window of opportunity. The exact dates for when creatures or other things can be observed and when they actually are officially observable do not always overlap, especially at these outer edges of chance.

Now if the Shroud of Turin is really the burial cloth of Jesus, it should be possible to see it back in the 1 st century i , but no one has seen it that far back. The earliest we have confirmed sightings is from the 6 th century. Jack Markwardt has reported possible evidence of it in Syrian Antioch a couple centuries earlier, but these are unconfirmed sightings, within the range of possibility but still unconfirmed.

The thesis for this paper is that the Shroud of Turin might have been spotted in a place that is very familiar to many people, that is the New Testament ii . Now to examine this we will be in part going deep into an old growth realm but with modern assistance, namely consciousness studies iii . We will venture into a historic jungle where not many people venture, that being Biblical Greek. We will attempt to see what is partially concealed in the darkness of tradition as traditional translations are questioned. Now in the course of this examination it would be nice to be able to say that so and so had the Shroud at this time, or that the Shroud was in such and such a place at this time, but beyond agreeing with de Wesselow iv that it sounds like the Shroud was in Damascus v , probably in 33 or 34 vi , and that Paul encountered it, I will pass on where it was and who had it. I also agree with de Wesselow that the Shroud was heavily involved with the resurrection, and might be the risen body that was referred to. vii I will also, at present, side with Rogers that the image is a result of amine gases reacting with carbohydrates that would have vanished rapidly under the presence of fluids from a decaying body. Thus I find the key miracle to be related to the miracle of the escaping Israelites crossing the Red Sea. There is one point where there is an arm of the Red Sea that separates the Sinai from the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula and where there is a rock formation a few feet below the surface that will be exposed from shore to shore when the wind from the east is strong enough, allowing passage on dry land viii . Thus the miracle is not that the passage was possible, but rather that the passage was possible at just the right time. I find that the miracle with the resurrection/Shroud was not that it occurred, but rather that it was visible at just the right time, and was rescued before the image could be destroyed. That is to say, buried too early and the image would be destroyed before it could be seen, buried too late and the image would not be formed when it would be seen. Too much hesitation and concern over a graven image, as would be possible for devote Jews, and the image would have been seen and lost.

In support for the possibility of the Shroud being a 1 st century relic as opposed to a medieval forgery as suggested by the 1988 carbon dating is Dr. Rogers finding in 2005 ix that indicates that against long odds, the sample that was dated actually came from a medieval patch. Thus the carbon dating was correct, but the conclusion from it was incorrect. It is further bolstered by forensic analysis of both the Shroud and the Sudarium, a blood stained cloth kept in Spain since the 7 th century, that strongly suggests (actually a forensic certainty) that both cloths were in contact with the same face at some time. Additionally there are new dating methods for linen fibers that are not yet generally accepted that bypass problems associated with the 1534 Chambries fire that have been designed by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeto. These datings give a far wider range of acceptable dates, but there are three of them and the only range where all three intersect is the first century CE x . I personally like the suggestion I have seen made that pollen associated with the Jerusalem area be carbon dated. Pollen previously collected for research purposes, and with permission, should be readily available. Pollen that dates to the 1 st century collected from the Shroud should be a reasonable indicator that the Shroud was at least that old.

Anyway, in any paper presenting a controversial point of view, it seems to me to be proper for the presenter to have done their homework very well, not just to prove their point but also to try to disprove it. In my case I, once I thought I spotted the Shroud in the New Testament, I assigned myself the task of finding reasons to disbelieve it, and granted myself three months to find reasons. I have violated that three month period I admit, but only after looking at a fair amount of evidence and continually finding the same claims, and also having found evidence to counter them that none of the traditional understandings mention.

Textual Considerations

But let us look at what I think might be evidence of the Shroud in the New Testament briefly. Once we look at it, we will wander away for a while before returning, and when we return I will offer a different translation than is traditional, but at that point I hope my different translation will be beginning to be acceptable.

1 John 5:6-8 xi : This is the one who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ. He did not come by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The Gospel of John, along with that of Mark, differ from the other gospels, Matthew and Luke, in that they do not include any birth narratives. In fact, this omission is one reason why the gospel accounts are not considered to be Greco-Roman biographies. These biographies tended to follow a set pattern, especially royal biographies, that included birth stories that indicated the significance of the infant xxiii , either prior to birth or immediately subsequent to birth. That this style was known within Jewish circles is indicated by Josephus' account of the life of Izates of Adiabene xxiv . Izates is identified as a great king via a dream his father has when placing his hand on his pregnant wife's belly in his sleep and he, that is Izates' father, is told to remove it. In Matthew, xxv Joseph is warned in a dream not to abandon Mary as she carries a special son, and in Luke, Mary is told of the specialness of the infant she is carrying by her cousin in response to how the cousin's unborn infant xxvi is acting. Also in Matthew there is the account of the wise men from the East coming to worship the newborn king, and a subsequent account of a flight into Egypt by the family xxvii . But one key in these two accounts is that they fit the Greco-Roman royal biography style, which neither Mark nor John do. This raises the question, since Matthew and especially Luke, seem to have a much better grasp of Greek than does the author of John, why did the author not follow the lead of these apparently more scholarly writers when he composed his account, assuming it is later. My suggestion would be that the examples set by the authors of Matthew xxviii and Luke was not followed because John preceded these works, not followed them xxix .

There is thus reason to question when these works were first composed (it seems likely that all the gospels have been redacted somewhat from their original wording, but that is not of major significance at this point, perhaps another paper), would be relevant. Here I shall be very brief, with just a few 4 comments about my logic xxx . I find it significant that the Gospel of Matthew seems to easily fall into a pattern of five major blocks, with an introduction (birth account) and an epilogue (death account) which many scholars have compared to the five books of the Torah. It likewise seems to attempt to present Jesus as a new lawgiver like Moses. These points, along with the insertion of the magi from the East coming to worship the infant suggests to me a target audience of the Eastern diaspora Jews. They are being summoned to join the new exodus, follow the new Moses, and reclaim the Holy Land. This would fit quite well with one period, 66-67 CE xxxi when the Jewish Rebellion was beginning and the Romans seemed to be losing.

The Gospel of Luke, and its second part, The Acts of the Apostles, seems to me to be a little later work xxxii . Here I find the important aspects to be that Jesus seems to be very accepting of the Romans and not wishing any difficulties with them. He was born into Roman territory, to parents who were being good Roman subjects xxxiii and following the wishes of the Roman government. John the Baptist might be a bit of a rabble-rouser, but Jesus, whom he proclaims as the coming Messiah, is not presented as the military type leader that was expected xxxiv , but rather proclaims that His kingdom is not of this world xxxv , and thus no threat to Rome. If we then fast forward to Acts 2 and the account of Pentecost, the regions represented by the Jews of many nations are interesting. Several parts of the Roman Empire are identified, all of which were early supporters of Vespasian in his bid to become emperor. Babylon is one area that might be viewed as questionable, as it was part of the general Parthian kingdom, but it was also a region known to be sympathetic to Rome as well as the home of a large percentage of the Parthian Jewish population , and Parthia in general, also mentioned, reportedly offered Vespasian 40,000 troops to assist him. Thus every place cited in this passage, with the sole possible exception of Rome, was behind Vespasian. I therefore suspect that these two works date from the era 68-70 CE, when the Jewish Rebellion was clearly swinging towards a Roman victory under Vespasian's leadership and thus evading what could be seen as a serious threat to Roman dominance, and Christians would have incentive to disconnect from the rebelling Jews.

My proposed datings of Matthew and Luke/Acts would thus suggest that if John is earlier xxxvi , that John must date prior to 65 CE. I would even go so far as to suggest that if Josephus was accurate in his presentation of Izates as supposed to be a great military leader, that the death of Izates, somewhere in the mid to late 50's CE could have been a factor in prompting writing the gospel accounts of Mark (to the Gentiles) and John (to the Jews, probably the Essene/Nazarite community xxxvii ). I would date them no earlier though, than the reported 1 st Jerusalem council of 49 CE xxxviii (approximately) when a decision was reportedly made to divide the evangelism tasks with one branch addressing the Jews and the other addressing the Gentiles. Such a dating also makes it far easier for an eyewitness of the life of Jesus to have written both the Gospel account and the homily/epistle, as I have suggested.

Another benefit from this earlier dating is that it allows greater latitude in regards as to the possible audience. I see connections with the anti-Hellenistic, anti-Roman Essene/Nazarene community. The language of the Dead Sea Scrolls seems to fit as well with the language of the Gospel of John xxxix , and 1 John, as does a generic Greek philosophical approach xl .

Assuming this audience would also fit with the tacit acknowledgement in Acts that there was a connection between the Essene/Nazarite community and the early church xli . The official priests of Judaism were associated with the Saducees, and were not known for belief in an afterlife. Yet in Acts there is a claim that a number of priests joined the movement xlii . This claim can be most easily explained 5 by a recognition that the Essene/Nazarite community seemed to maintain a separate priesthood xliii , one that was kept pure from the defilement of the Greek community. Tradition holds that the high priest of this alternate order was James (more properly Jacob) the brother of Jesus xliv . The claimed differences between the calendar maintained by the Essene/Nazarite community xlv and that of official Judaism would allow for the traditions of James entering the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice on Yom Kippur without conflict with the official priesthood xlvi . It was also reported that just as the early church in Acts xlvii maintained a community property type fellowship that also the Essene community did, with no private property xlviii . Likewise if Jesus followed this unofficial calendar of the Essenes then the "Last Supper" could have fallen on a Wednesday night and been a Passover meal xlix , and also grant more time for the back and forth between Pilate and Herod of the trial l , as well as time for a crown of thorns to be made and used as well as a scourging.

But let us first look to see what "hidden" evidence there is in the New Testament to support this possible view. The Gospel of John is often seen as anti-Semitic, thus unlikely to have been written for a Jewish audience as I have proposed. However, studies of 1 st century writings suggest that rather than such it might rather be seen as typical of how one Jewish group would talk about a different one in the 1 st century. li If John is addressing an Essene/Nazarite group, this would make sense, so what evidence is there to support this (I know I already declared it)? lii Here I would remind that I believe that the Gospel and 1 John were written by the same individual Among the phrases in the Gospel of John that seem to be paralleled in the DSS is John 8:44 are liii The Gospel of John:

The Community Rule/Manual of Discipline Some scholars argue that these comparisons are not close enough to indicate direct dependence, and I agree, but as also noted by these scholars, they do seem to indicate a common source/worldview. Such 6 a commonality is all that I seek, I do not need direct dependence. Drawing from a common source still implies some connection.

Other parallels in thought also occur. These include love of the in-group/brotherly love, as emphasized in John 13: [34][35]15:12,17,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]; confession of sin 1 John 1:8-10, 1QS 1:23-26; and idols 1 John 5:21, 1QS 2.11, 17, 4.5. All these apparent connections, especially in light of the apparent connections from the Synoptic traditions lviii , at least to my mind, strongly suggest that an Essene/ Nazarite community was the targeted audience for the writer of the Gospel of John and 1 John. This audience sought strict adherence to the recorded Mosaic laws, although also being open to some reinterpretation of these by the "Teacher of Righteousness", a major figure in many of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a figure that the gospel writers seem determined to link with Jesus lix .

As a radical interpreter of the Law, the Righteous Teacher advocated a vision of following Moses and the Prophets from a religious and political stance, he and his community must be considered the losers. He met opposition from more powerful priest in Jerusalem, and whoever the "wicked Priest" might have been, this individual apparently asserted his influence against the Teacher. Likewise, the Johannine Jesus challenged the religious leaders in Jerusalem with a vision of adhering to the heart of the Law. The Fourth Gospel alone shows a sustained history of engagement between Jesus and Jerusalem leaders, involving at least four visits to Jerusalem resulting in sustained challenges to Jesus' teachings and authority. lx I doubt that we can conclusively state that John wished to present Jesus as "the Teacher of Righteousness", but I do think that we can state that he wished his audience to see a connection. The "wicked Priest" might remain unidentified, but "some leaders" of the Jews clearly fit the description. It is hard to believe that John was not actively targeting, if not the Qumran community itself, then at least a very sympathetic audience. An audience that would be highly concern with obeying Torah. A community for which we have no record of its existence after 73 CE at the latest lxi .

Exegesis

It is this concern with the Torah that become significant now. Torah requires two or three witness to speak to the truth of something, a single individual is not enough. Thus when John begins his epistle/homily he emphasizes that it is not just his word, but his along with others. He states "(W)har was from the beginning lxii , what we have heard lxiii (spoken by Jesus), what we have seen lxiv (done by Jesus) with our own eyes, what we beheld lxv (what is referred to is unclear at present) and our hands handled lxvi (again what is referenced is unclear at present, but it would be an unlikely way to refer to a contact with a living person) Concerning the Word of Life" lxvii -We can only presume that the listeners would have clearly understood what was being referenced. But it seems likely that it is made clear towards the end of this epistle/homily, in 1 John 5:6-8, as this work seems to be a case of "epideictic" rhetoric where the writer is seeking to affirm already existent values in the listeners. As such he seems to be building towards the high point of their commonalities and following a definite pattern of "A, b', a', B", or stress a position, introduce the next one, reaffirm the first, stress the second. But here John seems to make an introduction that stresses his direct knowledge of something then abandon the topic until near the end when he returns to reference it again and seemingly includes all the listeners in the knowledge of this item.

So let us again review 1 John 5:6-8, with some possible added understandings "This is the one who came by water lxviii and blood lxix (no reason to see a reference to anything other than a normal birth to my mind), Jesus Christ, not with water lxx only but with the water and with the blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth, for there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water and the blood, and the three are lxxi in agreement lxxii ."

One of the first things to be noticed is that Jesus is the one who came, the same expression that was used about Nicodemus coming to Jesus, as well as the term used in the Septuagint for the one who comes in the name of the Lord. It is likewise used in all the Palm Sunday accounts and when Martha identifies Jesus as the one who comes. But another key element will be the last five words though and these are where we will have a major problem. So we will be looking at this more closely, but first let us consider the blood and water versus just water issue with regards to how Jesus came. It would be extremely helpful in understanding this passage if we knew just what was being debated, or more properly claimed by the opponents that John seems to have in mind when he wrote this. They seem to be at least claiming to be of the same community which might imply that they are the same or possibly similar to the people Paul had to deal with in Galatians. lxxiii Now if we are to look at the gospel accounts, the phrase "en hydati" is always associated with John the Baptist's ministry. This could imply that here it refers to Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, and the writer of this epistle, could be accepting that this did occur, but it also seems to imply that there are some opponents who consider this the point where Jesus became the Christ, based on the inclusion of blood and the observation that it was not by water alone. If this is accepted as the beginning, then the blood would likely be referring to the end of His ministry on the cross, and the final marker that Jesus was in some way a special representative of God. Thus understanding goes back at least as far as Tertullian and would seem to be supported by what Irenaeus claimed about proto-gnostic teachings in Ephesus, which is one location linked with the Apostle John and both the Gospel and the Epistle. A variation on this was proposed by Augustine and other ancient commentators suggesting that water and blood is what flowed from Jesus' side when he was stabbed by the centurion. However against this we might note that in the gospel accounts "blood and water" flow from Jesus' side but here it is "water and blood". I would thus suggest that this refers to something other than the stabbing by the centurion. But this does not explain the initial water unless it is a reference back to His baptism. Overall there seems to be little doubt that this first reference to water is a reference to Jesus' baptism by John, and that this somehow was involved in whatever controversy had arisen. However, the reference to water and blood remains to be resolved.

A second interpretation would be that this refers to a baptizing ministry of Jesus that He began following the removal of John the Baptist's ministry, even if carried out by His disciples lxxiv . An implication of this would be for the reference to "haimatos" to be a reference to His "baptism of the Spirit" which followed His earthly ministry, and the "new covenant" in His blood lxxv . This notion of a "new covenant in His blood requires some additional thought. However, it was widely accepted that a covenant with God required blood, harkening back to the sacrificial practices, and the expected "new covenant" as expressed by the Essene community seems to have been more a notion of the "Teacher of Righteousness" revealing a new understanding of the Torah, or "Teachings" than any sort of totally new covenantal relationship between Israel and Yahweh. It harkens back to Jeremiah's call for a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:30-34 which is a suggestion not of changing the covenant but rather of making 8 it more personal and more immediate to the individual. Rather than the covenant being written externally on stone, that the covenant would be internalized within the individual and thus personalized.

A third option would be that this is a "hendiadys", a Greek rhetorical technique of using two different words to describe something, much like a "black and blue mark" signifies a bruise, this time suggesting that Jesus was fully human, although I am not aware of this being done in any other place in the available Greek literature. But again why the first reference to water, unless it was, as is as previously suggested, something claimed by the opponents. Another factor that might be worthy of consideration in this passage is that the adjective in Greek changes between the first reference to water and blood and the second. In the first case it is "through" (dia) while the second uses "in" ("hen"), but this might also just be stylistic. But I think that as we continue, the differences will become more apparent and significant. The birth of Jesus was through normal means, but in my opinion (still to be supported) the clear establishment or declaration of His being the Christ also included water and blood in a visible record.

Now I acknowledge that I already betrayed my stance for the first mention, and I am not alone in thinking that this suggests a normal birth lxxvi . But I also see, again as do others, a significance in the second reference. Here, for those who see these two citations as referencing different things the second reference is considered to be Jesus death. I will be differing to an extent, but let us first continue looking at what might be being said. A different one sees these references as being to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, although it would seem difficult to be certain that Christian theology had developed to that extent even by late in the 1 st century, let alone as early as I wish to place both the gospel and the epistle. However both Martin Luther and John Calvin perceived this as well as others have. I suspect this interpretation is mostly a reading back into the New Testament of current issues. Also as is noted by many scholars, the tense of the verb for "coming" refers to an ongoing action in the past lxxvii , but not the present which would seem required by a Eucharistic understanding.

A fourth understanding, as pointed out by Colin Kruse, would suggest that referencing water and blood would have been, for the ancient Jews, a different way of saying in the flesh. That is, water and blood are two major components of the body, so by listing both the entire body is implied and is another way of saying that Jesus was fully human lxxviii . This then would be a counter to having come by just water, which in John's gospel seems linked to the spirit, thus the presumed opponents of John implying that Jesus was somehow less than fully human, or perhaps that the Christ aspect of Jesus was distinct from His humanity. All in all though, I will stick to my previously admitted conclusion that it is a reference to a normal birth for Jesus and a refutation of any sense that His Christ nature was somehow independent of His humanity. Rather I see this as emphasizing His unity within Himself and with the rest of humanity lxxix . Now as we move on we get into a new problem, for "it is the Spirit who bears witness, for the Spirit is Truth". The Greek here is nice and straight forward, I see no serious translation problems as such lxxx . However, we do have a problem in what it means for the "Spirit to bear witness". This I find to be a crucial question because in the next verse, the Spirit will be one of three witnesses, along with water and blood, who all testify. So how may the Spirit testify or bear witness? What the witness is to would seem abundantly clear to be that Jesus is the Christ. That the Spirit is true is simply a reaffirmation of what has been already stated numerous time in both the Gospel and the Epistle lxxxi , but more on this later. Further John is willing to emphasize the indwelling Spirit lxxxii as does Paul lxxxiii , but is this bearing witness something objective or is it only subjective. Here tradition seems to wish to say that it is only subjective. That it is only the indwelling Spirit that bears witness, thus only someone who is already a believer can access this testimony. If this is the proper interpretation it will cause trouble for our next verse where the three witnesses are called forth, two objective and one subjective, and this would be a violation of Torah. It seems that according to Torah, all witness must be independent lxxxiv , a subjective witness is not independent lxxxv . In light of this, let us move on to the next verse.

"For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (1 John 5:8 "The three ("tries" a numerical recognized as three, no problem) are in agreement ("heis", a numerical recognized as one) followed by "to hen eisen" or "these, they, some form of a definite article", "one" {again, just a different form of the word due to grammatical conditions} "are"). This is an extremely awkward way of expressing agreement, as has been noted by some scholars, although bafflement over what could be referred is most often included. I have likewise seen many scholars who suggest that this is an expression from Aramaic that translates poorly into Greek. However, since John, assuming it is the same person as the author of the Gospel of John, should know how to express agreement in Greek as many of his contemporaries do, including Paul and the writers of the Septuagint. John may have been a fisherman, but this is not the low class job we tend to view it as today, but rather a skilled position, a businessman's status in a world of largely unskilled workers. This status has also been true for much of history until rather modern times. In fact the first colonial governor of New Hampshire had been a fisherman lxxxvi . And as for this being a poor transliteration from the Aramaic, I have checked with a friend who knows Aramaic lxxxvii , and in fact is working to reverse translate many sayings of Jesus, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount, back into a probable original Aramaic, as to whether this explanation is plausible or not. He states that he knows of no saying in Aramaic that would be translated that way into Greek to imply agreement. But if we take this literal translation we have "the three are one (thing) [it is actually rather difficult to avoid this implication] we need a different explanation. So let us then begin an investigation into what might be being referenced here and referred to as "Spirit". Is it possible to uncover what John was referring to?

The term "pneuma" or "spirit" is used in a variety of ways in ancient Greek as well as the biblical record. It can refer to breath, wind or the vital force of life. And as either breath or wind it carries a multitude of implications, from a gentle breeze to a hurricane force wind, from normal breath to gasping for air to a dying breath. As related to the life force it can be manifested as the life within a person, prophetic abilities, perhaps triggered only by God's intervention or perhaps not, artistic abilities, again linked with God or not, and a multitude of other aspects. It can be visible as vapor or its presence may be known only by what it moves as the wind that moves the trees for example. It is a difficult term to pin down, but we must try if we are to understand what is being referenced here. And as noted earlier, it seems that it must be objective, thus something that anyone could see if they allow themselves to do so.

We will now be venturing into a realm that rarely comes up in biblical studies, that of consciousness, which includes many aspects including ancient philosophies and Near Death Experiences (NDE's) among a synopsis of others. I imagine that most are familiar at least with Plato's Allegory of the Cave but even so I will borrow it to ensure that all know at least the general idea.

In the dialogue, Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine a cave, in which prisoners are kept. These prisoners have been in the cave since their childhood, and each of them is held there in a peculiar manner. They are all chained so that their legs and necks are immobile, forced to look at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is a fire and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, on which people can walk.

These people are puppeteers, and they are carrying objects, in the shape of human and animal figures, as well as everyday items. The prisoners could only see these flickering images on the wall, since they could not move their heads; and so, naturally enough, they presumed the images to be real, rather than just shadowy representations of what is actually real.

In fact, Socrates claimed, the images on the wall would be so real that the prisoners would assign prestige among each other to the one who could recall the most detail about the shapes, the order in which they appeared and which might typically be found together or in tandem. Of course, Socrates would point out, this was hollow praise, since in fact the images were not real.

Then Socrates offered a twist in the plot -what if one of the prisoners were to be freed and made to turn and look at the fire? The bright light would hurt his eyes, as accustomed as he was to the shadows, and even in turning back to the wall and its flickering images (which would be only natural), the prisoner couldn't help but notice that they weren't real at all, but only shadows of the real items on the walkway behind him. If the prisoner was then taken from the cave and brought into the open, the disorientation would be even more severe; the light of the sun would be much more brilliant than the fire. But, as his eyes adjusted, the newly freed prisoner would be able to see beyond only shadows; he would see dimensions and reflections in the water (even of himself).

After learning of the reality of the world, the prisoner now sees how 'pitiable' his former colleagues in the cave really are. If he returned to the cave and rejoined them, he would take no pleasure in their accolades or praise for knowledge of the shadow-figures. For their own part, the prisoners would see him as deranged, not really knowing what reality is and would say of him that he left the cave and returned with corrupted eyes.

Socrates' (and Plato's) point is that, once we understand what reality is (the forms), it is the job of the informed to lead the ignorant 'out of the cave' and into true knowledge. This means, of course, that those who still are uninformed will resist, since, after all, the cave is all they've ever known. But, this doesn't change the obligation of the enlightened philosopher to try (and keep trying) to help his fellow citizens. lxxxviii

Exactly what lies behind Plato's thought here may be debated, but I tend to go with what many scholars have come to think and believe that if it is not the result of an NDE lxxxix (I know of no clear evidence for this), then it probably was the result of meditation and mindfulness training that can lead to experiences that are indistinguishable from an NDE xc . One relatively recent NDE account notes when the individual returned to their body that "I couldn't help but think that I had been dropped back into the dreamworld. This place, this 'reality,' seemed so much foggier and darker than the other place. So much less real" xci , while another notes "what was beyond the mist that made up my body, the sofa, the room, the universe--everything. I slowly realized that these things were insubstantial and that there was only one reality and I could sense the reality behind the insubstantiality of matter xcii ". The August 2015 NDE account from IANDS is from a person whose health was not in any danger at the time of her experience. But in all these accounts, the consistent message regarding reality is that the spiritual reality is far more real than our physical one, and this is consistent with Plato's allegory of the cave.

Now admittedly case studies such as the ones just referred to are unusual in biblical studies. But then a clear understanding of "Spirit" is likewise lacking. In proposing that Consciousness Studies might hold the key I am, by implication, calling for more case studies in order to understand what "Spirit" might mean xciii .

Now for a less formal case study, one in which I am not quoting directly but which is available in full in Rev. Dr. Ben Arlen Johnson's (a former professor of mine) book, We Are Not Alone: Evidence of the Supernatural Among Ordinary People. Dr. Johnson tells of an incident involving the Rev Elaine L. and her mother (Okay I knew Elaine also, as well as many other people associated with Dr. Johnson's seminary years referenced in the book). Rev. Elaine was working as a chaplain at Robinson Memorial Hospital when her mother was a patient there. Rev. Elaine got word that her uncle, her mother's only brother, had died and she promptly issued orders that her mother not be told, that she would deliver the news herself as soon as she had a chance. When Rev Elaine got to her mother's room, her mother announced that her brother was dead. Rev Elaine wanted to know who told her and her mother responded that he had, he appeared in the window, she was on the 6 th floor with no adjacent balcony or rooftop near, and told her that he had died. xciv This seems to be an example of "Spirit" communicating truth.

Now the objection might well be raised that these are contemporary phenomena, and this is true as far as it goes. However, there is strong similarities between the contemporary experiences and historically recorded ones. The historic accounts include Plato's story of the soldier Er that is recorded in "The Republic: Book 10", Additional early and very similar accounts might be found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead", especially chapter 5. Likewise the "Egyptian Book of the Dead "seems to draw on these type of experiences. Other ancient sources that many scholars believe draw on these experiences include the Gilgamesh Epic and somewhat surprisingly for many people, the 23 rd Psalm xcv . Whether or not the account of Lazarus could be used in questionable, but prior to Moody's development of the term "Near Death Experience" the phenomena was known in medical circles, when rarely referenced, as a "Lazarus Experience". Another ancient phenomena that has contemporary correlations is a report of music. A pastor reported regarding a parishioner who was dying:

Occasionally I would visit her as she moved toward death. She was very lucid, and could talk about either the present or the past with equal clarity. She caught my special attention when she told me one day that she was hearing music. I had heard about this experience in ancient literature, but had never heard about it in a contemporary experience. (Actually this phenomena is well documented in NDE literature so this speaks more to the pastor's lack of knowledge in this realm.)

The music had been known since the Greek philosopher Pythagoras. It was identified as "the music of the spheres". It was so named because it was thought to be music made by the heavenly bodies in their rotation. While it had been known for centuries, in the period of the Enlightenment it was discounted.

Betty was the first person I ever met who spoke of it. And according to her, she heard it frequently before she died. xcvi Likewise more recently collected accounts, from the 18 th and 19 th centuries as well as the 20 th and 21 st , and also accounts collected from various cultures, including Native American, Muslim, Chinese, Japanese and Maori, also show remarkable consistency xcvii . Given this continuity across centuries and cultures, I feel it is legitimate to use contemporary examples to make my point regarding ancient experiences, just as is done in more material cases. Just as the laws of physics and chemistry seem to have remained consistent, so I consider the rules of the spirit realm to be consistent over time.

Now to return to contemporary accounts to continue to establish that scripture speaks truly of the Spirit being or bearing Truth and that it can be an independent witness. Another example exhibits a person obtaining knowledge of the death of his grandfather while both were in hospitals, roughly 200 miles apart. He had a heart attack and been defibrillated multiple times.

We were both kept alive through the night, but the next morning we both had heart attacks again. At that time I had my NDE. …As I got closer to this group I recognized my grandmother, my great-uncle Glenn, my great-aunt Lula, my great-aunt Wanda, her husband, Lee, a woman that was like a grandmother to my sister and me. And then a group of people that thought I knew but at that time I couldn't put names to their faces. I tried to speak to them but all they would say to me is 'We're not waiting for you; go home'. Another incident related by Dr. Long concerned a 5 year old who was told to go home by a family friend at a time she knew she was out of her body, and only afterwards learned that this family friend had died. She also claimed to have met a friendly young girl in that other realm, only to find out that she had had a sister who died before she was born. xcix Another account of his is of an 11 year old who was in an auto accident. The child was told she had to return and help the driver:

The voice said, "His nose is cut off his face, you will need to go back and help him; he is bleeding to death." I said, "No let somebody else do it. He will be fine without my help. I do not want to go back down there. No!" The voice said, "I will tell you what to do. You take off his shirt after. I am with you as always." (I knew I was never alone from as far back as I could remember.) So then Jennifer, you will begin to walk him up the right side of the road, and a car will come. Tell the man to take you to the nearest hospital. Keep the man calm, and lead him to the hospital were you were born. You know the way and everything will be all right. You must do you pick up his nose off the floorboard of the car. It will be next to your feet and his right foot. Place his nose on his face. Pressing down to stop the bleeding. It's just blood, so do not be afraid of this. Understand?"

Jennifer goes on to say that when she returned to her body everything happened as she was told by the spiritual being. A car stopped and carried them to the hospital where she was born. She was able to calm both the anxious driver and the accident victim who had lost his nose. c I will now, for a time at least, just paraphrase some accounts with reference for any who wish to look at my sources. Dr. Monica Williams -Murphy was visibly pregnant with her third child when a patient in his 30's was admitted to the emergency room with no visible signs of life, although actions were taken to resuscitate him. It was eventually determined that he had narcotic patches on his back, which probably contributed to an overdose. A heart beat was restored, but with no other signs of life, and at that point he was sent to the ICU with a query as to whether or not he was a registered organ donor as his survival was extremely unlikely. Approximately six months later Dr. Monica was asked to meet with a young man with a cane who had walked in, asking to speak with her. When she met the person he commented on her having had the baby and asked how the infant girl was. In response to her shocked reaction, he told her that he had been admitted to the ER six months earlier and she had been the physician who saved his life. He described what had been done and by whom, including comments made them, not by name so much as by description. He likewise acknowledged a prior problem with pain killers that had led to his crisis, but claimed that he was no longer addicted and was in fact a changed person. He did not provide many fuller details though of what he had been through. But he did provide sufficient details to convince a trained ER physician that he had been aware of his surroundings when evidentially dead. ci

Another case that is recorded in multiple sources involved a specific cardiac surgeon who had the habit of using his elbows to direct assistants toward various needed items. In one reported NDE, a patient who was having open heart surgery commented about the surgeon flapping his elbows around as if he was trying to fly while the patient's chest was open. Multiple other medical personnel at the hospital were able to confirm this habit and that to the best of their knowledge it was unique to this specific doctor. cii Many further accounts of veridical, anomalous experiences associated with Near Death Experiences may be found in The Self Does Not Die and Science and the Near Death Experience as well as in other works referenced in the bibliography. As for objectivity involving more than one individual, in the two volume work, Phantasms of the Living, Edmund Gurney, Frederic William Henry Myers and Frank Podmore, there is an entire chapter in Volume two devoted to encounters witnessed by two or more people, pages 600-641 ciii . But this does not speak to the image on the Shroud.

The image as spirit is a harder thing to establish, however there are still hints. One of these hints comes from the NDE of a 17 year old girl, "I remember looking at my hands and they were translucent." civ A second mention of being translucent comes from an account first presented in the late 1800's, "I slowly rose and expanded into the full stature of a man. I seemed to be translucent, of a bluish cast". cv I also recall reading a post on Facebook from a reported "sensitive" that quite often images of spirits appear much like photographic negatives, but unfortunately I cannot locate that specific post again, although I do know the person who made it.

Let us know return to the Bible though to see if there might be any more hints within it. Here we find the earliest reference to the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, quite plausibly dating to the very early 50's CE. In this passage though there is no indication that the appearance to the Apostle Paul was any different than the appearance to anyone else, unlike the description found in Acts. Rather Paul states that Jesus "appeared" ("harao" cvi ) to various persons concluding with his appearing (again "harao") to Paul. The usage of this verb does allow, like some suggest cvii , that this was simply a vision cviii . A mass hallucination is likewise ruled out because by definition, a hallucination is caused by a specific firing sequence of neurons in the brain and is not communicable between people by any means other than suggestion, and there is no hint of suggestion here either. The next two recorded appearances are in the gospels of Mark and John (again I date these to the mid 50's), and in neither case was there immediate recognition. In Mark there was a young man dressed in white who advised the women of the resurrection while in John there seems to be a case of carefully looking ("theomai" as discussed earlier) at something in order to realize that the resurrection had taken place (by Peter), although the "beloved disciple" does just look ("harao") to have faith. I will ignore Matthew and Luke in this matter because they are derivative accounts.

We may then move on a few verses to where makes his argument that if Christ has not been raised then Christians are foolish, verses 12-19, which he concludes by affirming that Christ was raised from the dead (verse 20). Paul will continue with this line of argument for a while, but he never makes a clear statement as to the nature of a resurrected body, even though he has claimed to have seen it. This section is clearly the high point of his epistle cix , the true concluding section, but all Paul does is affirm the spiritual nature of the resurrected body. We are again thrust into an understanding of what "spirit" is for guidance. It seems clear, at least to me, that Paul was not totally certain how to describe "spirit" which makes it even more problematic for modern day scholars.

In the earliest written language, we hear their questions (already posed in this article as "What does it mean to be non-alive? Where do we go?") woven into metaphors of darkness and light, death and rebirth. Across thousands of years we can still dimly see that they understood their non-physical experiences as a part of reality, and that, like us, they longed for reassurance. The sum total of their human experience was held in paintings and intricate metalwork, and in dances and poems and stories, like baskets in which to carry their meanings. Their images and words are the raw materials from which have come our myth and religion, the deep cultural assumptions which hold us even today.

Today we know more about the physical structures of life than they did; but they were more open to its invisible, imaginative depths. It has become a cliché to say that in some ways the scientific Enlightenment has closed down our understandings, as over the past four hundred years quantitative method and rational skepticism have led us to prefer the literal meanings of numbers, not poetry; of psychology, not religion. Compared with our ancestors, we are uncomfortable with metaphor and disdainful of myth, enamored of data and dismissive of symbol. cx

The Shroud would have been hard enough for the 1 st century people to understand and relate to, how much harder for a culture that dismisses the non-physical side of reality cxi .

In fact, earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul announced "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block (Greek 'skandalon' or scandal in English) to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:22-23). This, if it applies to the Shroud cxii , would fit excellently with the ban on graven images contained in the 10 Commandments, and provide a logical reason for the historic division between Judaism and Christianity, as well as Paul's self-reported persecution of the early church (1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13). Further justification for this stance again comes from Paul's self-description "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). This is not to suggest that Paul found zealousness to be bad, "It is fine to be zealous, when the purpose is good, and to be so always" (Galatians 4:18), nor does he fault the Jews for zealousness "Brothers and sisters, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." (Romans 10:1-2).

This then raises the question of just what Paul means when he claims that he or others are "zealous".

For the answer to that we must look to the Old Testament. The first example of zealousness that we may look at for understanding is in Numbers 25, where the ancient Israelites, while still wandering, have begun to associate with the local population, even to the extent of sharing in the local's sacrificial meat. Moses is ordered by God to kill the leaders of the people to turn away God's wrath, and Moses warns the people against associating with the local population. As this is happening though, an Israelite clan leader comes in with a local woman and proceeds to his tent with her. "When Phineas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman's stomach." (Numbers 25, 8-9) The response from God was:

"Phineas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for My honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in My zeal. Therefore tell him that I am making My covenant of peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.´ (Numbers 25:11-13).

Later in Israel's history Elijah proclaimed his zeal for God after his encounter with the prophets of Ba'al, where a vast number of them were slain. However Elijah had feared for his life and fled to a remote cave where he had an experience of the presence of God, who asked why he was there. "He (Elijah) replied, 'I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty'" (1 Kings 19:10).

Paul, in invoking "zealousness" is invoking this tradition, a tradition that not only allows for killing people violating God's law but one that actually praises such activity. Paul, in his persecution of the early church must have perceived some violation of the existing Jewish religious law. However, since the existing records strongly imply that various Jewish groups believed in the eventual resurrection of the dead cxiii , sometimes referencing Ezekiel 37:1-12, the "dry bones" passage, this seems unlikely (see also Acts 23:6,8). Also according to Acts, Gamaliel, the supposed teacher of Paul, spoke of not working against the early Church as doing such might be working against God. Now admittedly in one Acts account (4:2, prior to Gamaliel's argument which occurs in Acts 5) the issue is resurrection but in light of the other evidence it seems unlikely. This leads to a question of what would the issue be that Paul was zealous about and which led to the division, and as noted above, the easiest explanation would be the thought that some Jews were worshipping a "graven image", or what we now call "the Shroud of Turin". At this point, the suggestion to go easy on the early church from Gamaliel cxiv could be seen as suggesting that Gamaliel was aware of the existence of the Shroud, but also aware that there was some reason to doubt that it was a "graven image", that is not made by humans.

Now the main alternative reason for Paul's persecution of the early church would be a defense of the law to have no other Gods. This would require a clear awareness of the non-Christian Jews of the early Christians considering Jesus to be God. However this particular query seems to have been dealt with by John in John 10:22-42. The question here first revolves around Jesus' messianic position then slips into a query regarding Jesus' divine claims. The backdrop is the celebration of the Feast of Dedication or Hanukah, which celebrates the rededication of the Temple after it had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, who claimed divine status, and took place in one portico of the Temple. Jesus' responses to these two challenges, especially the one questioning whether or not He claimed divine status, seem to be referencing something we no longer recognize. It seems quite plausible to me, and to some other scholars, that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls cxv are behind the responses, but what we have currently, or at least as of 2005 (the copyright date for my edition of The Dead Sea Scrolls), is not complete enough for any certainty. I personally suspect that Jesus' response was a denial of divine status, but I remain open to correction on that point.

As for Paul's understanding, we have no clear access to his pre-conversion thinking, but post-conversion we may note that he does seem to distinguish between Christ Jesus and God.

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God" 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 2:1; "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Christ Jesus" Romans 1:4b, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:2, Galatians 1:3, Philippians 1:2, Philemon 1:3 ; "Paul, an apostle-sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" Galatians 1:1; "To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you." 1 Thessalonians 1:1 (citing only the seven undisputed Pauline epistles)

Now given that Paul claimed that his presentation of the gospel message was approved cxvi , it would seem plausible that the pre-conversion church that Paul persecuted would have likewise made this distinction thus arguing against this being the basis for Paul's persecution of them.

We thus rapidly eliminate all credible reasons for Paul's early persecutions of the church except for the one of graven images. It then requires no great assumption to accept that, should Paul have managed to track down the Shroud, his conversion would rest on a realization that this did not qualify as a "graven image" as it was not a painted or otherwise human formed image. Paul's conversion would rest merely upon an acceptance of a non-physical reality cxvii that impinged upon the physical that is an active spiritual realm.

Of course accepting all this does raise the question of how both the slightly later, post-apostolic church as well as subsequent church history seems unaware of the existence of the Shroud. To explain this we merely need to consider well-established history and what is known about the Shroud from other sources. One of these well-established pieces of history is that the Dead Sea Scrolls had been stored in clay jars which were hidden in caves in the Qumran area, and that quite evidentially these caves were either unknown to the ancient Romans or else ignored. This conclusion is based on the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 1940's. In order for these scrolls to have been findable, either the Romans who destroyed the Qumran community did not know of them or they ignored them. Quite plausibly, they were ignored as nothing of obvious value for ancient Romans was discovered in them.

Now with a quick combining of the hypothesis that the Gospel of John indicates some type of connection between earliest Christianity and this community cxviii , it would be plausible that this community was at least aware of the Shroud. Thus we have set up a second, and relatively unknown point. This being that an analysis of water stains on the Shroud suggest that at some point in its history it was rapidly and inexpertly folded and stored in something very much like the jars that the Dead Sea Scrolls were stored in.

At the time when the large water stains were produced the Shroud was folded up in 52 layers according to an accordion like system into a pack measuring 34cm by 32cm. As previously mentioned, the folding seems to have been executed hastily by inexperienced hands.

The water having caused the large stains only wetted the Shroud in one corner as it rested thus folded up in a slightly curved, near vertical slanted position.

The accordion type folding system like the near vertical position suggest that the Shroud was kept in an ancient earthenware jar at the time of the incident.

The historical periods when the Shroud was hidden in secret seem to support the possibility of such primitive safekeeping conditions. cxix

The Shroud being stored at the "library" of Qumran would thus fall into the realm of plausibility. It was safely removed from Jerusalem, yet still safely within what would be a restored Israel. It would be stored by a group that was at least partially sympathetic cxx to the early Christians. I highly doubt that they were totally sympathetic, but partially seems plausible to me. When the site at Qumran was destroyed by the Romans in 68 as part of the 1 st Jewish War, knowledge of just where the Shroud was, or if it even survived would have been at least temporarily lost. Further, the continuation of the war for another 5 years, until the last rebels at Masada were defeated, and the loss of Jerusalem and the Temple in addition to the uncertainty of the continued existence of the Shroud would likely have triggered a reevaluation of how to present Christianity. Following the conclusion of the war, most of the Jewish factions ceased to exist as independent groups, with the early Christians being a big exception.

Now it is in this aftermath of the war that the post-Apostolic fathers wrote, and gradually wrote more and more in a style that accommodated Greek philosophy. Gone in these writings are the clear anti-Roman statements that so pervade the undisputed Pauline writings. The accepted titles of Jesus remain, those of "Savior", "Lord", "Redeemer" and other such titles as does the term "ecclesia", but their strong anti-Roman tendencies seem abated. With the exception of "Christ" or "Messiah", these titles are one also applied to Caesar, and "ecclesia" properly references an "independent political body at", all of which terms are profoundly anti-Roman. Yet even as early as the writing of Luke/Acts, Christianity is being presented as compatible with Roman rule. The more radically Jewish Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, both of which remained far more popular in the eastern half of the church than in the west, were allowed over time to be largely forgotten, not making their way into the canon of scripture.

Now this is not to say that knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls was lost, nor was the hope for the coming Kingdom of God totally lost. In fact, sometime following the end of the 1 st Jewish War the Qumran site was again inhabited for a time. However, after the Bar Kokhba rebellion there is no further indication of any permanent settlement there. If the Shroud had been stored there, as seems plausible, the banning of Jews from Jerusalem might have been the final incentive to move the Shroud to a new location, quite plausibly Antioch cxxi , as suggested by Jack Markwardt cxxii although I disagree with him as to timing of this event cxxiii . Also Markwardt suggests that all objects associated with the crucifixion and resurrection were transported to Antioch, but this ignores testimony from later periods that the cloth used to cover Jesus' face while hanging dead on the cross cxxiv was preserved in the Jerusalem area. However, that knowledge of the Qumran caves and the associated scrolls was preserved for quite some time is indicated by Eusebius when he observed that "In the Hexapla of the Psalms, after the four prominent translations, he (that is Origen, circa 184-circa 254 CE) adds not only a fifth, but also a sixth and seventh. He states of one of these that he found it in a jar in Jericho in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus." cxxv Given that the treatment of both Jews and Christians during the Jewish Wars was often torture and destruction of what they valued, it is quite plausible that, as Markwardt suggests, the Shroud was kept largely concealed. By the time of the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion cxxvi , early Christianity had clearly committed itself to an attempt to accommodate the greater Greco-Roman culture as shown by the writings of Justin Martyr cxxvii .

In conclusion, since it is now possible to see the Shroud is directly referenced in 1 John, it also allows more of the New Testament to make sense. It fits very well with the well-established consensus that the gospel accounts were redacted, especially Mark having post-resurrection appearances added. It explains why Paul did not focus on an empty tomb, but rather on a risen Christ, even as he could not clearly explain what such a being looked like. It additionally helps fill in the "missing years" of the Shroud to an extent. But it also presents a major challenge to our understanding of just what the earliest, pre-Roman accommodating church looked and acted like.

APPENDIX A Historical and Synoptic Section

Let us look closer at possible connections between Matthew and Luke and the Dead Sea Scroll community. We will begin looking at this by looking in a strange place, a period either right at the beginning or possibly prior to the beginning of Gospel of Matthew cxxviii beginning with the account of the birth and early years of Jesus. Here one big problem is just when did Herod die, as Herod has to be alive following the birth of Jesus in order to order the massacre of the infants in Bethlehem (or did he?), and Joseph, Mary and the infant Jesus fled to Egypt to avoid this persecution. If we knew how long this Egyptian sojourn was it would be easy, but that is not the case.

So when did Herod die? The traditional date is in 4 BCE based on when Herod's was officially removed from being a "friend of Caesar's" as well as the reported beginning of the reign of Archelaus but that does not mean that he necessarily died, as co-regencies were not unknown. This date is also supported by Josephus' comment about a lunar eclipse shortly before his death, and there was one on March 13, 4 BCE cxxix . However, Josephus also lists out a number of other things that occurred between the death of Herod and Passover of that year, a list that would be hard to fulfill in the 29 days between the eclipse and the beginning of Passover in 4 BCE. However, there were other eclipses that might fit, including two around 1 BCE. There is also mention of a fast preceding the eclipse which with some effort will allow us to determine which eclipse is the right one. Another factor will be the timing of the eclipse, which seemed to be memorable for some reason.

As for the timing, the first of the two eclipses occurred shortly before midnight on January 10 th , but few people would likely be awake to remember such without some other cause. The second occurred on December 29 thcxxx , and was basically finished by roughly 6 pm, still early enough for most people to have seen it and recall it. The problem is that there are no specific fast days near either of these dates. But we shall return to this problem after we firm up the year being 1 BCE as opposed to 4 BCE.

To clear up these matters we need to look at multiple sources, Josephus to be certain, but also Cassius Deo. Herod officially became King of Judea in 40 BCE by decree of the Roman Senate, or perhaps more properly on January 1, 39 BCE, the date such positions were traditionally assigned. Now Josephus claims that Herod reigned for 36 years, so this could indicate a death in 4 BCE. However, he also acknowledges that Herod's reign did not truly begin until after the date of the death of Antigonus, which occurred in the latter part of 37 or early in 36 BCE. Dating from this event calls for Herod's death to be in 2 or 1 BCE cxxxi . Josephus also dates the beginning of Herod's reign with reference to two other dated, 27 years after the defeat of Pompey, and 107 years prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem, both of which yield a date of 36 BCE. Thus again we end up with his death around 2 or 1 BCE. Now for another factor, and one that might be relevant for some events recorded in the Bible. This was that sometime prior to the death of Herod, at least two rabbis encouraged a group of young men to tear down an eagle that Herod had ordered erected over the gate of the temple cxxxii , and at least some (40 reportedly) from this group, with two of the Rabbis were caught. The two rabbis were either sentenced or burned alive on a day of observed fasting as well as on a day of a lunar eclipse, I suspect that they were sentenced on a day of fasting and burned on the day of an eclipse. The eclipse that seems to best fit all the requirements will be the on January 10 th . This date is chosen because of a tradition that seems to date back to before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE as recorded in the "Megillath Taanith" or "Scroll of Fasting", which records also celebratory days. Two of the other dates recorded correspond to about December 5 th and January 28 th . A 7 th century commentary assigned the earlier of these dates to the date of Herod's death, however, the later date would seem to fit much better, and it (January 28 th ) was supposed to be a day when one did not fast (possibly in celebration of the death of Herod?). I suspect that the December 5 th date would have been the day the eagle was torn down.or perhaps the capture of the Rabbis. This also allows for Josephus' day of fasting as there was one mentioned in the Scroll that would have occurred on January 6 th , 1 BCE. There is also the added point of Varius' war, a put down of a Jewish rebellion following Herod's death that occurred after the next Passover cxxxiii that is generally considered to have occurred in 1 BCE. Such a rebellion occurring shortly after Herod's death seems far more probable than having a two or three year gap between the events, although circumstances allowing for the rebellion could have been a factor as they seem to have been with the death of James the Just and the start of the 1 st Jewish War (I agree with those scholars who think that James' death was a major contributing factor to the Jewish uprising, simmering resentments from his death having a final trigger event leading to the massacre in Jerusalem).

Now what is relevant about all this? According to Matthew's gospel, Joseph was warned to flee to Egypt cxxxiv with his wife and son cxxxv to escape Herod's persecution. cxxxvi This was supposedly the massacre of all infants below the age of 2 years in Bethlehem cxxxvii , but there is no record of this happening. However, should this be related to the destruction of the eagle of the gate to the temple, it would make sense. This could suggest that Joseph was involved, and would have reason to fear for his life, and possibly the life of his family, which would make sense given Herod's record of persecutions cxxxviii . It would also fit with Jesus being born into a family that was extremely committed to the Jewish faith, a family that might well produce two sons who committed to a Nazarite oath cxxxix . I personally suspect that the probable invention of a place called Nazareth was an attempt to divert Roman attention away from the Nazarite connections as people who took such an oath seem to have been somewhat anti-Roman in orientation, that is they were decidedly pro-Yahweh and pro-Israel, antiany enemies of Israel cxl .

The Gospel of Matthew also records Jesus going into the wilderness cxli for at least 40 days following His baptism. Now whether or not this was an actual 40 days or not could be debated cxlii . However, here again we might be able to use other references to try to determine more. We then turn to the timing of Jesus ministry, which can be more problematic. However, again if we trust our sources, in this case the Gospel of Luke, and I see no good reason not to trust it on this point, John the Baptist began his ministry "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius" (Luke 3:1). This can be dated by numismatic means, as well as by the dating of a triumphal arch to 26/27 CE. Incidentally this can be used to date Jesus' birth to 3 or 4 BCE (I suspect still more like 1 or 2 BCE, but the earlier dates are possible) as Jesus was supposedly about 30 when he began His ministry. John would presumably have been approximately 30 when he began his ministry and was supposedly only a few months older that Jesus (this I personally doubt, but it is possible). Now if Jesus was baptized fairly early in John's career, we either have to move the date of the crucifixion earlier than my proposed 33 CE cxliii , expand His ministry to more than the roughly 3 years suggested by John, expand the time between Jesus' baptism and the beginning of His ministry or some combination of the above. Josephus indicates that there was a one year probationary period for new members of the Essene community, followed by an additional two year period before one was considered a full member. This would allow for Jesus to have been baptized early cxliv and still not have truly begun His ministry until roughly 30 CE cxlv , after the arrest of John the Baptist cxlvi . There is also a hint about an Essene connection in the query that John sends to Jesus and Jesus' response. John asks if Jesus is the one and Jesus replies, Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have glad tidings preached to them." cxlvii This is a very poor citation from the Masoretic text cxlviii , but an excellent quote from the Samaritan text found in the DSS. It is also a close parallel to messianic expectations as expressed in DSS text called "Redemption and Resurrection" DSS 4Q521: "setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bowed down…..For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall revive the dead, He shall send good news to the afflicted." cxlix Now there is also significance for the timing of the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry that is often overlooked. It seems that John the Baptist's proclamation that the ax was laid at the foot of the tree cl might well have been historic. The period he seems to have begun preaching in was also a Sabbath of Jubilee years cli , a most significant time for Jews regarding the possible restoration of their nation and the arrival of the great and glorious "Day of the Lord" clii . Now again we have a case where it is claimed that John specifically referenced Jesus as a greater, but here there is some reason to have doubts as followers of John the Baptist are reported to have continued well into the Christian era with at least one supposedly converted by the Priscilla and Aquilla cliii although this could also be an indication of just how widely the message of John the Baptist spread as well as an indication of just how expected the "Day of the Lord" was in some circles. But with the Sabbath of Jubilee years, the stage was set for high messianic hopes, fitting in very well with the DSS anticipation of the coming Day of the Lord. This would seem to be another plausible Essene connection. This then sets up a careful look at the language attributed to Jesus, did He truly speak like an Essene, or at least use language reflective of this general community cliv ? I will begin again by looking at the Gospel of Matthew clv , for if any of the Synoptics would show a connection under my hypothesis, this should be the one clviclvii . My logic being again, that Matthew is a call to the Parthian diaspora Jews to come assist in the overthrow of Rome and the restoration of the land clviii . And additionally in this call would be a call for the sympathetic pagans to join in, i.e., the Adiabene royal family clix . Here again, multiple ancient sources observed that Essenes were extremely reluctant to take oaths, preferring to merely say "yes" or "no" but there were occasions when they were called upon to swear clx . Jesus, in Matthew 5:33-37 takes a very similar approach when He states Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.' But I tell you: do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne, or by the earth, for it is His footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot even make one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No', anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

He continues with another, "you have heard it said" passage where He again expands the requirements, but what teachings He is responding to I am not certain of. But He then goes to a passage that I can directly tie to the DSS clxi when he states:

You have heard that it was said 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' clxii But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in Heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and send rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. clxiiiclxiv

When we come to the image of Peter as a rock we will again find parallels with the DSS writing regarding when the community is fully set up. Both will refer to a foundation on a rock, Matthew 16:17-19 and multiple places in the DSS, including 1 QS 8.5-8; 11.4; 1 QH 6.26 and 7.8, but with these passages there might well be no direct connection, just a common source in the Old Testament (see Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 16:16-17).

Another passage that looks like a possible parallel, and a parallel that looks to be far more common in John is Matthew 13:36-43:

Then He left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field." He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and he enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out His angels and they will weed out of His kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear."

Here in Matthew is the dichotomy between the righteous and the unrighteous. This is a common theme in some of the DSS including several from the Commentary on Habakkuk, DSS 1QpHab clxv . "for the wicked man hems in the righteous man" (1:4b) and:

This passage refers to the traitors with the Man of the Lie, because they have not obeyed the words of the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God. It also refers to the traitors to the New Covenant, because they did not believe in God's covenant and desecrated His holy name, and finally it refers to the traitors in the Last Days. They are the cruel Israelites who will not believe when they hear everything that is to come upon the latter generation that will be spoken by the Priest in whose heart God has put the ability to explain all the words of his servants the prophets through whom God has foretold everything that is to come upon His people and the Gentiles. (2.1-10) I do not yet think that a definitive case has been made yet showing a connection between the Qumran community and Matthew, let alone John, but I do believe we are working in that direction. However, I the earlier Matthew is, the more likely a Qumran connection is there also. And I also maintain that John predates Matthew. But let us look at the Last Supper, which was referenced as a possible Passover feast earlier.

This is a point where I wish I had kept my notes from long, long ago. As an undergraduate, I asked one of my professors, Dr. Cora Klick, if the Last Supper had been a Passover meal. Her response was to tell me to research it and get back to the class in two days with the answer. I recall that I investigated an odd, double digit number of sources, probably either 11 or 15, I doubt I used 13, so as to have a chance for a majority opinion one way or the other. As I recall, I had equal numbers on both sides of the issue, with one scholar saying it was disputed. I settled on accepting it as a Passover meal back then, and I confess that I still hold to that attitude. But let us review once again at least some of the evidence.

I think that one of the first things to do is to realize that we do not have four separate accounts of this event, rather Matthew and Luke relied on Mark's account for their own. Thus we essentially have just two accounts, that of Mark and that of John. Matthew might offer some slightly different insights, but not any true independent account. Right away we have a problem though, Mark, and the other Synoptics, claim that the Passover holiday had begun prior to the Last Supper clxvi clxvii while John insists that Jesus died before the Passover began clxviii . Of course one could question whether John was referring to the official start of Passover while hinting at an unofficial celebration by Jesus and the disciples or not. Now in reviewing the accounts of the last supper it might be noted that all accounts of bread and wine being blessed lie in the Synoptics clxix . But it is helpful to remember that bread and wine would be present at most meals. Further a blessing would not be out of line at most meals. Luke however, mentions two blessings of wine clxx which would be unusual for any meal other than a Passover. John does not mention what is being eaten. Further the Synoptics do not mention any food clxxi other than bread and wine although Luke does reference the Passover lambs being sacrificed earlier in the day clxxii . This is a major difference with John who claims that Jesus died at the same general time as the Passover lambs clxxiii .

Now there is an interesting point to notice though that is consistent throughout the accounts. In all four accounts Jesus and the disciples are recorded as reclining at the meal clxxiv . This was a common practice for Greeks and Romans, but highly unusual for most Jews. The only occasion where observant Jews were certain to be reclining around a table for a meal would be the Passover feast. I think therefore that it is safe to conclude that Mark, and thus the synoptic accounts, make it clear that the Last Supper was a Passover feast, but John remains ambiguous at present. He might be hinting at such with his observation about reclining, while suggesting that Jesus was the Pascal lamb for the temple Jews, but this is unclear at present. But, if we assume that Matthew had knowledge of temple era Jerusalem and Judea, it would seem that his implied connections to the Essene community were intentional. This knowledge would seem to also be supported by David Wenham's work, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity, which suggests that Paul and the synoptic gospels use some common source of recorded words of Jesus. If this is correct and along with the suggestion of the Last Supper being a Passover feast, then Matthew's parallels to the DSS become more convincing.

It thus would behoove us to examine whether or not there is evidence for multiple times to celebrate Passover in temple era Jerusalem. To do this, let us finally look at what is recorded about James (Jacob) the Just, the reported brother of Jesus.

But Hegisippius, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been call the Just by all from the time of our Savior to our present day; for there were many who bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found on his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knew became hard like those of a camel in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God and asking forgiveness for the people. clxxv

Here we have a description of James, the brother of Jesus that clearly portrays him as someone under a Nazir vow. He avoided wine, meat and did not cut his hair, all consistent with a Nazir vow. Additionally we have him entering the "holy place" and wearing linen garments, both of which are action consistent with being a High Priest of Israel, yet he does not appear in the official records as having that position. This is further evidence of a secondary priesthood existing in Jerusalem during the 2 nd temple period and his entering the "holy place" would be consistent with the actions of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. However, it is hard to believe that two different high priests undertaking the same actions that were to be done by only one individual on one specific high holy day the same day. However, should there have been two competing priesthoods operating under different calendars, then there would not necessarily be a conflict over who entered the holy place on Yom Kippur clxxvi . Further should Yom Kippur be celebrated on two different days, the notion that the Passover might well also be celebrated by these competing calendars on different days becomes quite plausible. Thus the conflict as to whether or not the Last Supper was a Passover feast may be resolved by concluding that it was, it was just celebrated under a Qumran based calendar, not the official one. John was thus referencing the official Jewish calendar when he claimed that Jesus died on the day of preparation and there is no necessary conflict with the Synoptic accounts.

This also makes it far easier to conclude that Matthew, and by implication Luke also, was dependent not only on Mark but also on John. Luke and Matthew share Mark and "Q" as common sources, that is undisputed. However, Luke also seems to share some sources with John. Now with John strongly implying that Jesus was the new "Teacher of Righteousness", it becomes easy to see where Matthew developed his notion of Jesus as the new Moses from. Dating Matthew to relatively shortly after the death of James the Just (actually Jacob) in 62 CE (within 4 or 5 years), it again provides a link to the DSS community's concept of two messiahs, one prophetic (a Moses type figure) and a priestly one (an Aaron type figure). John provides the theological basis for Matthew and Luke while Mark provides the narrative basis. Tradition and a lack of awareness of the DSS have contributed to the blindness that has allowed this to slip past biblical scholars to date.