Archko Volume

[Amanda]

Recently discussing with a friend, how there are no primary resources documenting eye witness accounts of Jesus, he informed me there are. Detailed in a book called the Archko Volume, are supposedly official documents written by a historian of those times, citing Ceasar, Pilate, Jesus, and others.

 

Some of my investigation revealed an official seal of that time is even on these historical documentations. Of course, there are some sites "for authenticity" and some "against authenticity" surrounding these papers. Yet there seems to be nothing from an objective perspective. Either the sites I've found are from a bible site, or from an infidel site, or someone trying to sell the book. Wikipedia didn't have much on it either.

 

Yes, I know that no matter what kind of "proof" of a literal man named Jesus exists, that doesn't mean there was hocus pocus and magic espousing forth. Of course, I agree. And if there were a core man from which these teachings and stories are attributed... he was just a "man". That is not the issue here. I just want to know if these documents of the Archko Volume have significant substance to be considered as authentic primary resources.

 

This site here, presenting the first chapter of the book says this:

Mr. Whydaman told me he had spent five years in the Vatican at Rome, and in looking over the old manuscripts he came across the records of Pilate made to Caesar, and in those records he saw where a man named Jesus was arrested, tried, and executed; he read it carefully and re-read it, and went back and read it again.

 

Thanks for any insights.

[Ouroboros]

How come this is the first time we hear about this? If the Vatican had these documents for so long, and everyone is trying to argue the existence of Jesus, .... it's weird... I wonder if it's authentic or not. Btw, some of the "letters" describe some miracles too. If the Vatican had these letters for 2000 years, why didn't they include them in the Canon? They are supposedly almost first hand reports. I wonder if there are there any pictures of the documents?

 

Wiki reference of the Reverend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archko_Volume

 

I get the feeling it was a con by that reverend, but of course I can't prove that. It's too convenient, and the scriptures he copied are extremely well fitting to prove Christianity. But hey, I keep an open mind.

 

Reading further, it took the reverend to find these documents in a month. I wonder if there's anyone else that tried to find the documents again?

[Jun]

One can flip through the pages here - http://www.openlibrary.org/details/archkov...eorar00mahaiala

 

From Chapter 1 - HOW THESE RECORDS WERE DISCOVERED

 

"... He told me that he had seen and read the records of Tiberius Caesar, and in what was called the Acta Pilati - that is the acts of Pilate - he had seen an account of the apprehension, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth; but said that it did not add much to the commonly accepted teachings of Chrisitanity..."

 

Jesus from Nazareth? 'Jesous o Nazoraios' is the Greek translation. Jesus the Nazarene is what it should say. Nazaren means "of the Truth." It was also a small sect called just that. Source - Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD.

 

Wouldn't the Vatican have used this supposed text by now to prove the existance of Jesus?

[Amanda]

How come this is the first time we hear about this? If the Vatican had these documents for so long, and everyone is trying to argue the existence of Jesus, .... it's weird... I wonder if it's authentic or not. Btw, some of the "letters" describe some miracles too. If the Vatican had these letters for 2000 years, why didn't they include them in the Canon? They are supposedly almost first hand reports. I wonder if there are there any pictures of the documents?

 

Hey HanSolo, this is obviously the first time I've heard of this too. I'm quite surprised that you have not dealt with this on here though. I think these documents are still in existence. Of course, it's their authenticity that is in question. However, it does not surprise me that the Vatican is not making an issue of them. The Vatican is NOT into if he existed or not, but that their way is the true interpretation. Most people have no idea the existence of "Jesus" is in question. The Vatican wants to keep it like that... it's part of their methods, I'm convinced. :wink:

 

BTW, I think these writings are from an official secular historian, that may have been inclined to be an opponent of "Jesus". They are only to record the happenings of the times then. I've read something to that effect.

 

It is wierd, that with all this current controversy on many levels of the existence of "Jesus"... there is nothing more on them in Wikepedia besides what you pointed out. If you, MWC, and Heimdall are not somewhat familiar with these papers... I will be floored.

[Amanda]

One can flip through the pages here - http://www.openlibrary.org/details/archkov...eorar00mahaiala

Thanks Jun!

 

I've glanced through the first 30 pages of your resource, which I had skimmed them before posting this topic. This person seems to write it from a "Christian" perspective, and presents his "critical" path of reasoning. I was hoping to get something more objective.

 

HanSolo, as far as the miracles go... I can tell they translated it the same as King James. It says these documents were written in other languages. Where it says things like the foundations on which they stood were shaken in the manuscript... they interpreted it to mean an earthquake. I think it must be taken metaphorically in many cases... and these accounts that seem like "miracles" were not. Even the translaters are probably prone to the current spin of these times, IMO.

[Ouroboros]

So, the finder was H. C. Whydaman or was it Rev. W. D. Mahan?

 

Wiki on Rev Mahan

 

Another Archko page with miracle references

 

Mahan supposedly found it much earlier than Whydaman, and doesn't W.D.Mahan almost look like WhyDaMa(ha)n? Are they the same person? But this person found the books and translated them at different times (the years are completely different, one in 19th century the other in the 20th), and he forgot he did it the first ime? Was he a Reverend in the early findings but not in the later? It smells fishy... I have to go to work, but this is interesting... we have to look into the details here.

 

The reason why I never discussed these documents is that this is the first time I hear about them!

[Amanda]

So, the finder was H. C. Whydaman or was it Rev. W. D. Mahan?

 

Wiki on Rev Mahan

 

Another Archko page with miracle references

 

Mahan supposedly found it much earlier than Whydaman, and doesn't W.D.Mahan almost look like WhyDaMa(ha)n? Are they the same person? But this person found the books and translated them at different times (the years are completely different, one in 19th century the other in the 20th), and he forgot he did it the first ime? Was he a Reverend in the early findings but not in the later? It smells fishy... I have to go to work, but this is interesting... we have to look into the details here.

 

The reason why I never discussed these documents is that this is the first time I hear about them!

HanSolo, as I understand it...

 

H. C. Whydaman stopped by and told W. D. Mahan of these official court records, showing historical accounts of Jesus. Now that you say this about their names... that almost looks suspicious, doesn't it? It's almost like they are setting us up for a joke. Why da man? Well, I'll give that much the benefit of the doubt so far.

 

I think these official papers are called Acta Pilati documents. If this is so, there may be a reference to it in the Catholic Encyclopedia here, under "C. Other Jewish Sources":

 

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier

 

These look like some of the things discussed here. Maybe this is why the Vatican is not so anxious to present these records?

[mwc]

I'm only somewhat familiar with the Acts of Pilate and that has been determined a later forgery.

 

I downloaded the PDF and started skimming through the "interview" with Mary and Joseph. It's obvious that this is just made up as well. It's full of anachronisms, which of course could be the result of a poor translation (that's the most common excuse for these things) but the other issues (like it is just dripping with xian doctrine that neither Mary or Joseph would have said or a Jew like Gamaliel would have bothered with) makes it suspect at best. Not to mention no one conducted interviews like that back then (to my knowledge...I've yet to read one). Then there's this:

 

and then taking a prophetical as well as a historical view of the subject. I have come to the conclusion that this is the Christ that we are looking for. And as a reason for my conclusion, I will call your attention to the following facts : First to the prophecy

of Isaiah, section 7 :' And he said, Hear now, saith the Lord. Oh, house of David, is it a small thing for you ? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign ; behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name God with men.

 

Bzzzzzzt. Sorry. As I recall Gamaliel was a Sadducee. He would never pull double prophecy like this. Add to that the scrolls, depending on many factors, weren't divided up into nice little chapters or "sections" as ours our and he wouldn't have said this. He would have simply referred to Isaiah if he was going for a bogus prophecy (think to the bible and how they just say something like "The prophet says" or "Isaiah says" but never a chapter/verse reference...because they didn't exist). This "Gamaliel" is a phony. But if a hardcore Jew like him could be "turned" then surely the story must be true. It's just stupid that the Jewish Messiah is downright obvious when he appears but here we have an investigation to determine whether or not some guy is the right guy.

 

I'm sure there's many more problems throughout this story and the book as a whole. I just haven't taken the time to really look too closely (and probably won't since it doesn't appear to be even remotely historical...well maybe 100 years or so old apologetics...I really don't know).

 

mwc

[Amanda]

<snip>I'm only somewhat familiar with the Acts of Pilate and that has been determined a later forgery.

 

I downloaded the PDF and started skimming through the "interview" with Mary and Joseph. It's obvious that this is just made up as well. It's full of anachronisms, which of course could be the result of a poor translation (that's the most common excuse for these things) but the other issues (like it is just dripping with xian doctrine that neither Mary or Joseph would have said or a Jew like Gamaliel would have bothered with) makes it suspect at best. Not to mention no one conducted interviews like that back then (to my knowledge...I've yet to read one). Then there's this:

 

 

<snip> I'm sure there's many more problems throughout this story and the book as a whole. I just haven't taken the time to really look too closely (and probably won't since it doesn't appear to be even remotely historical...well maybe 100 years or so old apologetics...I really don't know).

 

mwc

 

MWC, I am glad you saved me from being floored. However, as I understand this, it was not written to be pro "Christianity" at all. It seems most claim it to be written by an enemy of "Christianity". As I noted earlier, it says that Mary was a bit promiscuous for the times and the father of "Jesus" was just a plain soldier. My god... what a great guy that would make Joseph, to marry her to save her from being stoned to death. Maybe Joseph's the god, in what an incredibly great guy?

 

It seems a big problem is that the Vatican Archives are not "open". Perhaps they only want to let out what they want. Being that the Mother Mary is the blessed virgin... this might not sit too well. Also, I suspect the translation could be tweeked a LOT. The guy who wrote the book, was obviously of the popular "Christian" persuasion. How could it avoid his spin, even if not intentionally?

 

I don't blame you... in that I don't think I could read the book either. Sounds like it would be quite boring to me.

[mwc]

MWC, I am glad you saved me from being floored. However, as I understand this, it was not written to be pro "Christianity" at all. It seems most claim it to be written by an enemy of "Christianity". As I noted earlier, it says that Mary was a bit promiscuous for the times and the father of "Jesus" was just a plain soldier. My god... what a great guy that would make Joseph, to marry her to save her from being stoned to death. Maybe Joseph's the god, in what an incredibly great guy?

I have no idea what the purpose of the whole thing is but the "interview" is obviously pro-xianity. Like I said I just skimmed it but Joseph is portrayed a dark boorish man but he is a wood-worker and Mary is a younger, perkier and prettier women. It's one of those things where it's caught up in stereotype and you'd say "But if it's pro-xian why the 'bad' stuff...Hmmmmm????? Pro-xians would just make it all nice all the way through so it must not be that but something else. Case closed." That is such a lame argument. I say self-deprecating things. I must not be pro-me. The stories are better since they have the "bad" stuff. It makes them more realistic. Otherwise jesus could just run through the rainbow fields eating chocolate ponies for our salvation...but who'd buy into that? Story tellers know what makes a good AND realistic story. Sadly they aren't caught up in making sure that everything is accurate.

 

It seems a big problem is that the Vatican Archives are not "open". Perhaps they only want to let out what they want. Being that the Mother Mary is the blessed virgin... this might not sit too well. Also, I suspect the translation could be tweeked a LOT. The guy who wrote the book, was obviously of the popular "Christian" persuasion. How could it avoid his spin, even if not intentionally?

It helps that the archives are closed. It's a "secret." A "conspiracy." Shhhh! Everyone "knows" the Vatican is hiding the "truth" about jesus so they can control things. People love cover-ups. That this guy managed to get this information "out" is evidence to all of this. Never mind that this is all crap and the "conspiracy" means he never had to produce source documents (how could he?). It's like the famous chariot wheels, Noah's Ark, and all that more recent junk. Announce everything but produce nothing.

 

I don't blame you... in that I don't think I could read the book either. Sounds like it would be quite boring to me.

There's a difference between "boring" and "waste of my time." If I thought that there was even the most remote chance that something in this thing was legit then I would read through it but I don't. I've read through many "boring" things because they were legit (or thought to be) and they added to my knowledge base but this wouldn't do that.

 

I am aware of it now so at least you've done me that service.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

I have no idea what the purpose of the whole thing is but the "interview" is obviously pro-xianity. Like I said I just skimmed it but Joseph is portrayed a dark boorish man but he is a wood-worker and Mary is a younger, perkier and prettier women. It's one of those things where it's caught up in stereotype and you'd say "But if it's pro-xian why the 'bad' stuff...Hmmmmm????? Pro-xians would just make it all nice all the way through so it must not be that but something else. Case closed." That is such a lame argument. I say self-deprecating things. I must not be pro-me. The stories are better since they have the "bad" stuff. It makes them more realistic. Otherwise jesus could just run through the rainbow fields eating chocolate ponies for our salvation...but who'd buy into that? Story tellers know what makes a good AND realistic story. Sadly they aren't caught up in making sure that everything is accurate.

 

MWC, reading some of these documents, as translated on a site on the internet, I can see why they are quite controversial. IMO, it almost portrays Jesus in the same light of “magical“ powers as Rasputin supposedly had. Here it says this:

 

As to Pilate's saying that Jesus was a Galilean, he is mistaken. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, as the records show. And as to his citizenship, he had none. He wandered about from place to place, having no home, making his abode principally with the poor. He was a wild fanatic, who had taken up the doctrines of John (but not his baptism), and was quite an enthusiast. He had learned sooth-saying, while in Egypt, to perfection. I tried to get him to perform some miracle while in my court, but he was too sharp to be caught in a trap; like all necromancers, he was afraid to show off before the intelligent.

 

Skimming the interview with Mary and Joseph here , I saw things like this, below, written about Jesus by the historian. What is interesting, is that Jesus is supposedly now 26.

 

He seems to like all men--one as well as another--so much so that his parents have become disgusted with him, and have almost cast him off.

 

 

The interview does seem to site that the parents of Jesus do seem to go off on the deep end, asserting that Jesus is a bit too special. However, it also shows the metaphors Jesus used in that there was no hocus pocus, only in the way we can perceive life. Here is an illustration on the same page I previously cited:

 

Another plan he has of setting men right with the laws of nature; he turns nature into a great law book of illustrations, showing that every bush is a flame, every rock a fountain of water, every star a pillar of fire, and every cloud the one that leads to God. He makes all nature preach the doctrine of trust in the divine Fatherhood.

 

Take into consideration the spin that could be imposed into these translations, intentional or not, where ever one could, of a person inclined a certain way on the matter… might very well be different than of a purely objective staff of people. There could be many reasons the Vatican won’t let these volumes be open to others. You may think they are a forgery, however, I am more inclined to believe they withhold them because they will significantly degrade the thunder that has amassed their huge financial base. Who knows?

[mwc]

Take into consideration the spin that could be imposed into these translations, intentional or not, where ever one could, of a person inclined a certain way on the matter… might very well be different than of a purely objective staff of people. There could be many reasons the Vatican won’t let these volumes be open to others. You may think they are a forgery, however, I am more inclined to believe they withhold them because they will significantly degrade the thunder that has amassed their huge financial base. Who knows?

Then why hold onto them? The church has shown that it is not only willing but able to alter and destroy documents, items and people that it thinks are or may be a threat to it. If these documents are a threat then they would simply cease to exist. But I can hear you say "They are priceless artifacts." Priceless? How much value do these items have if they will never, ever, see the light of day? Zero. They could be said to connect to the "real" jesus but they connect to a jesus the church wants nothing to have anything do with. Their jesus is someone else. So if these documents were real they certainly are better off without them.

 

As to the rest, like Herod's letter to Tiberius, is just silly. Why would a king write to explain his actions (especially in such a ridiculous fashion...he basically tells the gospel story for no reason)? The tetrarchy of Herod was independent of Rome when John the Baptist was killed. The story told lines up with what is in Josephus. This all takes place about 37CE. Hopefully his letter arrived before Tiberius dies that same year. So he kills JtB. Gets "surprise" attacked by Aretas (unlikely considering how these things worked) and went back in time to so they could kill jesus a few years earlier so that time line can work out somehow. This "letter" exists to harmonize Josephus and the gospels (and maybe Paul). But Paul can't be attacked by Aretas either because Damascus was firmly under the control of the Romans so what was their enemy Aretas, king of the Nabodeans, doing there to chase him out that window?

 

Can't you see that history says that this can't be happening? I don't care what some "letter" tries to say the players weren't in the right places on the chess board for these moves to be happening...not without violating the rules of the game.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

Then why hold onto them? The church has shown that it is not only willing but able to alter and destroy documents, items and people that it thinks are or may be a threat to it. If these documents are a threat then they would simply cease to exist. But I can hear you say "They are priceless artifacts."

 

MWC, I didn't think that at all... however, that aspect may have some contributions. It would not surprise me if the Vatican held onto something simply because of future monetary possibilities. Yet, I think the ones in charge are generally more aware of the overall picture than their sheep are. These manuscripts, if they are real and should they exist, could hold onto some persuasion that a guy we reference as Jesus, might have existed. Not to the extent that the church has led others to believe, of course. Now, that is not a big issue, and few people are aware that there is such a lack of evidence to this regard. As I understand from some friends, the Catholics use to be notorious for suggesting that their congregation not even read the bible, as it would just confuse them. Why would they want to bring this issue out at this time? It seems they enjoy the comfort at being in complete control over things like this.

 

Can't you see that history says that this can't be happening? I don't care what some "letter" tries to say the players weren't in the right places on the chess board for these moves to be happening...not without violating the rules of the game.

 

mwc

MWC, I will be the first to admit that there seems to be some accounts that are not realistic here. Yet, even you and I can read the same thing and although we want to be of an objective nature, we will probably get unique perspectives yielding our separately distinct interpretations. A very objective, ecclectic insightful staff would be best, to even get a good hint, IMO.

 

It's interesting how you focused on these skeptical "truths" in relation to the logical flow of historical actions, where I automatically saw the accounts of how these "miracles" were presented, are of high suspect. You suggest a forgery, I suggest interpretation problems. As I've said... perhaps, the biggest problem is the suppression of the documents themselves. What is amazing to me, is that the information on them is really scarce. If not for the incident that is mentioned in the book, should it be true, no one would even seem to know about them. I'm curious if the Catholics admit to having them at all?

[mwc]

MWC, I didn't think that at all... however, that aspect may have some contributions. It would not surprise me if the Vatican held onto something simply because of future monetary possibilities.

I didn't necessarily mean it in the monetary sense but in the irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind, heirloom sense.

 

Yet, I think the ones in charge are generally more aware of the overall picture than their sheep are. These manuscripts, if they are real and should they exist, could hold onto some persuasion that a guy we reference as Jesus, might have existed. Not to the extent that the church has led others to believe, of course. Now, that is not a big issue, and few people are aware that there is such a lack of evidence to this regard. As I understand from some friends, the Catholics use to be notorious for suggesting that their congregation not even read the bible, as it would just confuse them. Why would they want to bring this issue out at this time? It seems they enjoy the comfort at being in complete control over things like this.

I don't think I'm presenting my ideas clearly. Let me back up a step or two so that I can make certain things are coming across how I want them to because I think I'm stepping on my own argument. The documents may very well be in the library but that doesn't make them "real" in that they were written in the place/time and by the people they say they were. So the fact that they may very well be sitting in the Vatican with, let's say Herod's name on the document, doesn't mean they are worth anything. That is why, if they were authentic (meaning they were from Herod's pen) they would be on display to prove their point or long destroyed to hide the truth. It seems odd to keep such a damaging document around for an institution known to remove such items from existence (even when no one could read them). But to collect all documents, meaning forgeries and everything else, in the hopes of having a complete private library (even though no one can access it) makes sense.

 

MWC, I will be the first to admit that there seems to be some accounts that are not realistic here. Yet, even you and I can read the same thing and although we want to be of an objective nature, we will probably get unique perspectives yielding our separately distinct interpretations. A very objective, ecclectic insightful staff would be best, to even get a good hint, IMO.

I've read there was a book published that went through the Archkos Volume and pointed out all the errors as well as all the parts it stole from other works. I'll have to see if that is true or not and if I can track down this other supposed book. The story is later copies of the Archkos Volume "fixed" the errors pointed out by the other author. Seems this thing has a short but active little history if any of this is true.

 

It's interesting how you focused on these skeptical "truths" in relation to the logical flow of historical actions, where I automatically saw the accounts of how these "miracles" were presented, are of high suspect. You suggest a forgery, I suggest interpretation problems. As I've said... perhaps, the biggest problem is the suppression of the documents themselves. What is amazing to me, is that the information on them is really scarce. If not for the incident that is mentioned in the book, should it be true, no one would even seem to know about them. I'm curious if the Catholics admit to having them at all?

Well...I am a skeptic.

 

As I said I am familiar with the Acts of Pilate, which is included in the work. Since that is known to be forged then it brings the entire volume into question, doesn't it? A quick look at New Advent has this on The Acts of Pilate:

Acta Pilati

 

(Or the Gospel of Nicodemus.)

 

This work does not assume to have written by Pilate, but to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem. The alleged Hebrew original is attributed to Nicodemus. The title "Gospel of Nicodemus" is of medieval origin. The apocryphon gained wide credit in the Middle Ages, and has considerably affected the legends of our Saviour's Passion. Its popularity is attested by the number of languages in which it exists, each of these being represented by two or more recensions. We possess a text in Greek, the original language; aCoptic, an Armenian and a Latin, besides modern translations. The Latin versions were naturally its most current form and were printed several times in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. One class of the Latin manuscripts contain as an appendix or continuation, the "Cura Sanitatis Tiberii", the oldest form of the Veronica legend.

 

The "Acta" consist of three sections, which reveal inequalities of style. The first (i-xi) contains the trial of Jesus based upon Luke, xxiii. The second part comprises xii-xvi; it regards the Resurrection. An appendix, detailing the Descensus ad Infernos, forms the third section, This does not exist in the Greek text and is a later addition. Leucius and Charinus, the two souls raised from the dead after the Crucifixion, relate to the Sanhedrin the circumstances of Our Lord's descent to Limbo. The well-informed Eusebius (325), although he mentions the Acta Pilati referred to by Justin and Tertullian and heathen pseudo-Acts of this kind, shows no acquaintance with this work. We are forced to admit that is of later origin, and scholars agree in assigning it to the middle of the fourth century. There is no internal relation between the "Acta" and the feigned letter found in the Acts of Peter and Paul.Epiphanius refers to the Acta Pilati similar to our own, as early as 376, but there are indications that the current Greek text, the earliest extant form, is a revision of the original one. The "Acta" are of orthodox composition and free from Gnostic taint. The book aimed at gratifying the desire for extra-evangelical details concerning Our Lord, and at the same time, to strengthen faith in the Resurrection of Christ, and at general edification. The writers (for the work we have is a composite) could not have expected their production to be seriously accepted by unbelievers. (See Apocryha, under Pilate Literature.)

A quick look under "talmud" shows nothing for Jerusalem (although the "Jerusalem" talmud is usually just called the Talmud or maybe the Palestinian talmud which makes me think the one in this volume is just made up whole cloth...it doesn't even read like the other talmuds). "Archko" turned up nothing and I didn't look for anything else.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

MWC, I would love to be able to see a staff of people doing as objective research on these Archko Volumes, as possible. If they are to be pro "Christianity"... then they do a terrible job. They seem to paint "Jesus" and his family as having rather highly disturbed thinking, and answers that don't paint Mary as the pretty picture the church would have us believe. But, they say there is a fine line between being crazy and a genius. Lots of work attributed to "Jesus" are of high regard for a social appeal, IMO.

 

Yes, there seems to be some historical discrepancies too. Besides some that you and others suggests, one is where it talks of historical records of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and I think Heimdall once posted that there are no historical records of the birth of "Jesus". I didn't check this out, because people like you and him... I've researched both your posts so much... I don't waste my time any more.

 

You two are genuine, have both swayed my thinking a lot, yet I don't always agree with your positions 100%... just yet.

[Mythra]

Heya Amanda.

 

I poked around just a little, because I had never heard of this Archko Volume thing.

 

Roger Pearse is a christian from England who posts quite often over at IIDB. He is somewhat of an expert on documents of antiquity. (well, maybe the word somewhat is an understatement) Here is his Amazon.com review of the book The Archko Volume: Documents That Claim Proof to the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ

 

From Amazon.com:

 

Reviewer: Roger Pearse from Ipswich, Suffolk United Kingdom

In the 19th century there was a flood of genuine discoveries of ancient manuscripts containing hitherto unknown works from antiquity. This seems to have stimulated the production of numbers of bogus documents, targetted at various communities. The common motive was to get money: the intended victims of the hoaxes could be determined by the language used.

Most of these documents have vanished into history, with their target groups - 'Jesus in Tibet' enthusiasts and the like. The Archko volume is one that has not. It was first published in 1884 under the title "The Archaeological and the Historical Writings of the Sanhedrin and Talmuds of the Jews..." and repackaged, reedited and revised as "The Archko Volume" (2nd Edition) during the life of W.D.Mahan, its author (I have both a 1884 and a 1905 edition - Mahan died in 1906).

After some difficulty I procured a first edition. One document -'Eli and the Story of the Magi' has been omitted altogether from subsequent editions, without any mention of why. There is, of course, a good reason for this. Apparently the text is copied verbatim from the novel "Ben Hur" (publ. 1880). The rest of the material has been rearranged, although there is no mention of this in the preface. All copies with the title 'Archko volume' are versions of the second edition - the first does not have the preface in the same place.

 

I investigated the 'translators' McIntosh and Twyman, and found that they are not listed as the authors of any other volume in the US Library of Congress catalogue. There is no evidence that they ever existed.

 

The shelfmark given for the material by "Valleus Paterculus", as a Vatican Library shelfmark, is wrong, as this institution classifies its manuscripts by collection, not by author. Since I am interested in other Vatican MSS, I can vouch for this myself. In fact no manuscripts of any work by Velleius Paterculus exist anywhere in the world, as the sole MS of his real history was lost during the 17th century. Since he died in AD30, it naturally does not mention Christ.

 

A general discussion of some of these hoaxes is available:GOODSPEED, Edgar J., Strange New Gospels, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1931), v+110pp. (There is a copy on the internet). It isn't very scholarly, and some of the judgements seem biased - New Testament Scholars enjoy a low reputation among Christians, and with good reason - but I have checked a number of the facts given and they seem to be correct. The rest must be left to the judgement of the reader.

 

The purpose of the hoax is plain - to make money from Christians living in rural areas of the US. As far as I know, it has not circulated elsewhere. It certainly was not targetted at unbelievers, or scholars, or even persons living outside the US, none of whom were at all likely to be taken in.

 

So what should Christians think? I was reminded of some wise words by the ancient Christian writer, Tertullian: "Manifold are the ways in which the devil has sought to undermine the truth. He is now trying to crush it, by pretending to defend it" (Adversus Praxean 1, 1). Spiritually this is a snare - inviting Christians to put their trust in something false, in the hope of convincing them, when the fraud is revealed, that the bible too is false. Commercially it is circulated for money, since its fraudulent nature has been known for over a century. If something seems too good to be true - it is. So is this.

[pandora]

H. C. Whydaman stopped by and told W. D. Mahan of these official court records, showing historical accounts of Jesus. Now that you say this about their names... that almost looks suspicious, doesn't it? It's almost like they are setting us up for a joke. Why da man? Well, I'll give that much the benefit of the doubt so far.

 

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that... given that there aren't very many other references to this document, my suspicion is fraud, but I'm not well-practiced in sleuthing out claims I am unfamiliar with in academia. Maybe I'll ask one of my old religion profs to take a look.

[Guest jamesi]

As I said I am familiar with the Acts of Pilate, which is included in the work. Since that is known to be forged then it brings the entire volume into question, doesn't it? A quick look at New Advent has this on The Acts of Pilate:

 

Acta Pilati

 

(Or the Gospel of Nicodemus.)

 

This work does not assume to have written by Pilate, but to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem. The alleged Hebrew original is attributed to Nicodemus. The title "Gospel of Nicodemus" is of medieval origin.

 

Hi... I hope I've typed and quoted correctly. The Acta Pilati to which you refer is not the same as the Acts of Pilate in the ridiculous Archko Volume, although both are apocryphal. But the Acts of Pilate in the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus are much older... ca. 4th century.

 

Re: Archko, there are way too many absurdities to list here. There are no such Jewish books as the "Sanhedrim". Mahan's Talmud and Josephus page-references are pure fantasy. WHYDAMAN = WDMAHAN + Y. Y? Who knows? He surely had a sense of humor. His section on Joseph and Mary "up close and personal" is laugh-out-loud funny. I suppose his unflattering depiction of Joseph is to discount him as possibly being a father to Jesus. He also did not have much respect for his largely uneducated (through no fault of their own) target audience, nor for the Christian tradition. I guess anyone can be a "Reverend" if he says he is.

 

Most posters here, while perhaps not "scholars", seem to have seen through this outrageous forgery simply through sober reasoning and common sense. Interesting board!

[Taphophilia]

Most posters here, while perhaps not "scholars", seem to have seen through this outrageous forgery simply through sober reasoning and common sense. Interesting board!

 

jamesi,

 

Welcome to the forums. oooh, a person with knowledge. (I looked at your profile) We enjoy and crave as much as we can get. I certainly hope you'll share what you know.

 

Taph

[Ouroboros]

Daaaaym! This is an old threat.

 

Welcome James(i)! (James the first?)

 

You have to post more about how great we are... we can never get enough of praise...

[Grandpa Harley]

I think we have our first contender for the Indiana Jones Award for March 08

[The-Captain]

It belongs in a museum!!

 

Hey thanks for going all Indy on this thread, I missed it the first time around. A little bit of knowledge is always welcome here.