The Weathering of the Sphinx: Alternative Models

Those who follow alternative archaeology on the Sphinx know about Robert Schoch’s geological water erosion hypothesis. Schoch’s analysis argues that water erosion of the Sphinx indicates it is much older than the pyramids and the pyramid age. Now new wind-swept models are emerging (here and here). Though this link doesn’t directly challenge Schoch and his arguments, I have to wonder if it will at some point.

Israel Knohl, April DeConick, and Yours Truly on the Gabriel Stone

April DeConick just posted a letter from Prof. Israel Knohl, the transcriber of the Gabriel Stone. Prof. Knohl comments on her previous post (which I in turn posted for you all). The response notes a suggestion by Dr. DeConick with which Dr. Knohl disagrees. You can read my response to this (small) debate — I post it in PDF form since I can’t get my blog to show Hebrew letters).

Giza Tombs Update

Andrew Collins has informed me that he has re-uploaded the YouTube video showing the Giza cave discoveries in 2008. It now has new footage, some descriptive text, and a different music soundtrack (Arab Sufi music). Click on the screen below for the video.

Andrew added this note:

If you have not been keeping up with the story, Dr Zahi Hawass has officially denied the existence of Giza’s cave underworld. He remains fixed in this view, even though the footage tells a different story. For those interested in learning more see my new book Beneath the Pyramids: Egypt’s Greatest Secret Uncovered.

We now believe that the caves could mark the course of local faulting, and that radar satellite imagery might show them heading off in the direction of the Second Pyramid, site of the legendary Tomb of Hermes according to various medieval Arab sources.

More Media PaleoBabble on the Gabriel Stone

Sometimes I come across something that makes me wish I’d named this blog PaleoDiarrhea. I usually have that thought when the popular media dips its toe into archaeology and biblical studies (or ancient astronauts). Here’s another example brought to my attention by April DeConick over at Forbidden Gospels.1

It seems that the media is hyping the Gabriel Stone (“Apocalypse of Gabriel”) again. Now National Geographic (NG) is at the helm. The same people (ask April) who screwed up the Gospel of Judas. Now the claim is that the Gabriel Stone will destroy the heart of Christianity since it is an earlier reference to a third day resurrection.2  Let’s tip a glass of Kaopectate to NG for that one.

Guess what, NG? There’s an even earlier reference to a third day resurrection than the Gabriel Stone. Ha! Scooped you, did I?  I’ll try and write in a whisper . . . it’s . . . in . . . the Old Testament . . . yeah, over at Hosea 6:1-3 . . . April found it too . . . drat!

So, let me see if I understand your claim, NG. The fact that there is an earlier reference to a third day resurrection undermines Christian theology . . . when that same idea is in the Old Testament . . . which is the Jewish Bible . . . and Christianity came out of Judaism . . . huh?

What dopes.

It’s easy (for anyone who isn’t an NG journalist) how Hosea 6:1-3 and its third day resurrection would be applied to the messiah. In Hosea, the thrid day resurrection is corporate, speaking of national Israel. Israel in the Old Testament is at times referred to as the son of God (Exod 4:23; Hosea 11:1). The messiah has a variety of titles in the OT, one of which is “the Servant.” The Servant is one who would redeem Israel. This is where the idea of a suffering messiah comes from — Isaiah 53, the description of the “Suffering Servant.” But in that same book of Isaiah, most of the time the Servant is actually corporate Israel!  My point: the messiah (in the OLD Testament – that thing that is earlier than the Gabriel Stone and the NT) and national Israel are identified with each other. A third day resurrection of the nation could easily be applied (and was, in the NT) to the personal messiah, the son of God.

But never mind all that factual detail from the text, NG. Just go your merry way and unleash more verbal diarrhea on the public.


  1. April is no defender of “orthodox” Christianity; her love is Gnosticism and its literature.
  2. For a transcription of the inscription, click here; for an English translation, click here. The lines of contention are 80-81. Read it yourself; you’ll see it’s incomplete to boot.

Some Herodotus PaleoBabble Validated?

Herodotus, as many readers know, gets picked on all the time (the “Father of History” is called the “Father of Lies”). Breaking news today might put a W in the right column for Herodotus, though. It appears the lost army of Cambyses may have been found. Here’s the first paragraph of this link:

The remains of a mighty Persian army said to have drowned in the sands of the western Egyptian desert 2,500 years ago might have been finally located, solving one of archaeology’s biggest outstanding mysteries, according to Italian archaeologists. Bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones found in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert have raised hopes of finally finding the lost army — 50,000 strong — of Persian King Cambyses II, buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C.

This would be pretty cool if it pans out.

On a less optimistic note, Archaeoblog notes: “The team communicated their finding to the Geological Survey of Egypt and gave the recovered objects to the Egyptian authorities. ‘We never heard back’.”

Looks like Zahi Hawass will be injecting himself in this one, too. Don’t forget, according to Zahi, there’s nothing left to be discovered in Egypt, unless his hand-picked teams do it.

Robert Price’s Bullgeschichte

This recently posted book review of Robert Price’s new work, Jesus is Dead, vividly illustrates how scholars such as Price ultimately betray the scholarly guild. The reviewer points out occasion after occasion where Price simply dismisses those with whom he disagrees, rather than clearly and patiently interacting with their work. This academic methodological transgression also surfaces when it comes to engaging primary texts. If their content doesn’t suit Price, the strategy is to dismiss or ignore. This isn’t scholarship. It isn’t even clear thinking. It is bullgeschichte, a term Price himself coins in the book, as the reviewer notes. What a waste of time and ability.1

  1. For those unfamiliar with the pun Price (and I) am making here, scholars often use the German terms Heilgeschichte (“salvation history”) and religionsgeschichtlichte Schule (“History of Religions School”) to denote, respectively, a certain theme in biblical theology and a historical-evolutionary-parallelistic approach to the study of religion. Price coins the term Bullgeschichte to refer to books whose content promotes what I call paleobabble. I like his term for his own work.