Posts
The New York Times has an eye-opening article about a tablet from the decade before Jesus' birth that might shed some light on the political situation of Judaism in Jesus's lifetime. The article brings up some interesting points about the political situation in Judea around Jesus' birth, but I felt that a lot of the article's points are pretty vapid if taken at face value.
Many of the points the article makes seem obvious to me. For example, the table could be "part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day." As opposed to understanding Jesus through the history of 16th Century Finland? Also, that this stone might predict the Messiah will rise from the dead after three days does not seem all that revolutionary to me. I have 13 years of Catholic school religion classes under my belt, and one of the basic tenets I learned about Jesus as Messiah is that there are parts of the Old Testament that describe the Messiah, many of which Jesus fulfilled. Some of those predictions, however, do tend to be vague foreshadowings of events in Jesus's life.
But then again, this stone might be one more way of reading Jesus' life as part of the Messianic tradition in Judaism, a more explicit one than some of the Old Testament predictions. And, according to the article, a clearer understanding of how the idea of a resurrection in three days was not something original to Christianity, but rather part of the Jewish political revolts against the Romans. (See the stuff about Simon the Messiah in the article.)
Does this article change your understanding or belief in Jesus in any way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You have been blogging your little heart out, with no comments. What a shame.
I read the same article a few days ago. Interesting and important discovery. However, its usefulness in determining the authenticity of Jesus' messiahship is nil. The thing is, lots of stories in the bible are influenced by earlier traditions. That's the thing about oral history - current events are filtered through culturally accepted archetypes. See also: Deuteronomic view of history.
The bottom line question, though, should be, "Does it matter?" Historically, yes; theologically, no. As religious people, we accept a lot of really supernatural stuff on faith. If that faith can be shaken by a vague, difficult to translate tablet, the it isn't much of a faith at all, in my mind.
Colin, you make an excellent distinction between faith and history. I really agree with your last sentence.
Post a Comment