July 6, 2008

Really?

An article in the New York Times this morning cites "a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day."

Really? This is new? With its intense themes the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple and the re-constitution of Israel, all against the background of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, isn't this what the New Testament is about in the first place?

Check out the article here.

3 comments:

Museum Ethics Controversy said...

It is highly probable this stone tablet text is simply another sensationalist scam, as is clearly indicated by the facts

(1) that no specific information is available on its provenance and

(2) that no details are provided on carbon dating of the ink.

As such, this "news" falls right in line with the faked Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus "documentary" designed to make a profit off of people's fascination with the "real" Jesus, and with the larger scandal of the biased and misleading way the Dead Sea scrolls are being presented in museum exhibits around the world, with an antisemitic expression appearing on a government-run North Carolina museum's website. See, e.g.,

http://spinozaslens.com/libet/articles/dworkin_ethicsofexhibition.htm

and

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew/archives/2008/06/dead_sea_scroll.shtml.

Brother Charles said...

Thanks for the links to counterpoints, Museum Ethics Controversy.

For me, I'm not really interested in the authenticity of this or related finds. I wrote the post to counter the misguided idea that Christianity is something apart from a tradition continuous with the Second Temple Judaism from which it came.

In fact, I would be so bold as to say that the political and religious crisis of 70 forced the question upon God's people, "Now that Jerusalem and the Temple are gone, how does one remain a good Jew?" Two new ways of being a Jew emerged, rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. Fraternal twins, if you wish.

Tausign said...

After reading the article I don't understand the conclusions. Why does this seem contrary to anything said in the Gospel? To say as the author, does that this stone text changes the meaning of the Last Supper is goofy.

If the prophecy of the 'Messiah's rising on the third day' was circulating during (or prior to) Christ's mission it only shows that our Lord's words in the Gospel were his own rather than later insertions by the gospel writers. That would only undermine the interpretations of scholars rather than the words of Jesus.