Conversation for Pottery Washing...

There seems to be a bit of a lull in interesting artifacts for me to investigate. 

So, with my usefulness to the dig temporarily suspended, I thought it fitting to use this space to discuss a "recent" archaeological find.  Were I on the dig, this would be proper subject matter for the hours of pottery washing in the evening.  Enough scholars would be gathered in one place to comment on the find and also to lead me to greater understanding.  Alas.  I will have to throw this out to you, dear reader, and hope for your kind comments:

According to Sunday's New York Times, a three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew, dated late 1^st century BC, may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days (read the full article here: NYTimes.doc). 

So far, so good - right? 

Wrong.  The article states, "If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time."

Uh, and...? 

Let me explain.  A professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem (Dr. Israel Knohl) believes this particular tablet validates his thesis that the resurrection "story" in the New Testament was simply that: an earlier Jewish motif adopted by Jesus and his followers.  Now, thankfully, the article does point out the caution of many of Dr. Knohl's colleagues in ascribing too much to the text.  First of all, the messianic character included is not mentioned by name (Dr. Knohl believes it to be a martyr named Simon).  Second, as pointed out by his colleague (Dr. Moshe Bar-Asher), "In crucial places of the text there is a lack of text."  Translation: Dr. Knohl has read into the text what he wants to read. 

Now, as pointed out over and over by one of my language professors this year, "You must LOOK AT THE TEXT FIRST and then decide what it says - not the other way around."  It is the same with archaeology.  Many of the original Biblical archaeologists went to the Middle East already knowing what they would find (which resulted in their own embarrassment and the seeming "foolishness" of Christian archaeologists).  On Dr. Schuler's excavation, we dig first and then, based on the evidence, we give a reasonable hypothesis as to what it is.  Dr. Knohl's methodology violated this absolute.     

But back to my original beef with the article.  The article and Dr. Knohl state this discovery of the tablet will shake Christianity because of its debunking of the uniqueness of its resurrection doctrine.  Maybe I've missed something, but have we as Christians ever claimed that we are the only ones who talk about resurrection? 

I call your attention to the Persephone myth from ancient Greece, where a maiden was stolen from her mother Demeter and taken to the Underworld to be with the god Hades.  With some finagling by the other gods, Persephone is returned to her mother (of course, with conditions).  Tah dah: a veritable resurrection story. 

But let us look to the Old Testament - the canon of the Jewish religion.  There too we see hints and suggestions of resurrection.  Take Daniel 12:2: "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt" (I leave it to my friend, the Hebrew scholar, to comment).  Elsewhere, we hear of dry bones coming to life (Ezekiel 37).  And though the Sadducees denied the resurrection, the writings of the Pharisees support it.

Now, Knohl wants to make a big deal out of the three-day element of resurrection.  Looking beyond the afore-mentioned textual issues, the appearance of this "three-days" still is not a problem to Christianity.  Going to a basic scholarly source (Dictionary of Jesus and Gospels), "the third-day theme may reflect Hosea 6:2 ("on the third day he will raise us"), a more general allusion to the OT theme of the third day as a day of deliverance (cf. Gen. 22:4, 42:17-18; Is. 2:16; Jon 2:1), or more simply a reference on Jesus' part to a brief period of time."         

The main point is that of course there are common, traditional themes running through all religions.  In January, I came across an anthropological discussion of the "savior child" or "child of destiny" - a child born to rescue a people.  This author discussed all the similar elements between the stories of Moses, Aeneas, Perseus, Romulus and Remus, Jesus and Oedipus, finally concluding that these accounts "must be seen as popular expressions of some universal human need or experience, occurring independently in times and places that are worlds apart." 

Basically, the author states that because one account isn't unique (the story of Jesus), it cannot be true.  The gaps in his logic should be obvious, but this is more or less what Dr. Knohl is arguing.  Yet despite the obvious afore-mentioned problems with his textual analysis, it shouldn't BE bothersome if indeed a text appears talking about a resurrection in three days.  Just as God can shock us by doing something completely unexpected, he is equally able to work within tradition.  The account of Jesus can have similar elements with tradition, without being relegated to the category of myth.    

Let's go philosophical for a moment.  The definition of a miracle is an interference into nature by a higher supernatural power.  This interference is not necessarily a violation of the laws of nature, but working through them.  For example, God (the supernatural power) interfered with Mary when she became pregnant as a virgin; however, at some point the natural means took over and the Child was born naturally. 

Likewise, there can be a tradition of resurrection, without devaluing the very real and true resurrection of Christ on the third day.  Dr. Knohl will have to search a bit deeper if he indeed hopes to "shake" Christianity.  Doubt not the artifact, but the scholar who interprets it based on his own preconceived notions.