Stone of Contention
This week an archeological discovery came to light that some say throws the resurrection of Christ into question. Several news outlets ran stories on the “mysterious tablet” of stone that appears to date to the years just before the birth of Jesus. But the most fascinating part of the ink-on-stone document is its inscription that allegedly announced the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. Some say the finding shows that the resurrection of Christ was not a unique idea, and therefore undermines the event’s historicity.
But a few problems immediately come to mind. First, the translation of the stone is far from settled. The crucial section of the inscription—which is said to announce a risen messiah—is smudged, making the meaning of the lines difficult to determine.
Time magazine concludes that the “contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on a creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts.”
Second, even if the controversial translation holds up under scrutiny, I still don’t see this discovery as a threat to the resurrection. We’ve long known that Christ’s resurrection has antecedents and echoes in other religions. Far from shaking Christian faith such examples were a boon of belief to thinkers like C.S. Lewis who contended that God had placed the story of Jesus in the hearts and cultures of many people. For Lewis the resurrection was “true myth.”
Third, I find it incredibly unlikely that the disciples would have been exposed to the stone document or its ideas. Scholars are placing the tablet with the Dead Sea scrolls, which were produced by a group of ascetic Jews called the Essenes. This cave-dwelling tribe of highly devout Jews was completely detached from mainstream Judaism of the day. They viewed even the strict Pharisees as sell-outs for having any dealings with Rome. Fearing corruption of their religion, the Essenes retreated to the caves at Qumran where they lived like monks, waited for the messiah, copied the Hebrew Bible and wrote other religious documents. I doubt the disciples—who were uneducated tradesmen—would have even been aware of the esoteric documents this reclusive group produced.
Fourth, there’s the possibility that the tablet’s inscription is prescient. Though the Israeli scholar who translated the inscription believes it refers to a military messiah who defied Rome, why couldn’t it be a sort of soft prophecy of Jesus' resurrection? Why has no one discussed that possibility? The Essenes wrote other beautiful passages about messiah such as “He shall heal the badly wounded and make the dead live.” Could it be that God revealed future events to this zealous band of worshipers?
Perhaps only time and more study will tell the true impact of this archeological discovery. But whatever the outcome—as with many other “discoveries” of recent years, biblical truth will stand the test. Some Christians are threatened by any sort of scholarly or archeological inquiry into the origins of Christianity. But I take the opposite tack. We have a historically contingent faith and overwhelming documentation of our faith’s central events. What do we have to hide? Bring on the scrutiny!
But a few problems immediately come to mind. First, the translation of the stone is far from settled. The crucial section of the inscription—which is said to announce a risen messiah—is smudged, making the meaning of the lines difficult to determine.
Time magazine concludes that the “contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on a creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts.”
Second, even if the controversial translation holds up under scrutiny, I still don’t see this discovery as a threat to the resurrection. We’ve long known that Christ’s resurrection has antecedents and echoes in other religions. Far from shaking Christian faith such examples were a boon of belief to thinkers like C.S. Lewis who contended that God had placed the story of Jesus in the hearts and cultures of many people. For Lewis the resurrection was “true myth.”
Third, I find it incredibly unlikely that the disciples would have been exposed to the stone document or its ideas. Scholars are placing the tablet with the Dead Sea scrolls, which were produced by a group of ascetic Jews called the Essenes. This cave-dwelling tribe of highly devout Jews was completely detached from mainstream Judaism of the day. They viewed even the strict Pharisees as sell-outs for having any dealings with Rome. Fearing corruption of their religion, the Essenes retreated to the caves at Qumran where they lived like monks, waited for the messiah, copied the Hebrew Bible and wrote other religious documents. I doubt the disciples—who were uneducated tradesmen—would have even been aware of the esoteric documents this reclusive group produced.
Fourth, there’s the possibility that the tablet’s inscription is prescient. Though the Israeli scholar who translated the inscription believes it refers to a military messiah who defied Rome, why couldn’t it be a sort of soft prophecy of Jesus' resurrection? Why has no one discussed that possibility? The Essenes wrote other beautiful passages about messiah such as “He shall heal the badly wounded and make the dead live.” Could it be that God revealed future events to this zealous band of worshipers?
Perhaps only time and more study will tell the true impact of this archeological discovery. But whatever the outcome—as with many other “discoveries” of recent years, biblical truth will stand the test. Some Christians are threatened by any sort of scholarly or archeological inquiry into the origins of Christianity. But I take the opposite tack. We have a historically contingent faith and overwhelming documentation of our faith’s central events. What do we have to hide? Bring on the scrutiny!
posted by Drew Dyck at 3:21 PM
4 Comments:
I have a friend who is studying the Hebrew Roots of the bible and also biblical archeology. I had read about this in the NY Times and sent him the link and his response is as follows. "It only verifies to me that the Jewish people, and the Essenes in particular, were expecting at least two comings of the messiah - the suffering servant and the victorious one. The orthodox Jewish scholars since around 1200 A.D. say they never believed in such a double coming since their great sage, Maiomonides in 1200 A.D. or so, taught against the Son of Joseph and the Son of David pictures of 2 comings of messiah. This seemingly blows that teaching and exposes Maiomonides approach as a reaction against Gentile Christianity that was already so anti Jewish and cutoff from its Jewish roots. Once again, the God of Abraham and Issac and Jacob may be using the rocks to cry out the truth and bring Jew and Gentile closer together." So at this point I don't think there is anything to worry about.
Amen Drew. I believe that each new find is basically interpreted in light of what we believe. I trust God and His Word, so I believe like you that there is a logical way to explain any evidence in light of how we believe.
On the other hand there are those always seeking to discredit God's Word, and they in turn interpret the evidence in a way that contradicts the truth.
I pray that all believers would be strong enough in their faith, that they would not allow those who seek to discredit God, to influence their beliefs.
Who are these experts who can date a rock to within 30 years? I doubt that very much! It could have been carved after Christ.
Drew got to the heart of the matter when he said, "Biblical truth will stand the test." God is not threatened by questions, research or any other honest quest for truth.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home