04-March-2007: Jesus' Bones
Big fuss in the news about a documentary arguing that ossuaries found in a common tomb in Jerusalem bear the names of
Jesus and names of his immediate family members. "Yeshu bar Yosef" being Jesus' name in Aramaic. Arguments rage about the
likelihood of finding these particular names in one grave: Mary, Judah, James, Matthew being common Jewish names at that time.
I won't get into that argument because I am not a scholar nor expert in the field of Jewish graves during the first century CE.
I doubt we will ever know for certain that these are the bones of the folks portrayed in the New Testament.
Old, very old, arguments have been brought up. Some argue that there is historical proof that Jesus existed by pointing to
Josephus' "History of the Jews." Josephus was a Jew living in Rome during the second century CE and he wrote his book to try
to explain the behaviour of the Jews to his Roman peers. Unlike most
people who claim that Josephus proves the historical existence of Jesus, I happen to have actually read this book. In all the details
of the history of Palestine, the rebellions and other problems between the Jews and the Romans, there is one very strange sentence
that sticks out like a sore thumb. It goes something like this (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "There was at that time a group who
followed a man named Jesus of Nazareth in the belief that he was a Messiah."
That's it. No detail. No eye witnesses. Just that one uninformative statement that most scholars believe to be a margin note
made by one the monk transcribers of
Josephus' book and that this note eventually made its way into the main body of the text.
I think I have mentioned before that I am a Christian. I have no problem accepting that there was a person named Jesus who
made a very profound impact
on those who knew him. I also have no problem accepting that this man had brothers and was married to a Greek woman named Mary Madeleine, who was slandered
by those telling stories about this couple. Don't forget that in the Middle East any woman who appears to be
slightly different than what the priests or mullahs think a woman should be was (and still is) called a prostitute.
That Jesus and Mary had children does not impinge on my Christian belief in the slightest. In fact, it enhances it and is somewhat helpful in sorting out the fanciful stories from the teachings.
Jesus was hardly the first (or last) leader to be born of a virgin. In fact, that was a pretty standard practise of the time. Nor was he the first to rise from the dead.
Greco-Roman-Egyptian history is filled with such events. Anyone who made an impression, or who wanted to make an impression, shared those same characteristics,
along with the abilities to do things unexplained in everyday experience. People have always tended to ascribe exaggerated abilities or qualities to those whom they admire.
The healings? Today many people believe that by bathing in a certain pool of water or touching a certain a certain rock or visiting a certain place that their ills will dissipate.
They can find "images" of Biblical figures in water stains and grilled cheese sandwiches, despite that fact that no one knows what those people looked like. A waif-like blue eyed
blond mother of Jesus is hardly accurate. More likely she was moderately dark skinned with black hair and brown eyes just like most other women in the Middle East. And when
did Jesus transform into a dreamy-eyed Scandinavian? Those magical-endowed images that people find are so far from what the originals looked like that they might as well be
images of Martians. As I write this I noticed the wood finish on a small filing cabinet beside my desk and instantly saw an image of a bird. Amazing device, the human mind.
It can even invent canals on arid, uninhabited Mars.
As for the teachings? They are hardly original. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and its variants are found world-
wide and in a variety of religions. Makes sense. Such aphorisms lie at the base of any civilized society. The famous "Sermon on the Mount"
is a restatement of teachings found in the Old Testament.
What's so special about Yeshu bar Yosef? He never claimed to be the Son of Man, which was the Essene title of the Messiah. At least,
if he did, no one thought it significant enough to write about. We actually learn very little about Jesus from the New Testament,
except for the emphasis that this man put on the importance of love in the relationship between God and Man and between humans.
The God of the New Testament is a God of love and forgiveness, unlike the often angry and vengeful God of the Old Testament.
That's what I taught my children about Jesus' teachings. Love trumps the law and social traditions. Empathy for our fellow humans is
paramount. I'm not suggesting that placing a heavy emphasis on love between humans was new with Jesus, but the whole character of the
stories in the New Testament are consistent about this man's consistency.
In the Koran Jesus has an important role as the last, before Mohammed, in the long line of prophets. He is respected for his teachings
about service to others. But, most of what we call Christianity is a result of the teachings of Saul of Tarsis (later known as Paul
before he evolved into Saint Paul). More accurate would be to call our religion "Paulism."
If anyone reading this thinks that I am exaggerating, they should get their hands on some of the books that were excluded from
the New Testament. The Gospel of Mary tells the story about Jesus' mother. In it, she also is the product of a virgin birth and
comes across, at times, as if she had even more powers than her famous son. The Gospel of Thomas has a wonderful
collection of stories about Jesus' childhood. It seems the young Jesus was not quite as forgiving and understanding as he
would eventually become. He turned a group of children who teased him into swine. He struck an annoying teacher dumb. Hardly
the acts of a man who taught us to turn the other cheek and to forgive our brother seventy times seven fold.
So what has all this to do with the discovery of what might be the bones of Jesus and his family? To me, it matters not. If they
are the bones of the proclaimed saviour of the world, then it is a mild curiosity. If they are not, it doesn't matter one whit. But,
what I have trouble with is the number of Christians proclaiming loudly and frequently that they cannot be the bones
of Jesus, because, as we all know, his body ascended into heaven. I guess I'm just one of those people who has trouble
blurring the distinction between the message that Jesus' story delivers and physical reality.
I have no use for the opinions of religious scholars who have spent their lives cooped up in libraries pouring over the works
of philosophers and religious writers who similarly spent their lives in the very same libraries. Navel-gazing taken
to the extreme. Seems to me that Jesus had some pretty hard words for such folk. I do have some sympathy with those who must
believe that God wrote every word in the Bible as literal
truth, despite all its contradictions and discrepancies between its words and the functioning of the universe we
inhabit. And I do sympathise with those who have been overloaded by the secular world and who have turned from it as
a coping mechanism.
But, in my world God lives and loves us within the framework of the laws of physics and evolution. To claim that
he created everything, then violated the very rules that he, presumably, created, suggests to me that people are calling
God some sort of magician or hypocrite. He gave us brains so that we could use them. And, the more of "reality" that
we can understand, the more we know of God.
That's my sermon of the week.