Searching for Jesus' Bones (by Becky Garrison)
Throughout his book, The God Hypothesis, Victor Stenger appears to be obsessed with the need for concrete proof that the son of God was a real man. He feels that if Jesus of Nazareth really walked on the earth, someone would have unearthed his actual bones.
Now, I don't want to get medieval here, but frankly, how many Christians in the 21st century need the bones of Jesus as proof of their faith? After all, according to the resurrection story, Christ transcended matter as Mary Magdalene found an empty tomb, not a body.
During my recent trips to Israel and Jordan, I lost track of the historical discrepancies regarding where a given bit of biblical business occurred. Despite the debates over the exact place where Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, the specific church that marks the spot where Gabriel brought to Mary the good news that would change the world, and other historical critical snafus, I seemed to feel the presence of God's saving grace throughout history every time I stepped on a piece of seemingly sacred soil.
Also, look at the Easter story in its proper sociopolitical context for a sec. Right about now, Jesus and his crowd were persona non grata (mild understatement). The so-called leader of this ragtag group of rabble rousers had just been crucified. Unless Jesus rose from the dead, all their years of following him would have been for naught. Before they encountered him on the road to Emmaus, they had no clue if Jesus was the real deal, or if they had just drunk the wrong Kool-Aid by following a false prophet. They were left leaderless and scared for their lives, knowing full well they might be next on Pontius Pilate's hit list. Suffice to say, tensions were running pretty durn high.
As expected, the Romans did everything in their earthly power to prevent this resurrection myth from developing legs. The tomb was sealed, and guards were posted outside the cave 24/7. No way they would have let the disciples steal the body and run around claiming that Christ had risen. No siree. From a historical standpoint, the resurrection story could not have occurred without some kind of divine intervention. Check out a timeline of the early church and it's pretty clear that saying you believed in the risen Christ was a deadly move. Why would so many people risk banishment, torture, and even death for such an elusive myth?
Becky Garrison is senior contributing writer for The Wittenburg Door. Portions of this posting are excerpted from The New Atheists Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail. Reprinted with permission from Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I watched a series of Discovery Channel programs on the life of Jesus last night. In one of them, a doctor explained how Jesus could have literally sweat blood at Gethsemane. See Luke 22:44 Interesting.
Stuff like that doesn't strengthen my faith (by making me say see the Bible got it right) or harm my faith (by making me think, gee that wasn't miraculous after all). I do find it interesting, and occassional an important detail can inform my faith, like learning that Ceasar Augustus was call Son of God, or that the Eye of a Needle is a narrow gate in Jerusalem.
In the last year my friends lost their seven-year-old son to cancer. My father was diagnosed with cancer and my grandmother died. It has been a year when I've been seeking to find new meaning in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
My faith has helped me cope with these tragedies better. These tragedies have helped strengthen my faith. And, I can say that not once have I wondered about the bones of Jesus. There is a place for a good debate about bodily resurrection. But that debate did not impact me this Easter Season.
Love,
JimII
Prophetic Progress: Do not be afraid.
Posted by: JimII | March 24, 2008 12:01 PM
I'm afraid that the treatment in this article is naive and apologetic rather than historical. The detail about the guards on the tomb is found only in one source, the Gospel of Matthew, and the author has to change the story (the women go to the tomb merely to look at it, not to anoint the body) as a result of his addition of this detail.
I've posted a number of times in recent days on my own blog on this subject, but let me also share some of the online notes from a class I teach about the historical Jesus, which are also relevant to this subject.
Posted by: James McGrath | March 24, 2008 12:53 PM
James McGrath,
You have to understand that the gospels were not written the same way as our modern biographies. The gospels are ancient biographies, and ancient writers wrote by a different set of rules than the way we write today.
The gospels were not written to give us an historical account of the life of Jesus, and they do not give a chronological account of Jesus' ministry or actions. Ancient biographers felt free to write to paraphrase or summarize what Jesus said and arranged the events of his "life" according to a particular theme rather than a strict chronological sequence.
You have to also remember that the writers were just writing any old biography, they were writing a Christ-centered biography. They are telling us the story of Jesus, the Christ/Messiah; they are not simply recording historical facts. They are telling the story in order to teach their readers something about the person and mission of Jesus. The gospels are essentially story-telling. Ancient biographers would also arrange the stories topically, not chronologically.
We have to recognize that the gospels are a literary form in and of themselves and we have to understand the rules of using this kind of literary device to properly interpret it.
If we are to dissect these ancient gospels based on our modern tools of interpretation, then historians and biographers will run into problems. There are historical facts in the gospels (places and people for example) that are mentioned to support the gospels and give us background information, but the writers purpose was not to give us a historical, chronological biography of Jesus' life. The gospels are Christ-centered biographies, arranged in topical stories to tell us of the person and mission of Jesus.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 24, 2008 1:52 PM
You are preaching to the choir (and lecturing a lecturer!). My point was focused on the naive treatment of a detail from one of the Gospels at face value as providing a factual historical report, when it is more likely an apologetic addition by that Gospel's author. Your points about ancient history are certainly also relevant, but I don't see why you feel they are somehow in contrast to the point I was making in response to a detail in Garrison's article.
Posted by: James McGrath | March 24, 2008 2:08 PM
You made it seem that the gospels should only be read as an historical account of Jesus; and if those historical details fail, then the gospels are unreliable.
I think I see that you and I both agree that it shouldn't always be read that way. Right? If I'm right, I'm sorry I read too much into your post.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 24, 2008 2:57 PM
The movie "The Body" is a very entertaining view of the potential concerns some forces within the religious world would have in reagrds to the unearthing of the bones of Jesus of Nazareth.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | March 24, 2008 3:36 PM
James McGrath - I did link to your blog yet I didn't find anything written that was of any assistance to me in better understanding the full scope of the substance of the article above. You explained your opinion as to how fundamentialist come to a point of conclusiveness versus how you, an "historian" does. Yet, this didn't enlighten me much at all, although I must admit that I haven't taken the time to read all of your on-line notes so I'll hold off on making a summary judgement as to why you regularily attempt to get those that post on these threads to jump to your personal opinion site. Thanks!
Posted by: d.e.sharp | March 24, 2008 3:50 PM
Re: "the Eye of a Needle is a narrow gate in Jerusalem."
Although this has been repeated often, there is no evidence for it, and at least when I've been in Jerusalem no one offered a supposed site for it, though there are dubious sites sometimes suggested for other biblical references (e.g. Lazarus' tomb in Bethany).
The eye of a needle is an example of Semitic hyperbole. (Cf. pluck out your eye, cut off your hand.)
An intriguing possibility is that in the Aramaic (Syrian) version the word is not "camel" but "rope," which would still be a hyperbole but more analogous. Since Aramaic is the language that Jesus spoke, and since in the Aramaic back-translations of the parables we may come the closest to Jesus'unique personality this is an attractive argument at least.
Posted by: Peter W. | March 24, 2008 4:15 PM
LOL! Nope, a set of bones sure wouldn't strengthen my fait. "He is not here. He has risen."
Later Jesus ascended in heaven. As the disciples gazed up at heaven looking for the physical Jesus, they were told:
9 After saying this, he was taken up into a cloud while they were watching, and they could no longer see him.As they strained to see him rising into heaven, two white-robed men suddenly stood among them.11 "Men of Galilee," they said, "why are you standing here staring into heaven? Jesus has been taken from you into heaven, but someday he will return from heaven in the same way you saw him go!"
No bones here on earth. The bones are in heaven and will return when He does.
But..those who know Jesus as their Savior and rejoice in that relationship see daily evidence that Jesus Christ is real. In everything. In our thoughts, in our hearts. In the day's events. In the comfort we get when we don't understand what is going on.
No need for bones, He's alive.
Enjoyed the article! Anyway....know what would happen if Jesus had left us a pile of His bones?
We'd would have wound up worshipping "The Bones" - instead of the living Lord and Savior.
Wouldn't you just bet? C'mon...you all KNOW it's true! As silly as us humans can get, it would have been what would have happened.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | March 24, 2008 4:28 PM
I agree with Becky Garrison here. A common apologetic argument is that something dramatic must have happened back then that was overwhelming, for Christianity to exist today. Otherwise, how could the bunch of "rabble-rousers" have done anything other than fade into obscurity? Alternatively, one can argue that the existence of Christianity is doubly miraculous, were all its claimed miracles frauds.
And on the "bones" bit, well if the resurrection did not occur, then our faith is for nought as scripture itself boldly claims. So of course the bones are nowhere to be found.
Posted by: Ngchen | March 24, 2008 4:31 PM
They aren't going to find the bones, and Christ did ascend. Nobody has contended with the argument that it would have been very difficult for Christ's followers to steal his body, and downright insane for them then to pretend that he hadn't died.
That doesn't gel with anything that is in the gospel texts at all.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 24, 2008 4:57 PM
While I don't have a problem with heaven as a paraphysical place, I do have a problem with the idea of it being a literal physical place "somewhere up in the sky." If Christ literally ascended and that is why nobody has found his bones, then either his earthly body is "somewhere up in the sky" while he moves around in the spiritual non-physical ether," or he is walking around somewhere in some other part of the physical universe, bones and all. The only explanation that is digestible to me is that his physical body ceased to exist. But then why would the narrative have him levitating into the clouds instead of merely dissipating in front of his followers?
All of this would be much easier if they would just find his bones.
Posted by: I and I | March 24, 2008 5:26 PM
Re: "the Eye of a Needle is a narrow gate in Jerusalem."
Although this has been repeated often, there is no evidence for it, and at least when I've been in Jerusalem no one offered a supposed site for it, though there are dubious sites sometimes suggested for other biblical references (e.g. Lazarus' tomb in Bethany).
Thanks, Peter W. I guess I never looked into this legend because it entered my set of "facts" before the internet was a part of my world, so I was not as skeptical.
Posted by: JimII | March 25, 2008 1:32 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?