Sometime this week National Geographic will air a documentary called
The First Jesus. I don't have cable so I will probably not have the opportunity to see it.
According to National Geographic (NG), analysis of a three-foot-tall stone tablet from the first century B.C. may speak of an early Messiah and his resurrection.
But it wasn't Jesus Christ. [insert ominous musical motif here] It was Simon of Peraea, a Messiah who died four years before Christ was born.
Did his life serve as the prototype of a Messiah for Jesus and his followers? And could this tablet shake up the basic premise of Christianity? If Dr. Israel Knohl's translation of the "Gabriel stone" is correct, The National Geographic web site goes on to say:
... it would imply that the idea of a Messiah who rises from the dead after three days predates the time of Christ — providing a missing link between Judaism and Christianity, since it suggests Jesus’ death and resurrection were not unique... Dr. Knohl believes that Jesus knew the story of Simon’s death and from it had learned that a Messiah must die to fulfill his destiny.Keep in mind this show has not aired yet, so the only information we have to go on is the promotional language on the NG website and reactions by scholars. So I can only speak to what has been given publicly thus far. I'm sure NG will attempt to be objective in presenting such a sensational find. But one reason why this show's reliability comes into question is not so much its treatment of the artifact or its translation, but rather
its representation of Christianity itself.
Someone unfamiliar with Christianity (or someone who learned about Christianity from
The Judas Gospel) would be given the impression that Christianity's entire premise is built on an inherent opposition to Judaism. This is a gross misrepresentation. Yes, Christianity is unique and separate. It and Judaism grew apart very quickly in the early centuries as the rhetorical polemics between them attest to. But I know of no Christian who tries to minimize their faith's Judaic origins or deny the common roots of the two. In fact, it is a point of pride for many.
More specifically, Judaic messianic prophecies and Messiah candidates pre-dating Christ do not pose a problem for Christianity, nor have they ever. In fact, the import of Christianity's foundation was not its "separateness", but its anticipation of a Messiah and the fulfillment of pre-existing prophecies. I admit, as I write this, I am still having difficulty figuring out how NG thinks Knohl's interpretation will "revolutionize and destroy the heart of Christian belief", as April DeConick says. (One might get the impression that NG will make any interesting find, translation, or text do the job, regardless of its relevence:
Newly Discovered Text Shakes Christianity to its Core: Jesus Wore Greek-style Sandal, not Syrian!!!)
In
Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, William Horbury (Cambridge) shows that Messianic beliefs were a central and powerful theme that extended through Jewish history into the second temple period. Christianity's core belief concerning the personhood and role of Christ (as opposed to other messiah candidates) was an organic outgrowth of these Judaic messianic expectations. The messianic language found in the Old Testament, Targums, and deutero-canonical books profoundly influenced early Christianity. In other words, Christianity sees its own belief as the acceptance of Judaism's messianic tradition. If Simon of Peraea had been widely accepted as the one Messiah, then NG and others would today simply point to Jesus of Nazareth as the smoking gun.
Of course there were other "messiahs" running around Judea. We knew that.
This being said, NG's promotional language will leave even the most unread Christians scratching their heads in confusion. More likely this documentary will "shake up the basic premise" of NG's own reliability. My favorite response is from
Mike Heiser, Ph.D, who says
So, let me see if I understand your claim, NG. The fact that there is an earlier reference to a third day resurrection undermines Christian theology . . . when that same idea is in the Old Testament . . . which is the Jewish Bible . . . and Christianity came out of Judaism . . . huh? What dopes.April DeConick, Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University, is an expert on gnostic writing and by no means a defender of traditional Christian beliefs. It is on her blog that we find an initial
reaction to the documentary here and more importantly it is here we find
a letter written by Israel Knohl himself, the professor whose research National Geographic uses for its documentary:
I have not seen yet the NG film, but if this is indeed what they say, it is ridiculous. In my view, my reading and interpretation of the inscription supports the historicity of the Gospels story about Jesus predictions of his death and resurrection rather than 'destroy the heart of Christianity'. (Emphasis mine.
Read Israel Knohl's response in context here.
I feel the larger issue at hand, and the more important lesson to be learned, is the use of mass media to frame an issue in order to push public dialogue and public attitudes in a desired direction. Whoever influences the interpretation of history (
American Civil War history by the left, and Middle Eastern history by the religious right come to mind) will have the upper hand in influencing modern politics, maybe even ethics. Professor DeConick writes:
One of the things I have been trying to communicate on this blog is that the media spins us and we need to be concerned about it. The media is taking our work and spinning it to whatever sensation the media thinks will sell... My real concern is that all these "new" finds and the scholars working on them are going to appear sillier and sillier, and what could be very significant to our understanding of the history and formation of Judaism and Christianity will be further marginalized and neglected by other scholars and the broader public who have become confused and numbed.If you see a "documentary" that claims things like "it will revolutionize Christianity", etc., beware. New finds usually don't overturn established religions...
Despite the highly-spun articles on Christian history, National Geographic also makes available this great photo series from Mt Athos...
Unfortunately, we saw scores of resignations such as this under the Bush administration when many left diplomatic service in the years surrounding the invasion of Iraq. Years of intelligence gathering were compromised in order install politically loyal bureaucrats in the CIA and State Department. (But as a conservative I am supposed to pretend the Grand Army of Republican heroes was "shaking up" the troglodyte bureaucrats and saving the day.)
As the US sends its best and brightest to those places such as Afghanistan where our security interests are most critical, I daresay Hoh's classical reference isn't lost on his intended audience. His colleagues- regardless of political sway- are equally as intelligent as he. Yet they are all captive to the same constraint Hoh speaks of: "guidance and intent shaped more by the political climate in Washington." Indeed, their job is often complicated by senators pretending to be on "fact finding missions." (For more insight into how national security and foreign policy can be adversely affected by party politics, I recommend Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer. Good for realists, not good for loyalists. Or Inside the CIA by Ronald Kessler)
