Reese 2007-02-26 2

From Summa Bergania

from David Bergan

to michael reese

date Feb 26, 2007 3:53 PM

subject Enter chronological snobbery

---

Hi Michael,

So I woke up this morning with my wife calling me to the television. The Today Show that she watches every morning had an interview today with James Cameron and an investigative journalist (Simcha Jacobovici) about their upcoming book and documentary: The Family Tomb of Jesus. Apparently in 1980, a construction worker uncovered a remarkable tomb in Talpiot (southeastern Jerusalem), with six ossuaries: "Jesus son of Joseph," "Maria," "Mariamene e Mara," "Matthew," "Yose" and "Judah son of Jesus." Jesus's was least decorative (was it made in haste to his untimely death?) and the third name is speculated to be Mary Magdalene.

So here I am watching this, and wondering why an archaeological discovery of this magnitude that's as old as I am, is just now being announced. I understand that verification takes time, but not 27 years. Why did the original (Jewish) archaeologists dismiss its importance? I have already watched documentaries where Mr. Titanic has tried to persuade me that there is intelligent life deep in the ocean... and also intelligent life in outer space. Has he just decided to turn his spotlight of speculative sensationalism on Christianity?

The curator who numbered these ossuaries is outraged: "Simcha has no credibility whatsoever," says Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally numbered the Talpiot ossuaries. "He's pimping off the Bible … He got this guy Cameron, who made 'Titanic' or something like that—what does this guy know about archeology? I am an archeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, you would say, 'Who is this guy?' People want signs and wonders. Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession." link

Ultimately the issue comes down to the artifacts, not the archaeologists... but even in the interview of Cameron and Jacobovici on The Today Show things smelled a little funny. When the host challenged them with critics like Zias, their response was not a direct reply, but rather an appeal to "Buy our book, buy a ticket to our movie, and decide it for yourself." Mammon, anyone?

It will be interesting to watch this unfold. I'm curious why no one has asked whether or not the bones from Jesus's container show marks of crucifixion. But based on your account, this is unlikely to be Jesus's tomb, because "It was the practice of Roman soldiers to throw the decayed corpses of the crucified "criminals" into a common grave." And I won't have you changing your story.

The Jewish historian, Josephus (circa 37-100 CE), maintained that the Romans crucified thousands of Jews in occupied Judea/Galilee, and I find this reasonable to believe.

Josephus also maintained that Christ performed miracles and physically rose from the dead.

Upon further reflection, the biggest reason I do not want the literal resurrection to be true is that it would seem to prove that God is a patricidal (or homicidal, or suicidal) maniac that demands human sacrifice in order to bestow forgiveness. This worldview, that God is vengeful and megalomaniacal maniac that demands blood for forgiveness and redemption. This worldview dates back to the ninth century BCE nomadic tribes of Mesopotamia who sacrificed humans on altars to appease God. This evolved over time to the view that animals were sufficient (the true meaning of the story of Abraham and Isaac: God telling God's faithful "enough already with the human sacrifice"). The role of Christ as the Pascal lamb was paramount to the first century Jewish mind. Yet another reason the gospel accounts make no sense outside of a first century Jewish worldview.

1) The sacrifice isn't in question... we all believe Jesus died. We all believe we ourselves will die. This isn't a theological stumbling block to the resurrection, but rather the crucifixion (or at least the atonement aspect of it). I still need a reason why the resurrection is undesirable.

2) The concept behind atonement is more accurately described as a ransom... that God had to give up one of His own (or Himself, depending on how you want to look at it) to sin in order to free us from it. It isn't necessarily that that was the only way to do it... maybe God could have done it with a snap of His fingers on a distant mountain. But even assuming it was possible for Him to do it that way, I maintain that the crucifixion way was still far greater... not because God was blood-thirsty for the pain of His son (or any of us), but because through Christ, God showed us His great love for us. God in the clouds doesn't care about us. God in the body of Jesus, dedicates His life to healing and teaching us how much our heavenly father cares for us. God in the body of Jesus lets the world have its way with Him, rather than pouring out wrath. God in the body of Jesus loves us so much that He allows Himself physical and spiritual torture. God in the body of Jesus loves me so much that He would die to save me.

Other methods of forgiveness don't symbolically show us how great is God's love for us. Rather than God inspiring a prophet with a vision of His love... He came to Earth in person to show us that His love bleeds for you and me. He spared no gore to make His love clear. Why should good men not want to believe this? What is superior about a distant God who is eating peeled grapes and gazing into His own navel?

There is no virtue ascribed to freezing any other aspect of human understanding in the first century worldview. Better ideas and understandings come along and we embrace the ones that are either provable or make our lives better in some way (in the event that the notion is not provable). Goodbye alchemy, hello chemistry; goodbye demonic possession, hello epilepsy; goodbye plague of death visited upon us by a vengeful and wrathful God and hello germs and antibiotics… etc, etc, etc. I would not limit my understanding of politics, history, love, relationships, astronomy, science, or anything else to the worldview of a tribe of 9th century BCE hunter/gatherers from Mesopotamia. I certainly am not going to handicap my beliefs in God to fit their time and place.

This is an example of what we call chronological snobbery. You can beat up Aristotle for thinking that the Earth was the center of the universe, but that is entirely irrelevant to his ethics or philosophy. Just because the Old Testament writers didn't know about germs doesn't mean they didn't have something of substance to say in Job about the problem of evil... or that the Song of Solomon doesn't understand eros. Ignorance on some issues does not entail ignorance on all issues.

Our time period also will be an historical relic someday. People 1000 years hence shouldn't dismiss our knowledge or discussions on all sorts of fields, just because they might have cold fusion or superconductors. If you fit your beliefs in God to the whims of current fashion, you are no better off than the nomads... you'll look just like them 1000 years from now.

Time has nothing to do with truth. The wheel is just as round today as when it was first invented. People might have discovered the correct understanding of God the same year they discovered agriculture. Your arrogance over the ancients proves nothing about them, and everything about you.

I fear that we are in danger of losing faith altogether, or equally fear that faith will be relegated to the crystal-sniffing crazies if something doesn't give. I encourage you to pick up Sam Harris' End of Faith at the library, or at least read his abstract (don't read an abstract written by one of his detractors, either). I fear that if we do not allow our beliefs in God to catch up to the 21st century, Harris is right and faith has no place in our lives and should be snuffed out.

I know about Harris... I watched an hour-long presentation of his. It was sheer slant and chronological snobbery (maybe that's where you were infected). His attacks on faith said nothing about the good that faith has done, and he thinks that the crusades of the 10th century somehow refutes the message of the apostles of the 1st century. I have no interest in reading his book. However, I will renew my offer of reading a book of your choosing (even End of Faith) if you agree to read one of my choosing. Your DVD arrived in the mail today. I will watch it, and let you know my thoughts... you get that one for free.

Kind regards,

David

--David Bergan

"A Christian told me, 'I cannot be perfect; it is hopeless; and God does not expect it.'

"It would be more honest if he had said, 'I do not want to be perfect: I am content to be saved.' Such as he do not care for being perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect, but merely for being what they call 'saved'."

—George MacDonald (Unspoken Sermons II, paraphrased)