Fair enough, there is an argument in favour of the This-is-the-Family-Tomb-of Jesus. But it's all so weak and presented (as was the Gospel of Judas last year) with so much hype and pr. It smacks of an end run from the realms of the scholarly to the tents of P.T. Barnum.
In the end a Christianity that believes in a resurrection that involves nothing physical ("we've found the bones of Christ, isn't that wonderful?") is trying to supplant the original:
“Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
(1Cor 15:12-17,20 RSV)
This, and other, testimony from the First Century is certainly preferable to the looney speculation and story-telling that various Gnostics came up with in the subsequent centuries. So why is neo-gnosticism so attractive today? Because, like every age, we prefer a Jesus we are comfortable with, who doesn't challenge us; who only challenges those we disagree with.
Something for us meditate on during this Lent.
Posts
