A new controversy is shaking the field of religious archaeology.
In the 1980s, archaeologists claimed to have discovered the Jesus Family Tomb beneath a tower block in Jerusalem.
Television documentaries were made on the Tomb but many Biblical scholars were openly sceptical. Archaeologists pointed out that the names of Jesus’ family were not unusual ones during that era so there was no real proof that the people buried in that tomb were really members of Christ’s family. In any case, protests from Orthodox Jews meant that the excavations could not continue.
Now, some archaeologists claim to have found another chamber 250 feet away from the Jesus Family Tomb. They claim that this chamber contains the tomb of Jesus himself. The coffin has ‘Divine Jehovah, raise up’ inscribed on it. And there are other Biblical symbols contained within the chamber.
Once again, this new discovery has drawn derision from some archaeologists and scripture scholars. They point out that the tomb could have belonged to anyone who lived in that era and some suggest that the Biblical references are only drawn from the Old Testament which is common to Jews and Christians alike.
I have no strong views on the authenticity of these discoveries but they seem to me to raise an important issue. Do our gods and prophets have to be historical figures? Or does their greatest contribution to religion lie in their teachings?
In general, the division between historical gods and non-historical gods and prophets breaks down into BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domino). We don’t worry too much about the historicity of gods and prophets who existed before Christ was born. Was Moses really around to receive the Ten Commandments? Who knows. It’s the commandments that are important, not the method of their delivery. Did the Red Sea really part? And if so, when exactly did this happen? Nobody really cares because these are religious allegories rather than incidents of history.
| "To believe in Lord Krishna, you do not need to know which street he lived in. Similarly, the importance of Jesus Christ lies in his message, not in his burial chamber." |
Much the same is true of sub-continental religions. Archaeologists are divided on the dates when the events described in the Ramayan occurred. We are not even sure where Ram’s Ayodhya was. Was it modern-day Ayodhya? Or was it a place nearby? So it is with Krishna. We enjoy the stories, learn from the teachings and many of us venerate his divinity. We don’t really care that much about the exact dates or the historical accuracies of the stories.
In the case of the Buddha, we have some idea of where he came from and where he found enlightenment. But the vast majority of the world’s Buddhists would follow their religion even if these historical locations were proved to be false.
Religions that were founded after the birth of Christ are closer in time and therefore, offer a greater degree of historical reference points. We know a fair amount about the historical Prophet Mohammad and Sikh Gurus are all historical figures whose lives are well documented.
The problem occurs at the moment of change: the life of Christ. We know that there was a historical Jesus because contemporary accounts not written by his followers, refer to a preacher of that name who lived in that era.
But, even the story of the historical Christ is open to many interpretations. Take for instance, the Resurrection. Did it really happen as described in the Bible? A new book, published last month, says that the resurrection was an allegory for the imprint of the man on the shroud. But even if this is true, how much faith should we place in the shroud itself?
In medieval times, relics said to be associated with the life of Christ attracted thousands of pilgrims who lined up to view such objects as a bloody nail said to have been used during the Crucifixion. These days, however, the Vatican is scornful of the authenticity of such relics. Even the Turin shroud has no papal endorsement and many people dismiss it as a medieval forgery, a view supported by carbon dating. (Though the carbon-dating tests are themselves disputed.)
The problem with obsessing about the history behind religion is that there are too many questions to answer. In the case of Christ, there are all the theories about the missing years, his youthful travels about which the New Testament offers no details. One view is that Christ came to India and picked up Hindu teachings, which is why the New Testament is much softer in its message than the Old Testament. Scripture scholars do not all necessarily rule out this interpretation. But there is little support for the view contained in a best-selling book by Holger Jensen that Jesus only fainted on the cross, was revived a few days later and then went off to Kashmir to spend the rest of his life. On the other hand, there is a tomb in Kashmir which locals swear is the tomb of Jesus Christ.
If there is a lesson in all of this, it is that history and religion do not need to mix. Yes, if there are ancient artefacts and locations connected to religion, then these are of some interest. But religion does not necessarily depend on history. To believe in Lord Krishna, you do not need to know which street he lived in. Similarly, the importance of Jesus Christ lies in his message, not in his burial chamber.
Perhaps the tomb they have discovered in Jerusalem is the real thing. Perhaps it isn’t. Either way, it doesn’t really matter.
Name:
Please enter name
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Please enter email
Please enter a valid email address eg. xyz@abc.com !
Friend's Name:
Please enter friend name
Friend's E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Please enter friend email
Please enter a valid email address eg. xyz@abc.com !
Additional Text:
Security code:
Other Articles
-
It is not only the right thing to do on an intuitive level but also entirely in accordance with the principles on which this nation was founded.
-
My point is that in a country as large as ours, a numbers game makes no sense unless you look at the larger picture.
-
It is tempting to see the revolt as a failure because Pawar got nothing of consequence in Delhi. But it would be a mistake to do so.
-
This was an unnecessary reshuffle, forced on the nation by Manmohan Singh’s unwillingness to hold on to the finance portfolio.
-
And the end has an emotional power that is unusual for comic book pictures. What a pity it is the last movie in this trilogy!
See All