I have read quite a lot about it, looked at the possibilities from different perspectives and still not 100% sure what to think about it, since we lack any concrete historical proof from current time. Roman historians - with one exception - had not mentioned him at all, which should not be surprising considering he lived at the far edge of the empire and was just one of the many travelling preachers who predicted upcoming end of the world. Whatever we have written about him from historical perspective of literary men, comes centuries after the facts - and even Gospels were told & re-told with input of hundreds different hands, so no wonder the Biblical portrait of him comes as sometimes very contradictory - switching from meek and forgiving, peaceful and loving person who sounds as influenced with Asiatic meditative, non-aggressive traditions to angry, thundering and forceful judge. What to think of it? Would real, historical Jesus recognised himself in this?
My impression is: because centuries of other people's involvements & different political agendas, the basic story got lost in translation, almost like children's game of "faulty telephone" where message is whispered from one ear to another, until it gets completely unpredictable and misunderstand meaning. No matter how much some of the authors and theoreticians forcefully claim (in all seriousness) that he never actually existed and is probably just a combination of several ancient myths rolled into one, I do accept that historical person, who might not even been named as we call him, actually lived during Roman occupation of Jerusalem and for whatever reason was brutally killed as example to all other potential rebels. Far from being the only one, as we know John the Baptist was the most famous travelling preacher who also got eliminated for stirring the population a little bit too seriously - and who also had a large following. However, the fact that body of this particular person actually disappeared from the grave gave the story a completely new dimension and started a cult that eventually spread as new religion. If his bones peacefully rest in a grave, he would be just another casualty of Roman brutality - because he was never found, it gave a convenient, magical touch to followers who used it as a proof of his preachings.
Ian Wilson was moved and intrigued with Mel Gibson's movie, so he goes into the whole mystery as a kind of CSI search of what actually happened two thousand years ago. He does excellent job of finding contemporary names of priest and people involved, so we get a feeling of true, real-life crime case. However, since all we have left are ancient archaeological research of the city that was burn to the ground countless times and Gospels (absolutely un-reliable and fanciful re-tellings, shaped trough centuries and often blatantly anti-Semitic, to suit much later times and change the focus of blame) Wilson gets a bit carried away with taking things too seriously, particularly the whole Turin shroud business that I am convinced is a medieval fake along with countless relics of saints that were tourist attraction and source of income of many cathedrals of Europe back than. It is a very intriguing book and I read it with greatest interest but as much as accept that travelling preacher with large following actually lived and existed (and was killed by Romans), I am not convinced in the rest of the story - aftermath of Golgotha sounds as re-shaped and conveniently re-told story tailored to suit future societies who would interpret it whichever way they find acceptable. Wilson has no specific answer about it and seems to simply accept religious doctrine that Jesus never died and left his grave on his own. Roman soldiers, trained to make sure victims truly died, would never leave someone just in coma to stay alive while they leave the business unfinished.
No comments:
Post a Comment