Sunday, April 28, 2002

A Clash of Symbols: Defining Holy Sites on Faith
HATRED and violence are hardly new in the Holy Land, but the battle raging around the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is especially heart-rending for many religious believers. Few events symbolize the tragedy of the current conflict more poignantly than the military siege at the place where the Prince of Peace was born. But was he?

"It's very doubtful that Jesus was born in Bethlehem," said Hershel Shanks, editor of the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review. "He's always referred to as the Nazarene, not the Bethlehemite. But there were very clear reasons for putting him in Bethlehem. He was supposed to be the scion of David who came back and gave us salvation, and since David was born in Bethlehem there was a desire to put Jesus there. This doesn't reduce the power of symbolic stories, but it's not historic reality."

The Middle East conflict is in part about conflicting narratives. Some of these narratives are as current as today's news, pitting the rage of a nation that views itself as occupied against that of another that sees itself under mortal threat. Others are historical, encompassing questions like whether Palestinians were pushed off their land when Israel was founded in 1947 or left of their own accord. But it is the clash of religious narratives that can arouse the most passionate emotion and controversy, and sacred places are at their heart.

History and religious tradition clash not just at the Church of the Nativity, but at many other sites in the Holy Land. One is the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, from which, according to Muslim tradition, Muhammad ascended to Heaven. It is considered the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina.

"There is certainly a tremendous gap between archaeological knowledge and what people want to believe from tradition," Professor Fears said, "but there are also gaps in what archaeologists think they can prove. Even when they can prove something or make it more likely, that does not in any way undermine the deep attachment that people have to these places."

Professor Fears said he did not believe that fighting in the Middle East was truly motivated by the desire to control holy sites, or by any other religious motive. If that is true, then no amount of discovery or proof will affect the course of the conflict.

"These arguments over protecting sites are used as excuses," Professor Fears said. "They're symptoms of much deeper problems. But the religious overlay does point up an inherent contradiction that's obvious and very disturbing. You have war raging in the places where Jesus and other great religious figures preached their message of peace. You can hardly imagine a greater contradiction than that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/weekinreview/28KINZ.html

No comments:

Post a Comment

con·cept