The historical Jesus
Catholics will be exasperated by the periodic claims by experts, many of them self-proclaimed, that Jesus did not exist or that “new findings” reveal some controversy or other about him.
“Serious scholarship might disagree over the extent to which gospels and tradition portray Jesus of Nazareth accurately, but there is an academic consensus that the man Jesus existed.” (CNS photo/Karen Callaway, Catholic New World)
Christians are regularly confronted with all manner of “new evidence” that supposedly compromises the credibility of the Gospel.
While much research on the historical Christ, even when it is critical, is undertaken with academic integrity and sincerity, the new “revelations” which we receive in the media tend to be sensationalistic, disingenuous, ignorant and malicious.
Often these “revelations” refer to documents that are described as long-lost. Usually they were neither long-lost nor credible in the first place.
This month the English Daily Mail proclaimed the startling revelation that a long-lost, 1500-year-old “gospel” claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, with whom he had two children.
“If true,” the Daily Mail breathlessly declared, “this would make it the greatest revelation into the life of Jesus in nearly 2000 years.”
It is not true, of course. The potential world-changing discovery turned out to be an ancient Jewish novel titled Joseph and Aseneth, which was never “lost” but was subjected to a fanciful reinterpretation by people who had a book to write.
Many a book deal is to be had for authors who dispute the gospel account of Jesus, never mind his divinity. Often their line of argument centres on pagan myths which they claim were used to create a Christ figure.
They may also raise arguments such as the absence of legal documents or references to Jesus in non-Christian, non-Jewish literature — a cunning exclusion indeed. Some absurdly suggest that the absence of biographical details in the Pauline letters provides evidence that the man St Paul writes about was an invention.
Such scholars are on the fringe in the study of the historical Jesus, and tend to work towards an agenda. Serious scholarship might disagree over the extent to which gospels and tradition portray Jesus of Nazareth accurately, but there is an academic consensus that the man Jesus existed.
The weight of documentation of Jesus’ existence — if one does not exclude Christian and Jewish sources and accepts historical references such as that of the first-century historian Josephus Flavius—is substantial. Aside from the canonical gospels there are several books by early Christians which were not included in the New Testament. It would be an impressive deception if all of these writers fell for a hoax.
But the most compelling argument that there not only was a man called Jesus of Nazareth, but that he also inspired a following which grew even after his death, resides in the fact that people were willing to lay down their lives as his disciples — even in Jerusalem, within living memory of Jesus’ execution — without having prospects of material benefit from perpetuating a fraud.
Indeed, if the story of Jesus of Nazareth was pure invention, it would be a spectacular, unique and unlikely swindle.
That notwithstanding, the sincerely conducted inquest into Jesus’ actual existence is a valid academic exercise. In the game of hard evidence, the sceptics ask some difficult questions.
It is also valid to debate, within the setting of scholarship, whether Jesus was all that the New Testament claims him to be or to what extent the gospels are biographically reliable.
The latter debates, which challenge a too literal reading of the biblical narrative, can serve to enrich our understanding of the faith. Bible study can be enhanced by the interrogation of the gospels: the meaning of Jesus’ pronouncements and actions, the literary symbolisms the evangelists applied to drive home a point to his audience, and so on.
A better understanding of the historical Christ and the texts written about him can bring us closer to him and provide us with a more intimate understanding of his mission.
As Christians, we accept the word of first-century witnesses — those who recorded the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles — that Jesus was the Christ, and invest in their testimony a faith which by definition requires no proof. Sensationalistic, disingenuous, ignorant and malicious “revelations” should not shake us in that faith.
- The Look of Christ - May 24, 2022
- Putting Down a Sleeping Toddler at Communion? - March 30, 2022
- To See Our Good News - March 23, 2022
