Posts

IN SEARCH OF THE TRUE JESUS

Tempo di lettura: 4 minuti

By Francesco Schiano Lomoriello, GBU Staff in Naples.

The expression ‘search for the historical Jesus’ refers to the effort to reconstruct a portrait of Jesus of Nazareth that bypasses that offered by the gospels, in order to come as close as possible to the historical truth.

The starting assumption is that the authors of the Gospels were not motivated by a desire to report objective truth, but by theological and doctrinal intentions. Therefore, they are accused of having included in their accounts facts that did not really happen, or at least not in the manner described, in order to support the positions of the Christian communities of which they were an expression.

Three stages of research

Today, three phases of research can be recognised:

– The first developed between the 18th and the early part of the 20th century. Illuminist-derived Rationalism led scholars such as Hermann Reimarus to suggest the difference between the ‘Christ of Faith’ and the ‘Jesus of History’. Biographies of Jesus were written that were above all an attempt to rationalise and naturalise the gospels, purging them of all supernatural elements. Rudolf Bultmann was the last protagonist of this phase and the one who put an end to it. He suggested that the Jesus of History was inaccessible to research. This conclusion was motivated by the observation that every biography of Jesus published in the previous two centuries had offered a different portrait from the others, fuelled not so much by the desired criteria of objectivity, but by the orientation and prejudices of those who had proposed it.

– It was in fact a disciple of Bultmann, Ernst Kasemann, who was the initiator of the second wave of studies on the historical Jesus. Convinced, unlike his master, of the possibility of bridging the gap between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History through the critical study of New Testament texts. It was the middle of the 20th century and this season was short-lived because important archaeological discoveries imposed a new approach to research.

– Studies based on discoveries such as the Nag Hammadi Library and the Qumran Scrolls allowed historians to gain a deeper understanding of the society and culture of the ancient Middle East. This knowledge is the foundation of the third phase approach of research on the historical Jesus. Since the 1960s, more and more scholars have become interested in the possibility of distilling historical truth from the New Testament texts. This is done not only through philological and literary work, but by analysing the biblical accounts in the light of the knowledge gained about the society in which Jesus lived and the gospels were written. An important feature of this third phase is the presence among its initiators of atheist and agnostic scholars, who in some cases are deconverted Christians.

How to address the issue

Confronting the works of scholars, past and present, who strongly question the reliability of the Gospel accounts can be no small challenge for believers. However, we have the tools to meet that challenge and turn it into an evangelistic opportunity.

1. Eyewitnesses and the real Jesus

The starting assumption we have referred to, namely the belief that the canonical Gospels do not represent historical accounts but theological reconstructions of the figure of Jesus, is by no means proven. The internal evidence seems to suggest quite the opposite. If one considers the presence of so many details that are not necessary to the narrative (the number of fish caught at the second miraculous catch, the young man covered by a sheet present at Jesus’ arrest, the fact that John arrived at the tomb before Peter, etc.), the stories that make the Gospels look bad, the stories that make the Gospels look bad, etc., the stories that make the Gospels look bad. ), to the stories that cast the disciples in a bad light, or to the declaration of intent that Luke offers at the beginning of his Gospel (…it seemed good to me too, after having thoroughly informed myself of everything from the beginning, to write about it in order…), it can be reasonably argued that the evangelists reported eyewitness accounts with the aim of presenting us with the real Jesus.

It is precisely the category of testimony that scholar Richard Bauckham suggests in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses in order to properly understand the literary genre Gospels. Extremely subjective, but not unreliable.

On the other hand, the date of publication of the New Testament writings, which can be placed at the latest between 60 and 95 A.D., makes it rather difficult to argue that they contain myths and legends, since eyewitnesses of the narrated facts were still in circulation at that time.

2. Meet the Christ by researching the historical Jesus

Today, most students are convinced that the Bible is not a reliable text; to speak about Jesus from what the Gospels say often means clashing with this prejudice. In such a context, the search for the historical Jesus represents a meeting point between the believer and the sceptic. In other words, one can approach the New Testament texts as a sceptic and analyse them with the tools of modern historiography. One can try to understand who Jesus of Nazareth was, without first accepting the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible, and meet the Christ.

There is no shortage of testimonies from ordinary people and scholars who, analysing the Gospels as non-believers, ended up recognising Jesus as their God and Lord, just as happened to the first sceptic, the disciple Thomas.

  1. Bauckham R., Gesù e i testimoni oculari, Ed. GBU, Chieti 2010 ↩︎
  2. Si vedano, ad esempio, i seguenti libri di autori che hanno raccontato la loro esperienza: Chi ha rimosso la pietra?, F. Morison, Più che un falegname, J. MacDowell, Il caso Gesù, L. Strobel ↩︎

Faith is harmful (?)

Tempo di lettura: 4 minuti
by Cristiano Meregaglia, GBU Staff worker

This article is a summary of a workshop that Cristiano himself offered to the students at our event Formazione GBU (ndr)

“Imagine there’s no heaven / It’s easy if you try / No hell below us / Above us only sky / Imagine all the people / Living for today… / Imagine there’s no countries / It isn’t hard to do / Nothing to kill or die for / And no religion too / Imagine all the people / Living life in peace…”

Lennon, John. Imagine

This is what John Lennon sang in 1971, hoping for a time when people could finally live just for today, without being oppressed by the thought of a heaven or hell awaiting them at the moment of death, and a world where there would be no nations and religions opposing one another, preventing peace that would otherwise be possible.

Of course, even more than 50 years later, these words and these hopes are still present and strong in the society we live in, suggesting that faith is not only rationally unsustainable but also morally harmful, and that, therefore, society would be much more functional if every religious root were to be uprooted from it. This idea has been explicitly supported by the main exponents of t

The “new” ateism

This idea has been explicitly supported by the main exponents of the so-called New Atheism movement, who, without mincing my words, have dedicated long pages to describing the great evils that religion has produced throughout history, from the Crusades to the Jihad, from religious wars to contemporary theocratic regimes, clearly highlighting how the solution for a better world seems to be precisely what the Beatles singer envisioned.

It is interesting to note, however, that although these authors are labeled as new atheists, the ideas they support are anything but new, as they are effectively derived from the reflections of past thinkers. Among these past thinkers, it is impossible to ignore Bertrand Russell, who, with his collection of essays compiled in the text Why I Am Not a Christian, represents, in fact, a normative reference for much of the literature produced within the New Atheism movement.

Religion: a disease to be eradicated

In one of those essays, titled “Has Religion Contributed to Civilization?”, Russell presents precisely those arguments that, decades later, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Odifreddi, Augias, and other contemporary intellectuals continue to propose to argue for the damage religion has caused. Specifically, Russell argues that religion is “a kind of disease, born out of fear and a source of unspeakable suffering for humanity,”, his point of  view relating to both the intellectual and moral spheres. On the one hand, the philosopher claims that religion hinders free thought and rational inquiry; on the other, by imposing a morality considered absolute and anchored to archaic concepts, it also creates the conflicts that are at the root of human unhappiness. Thus, he concludes the aforementioned essay writing:

“With the progress of knowledge and technology, universal happiness can be achieved; but the main obstacle to using them for this purpose is the teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from receiving a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of wars; religion prevents us from teaching the ethics of scientific cooperation instead of the old, aberrant doctrines of guilt and punishment. Humanity may be on the threshold of a golden age; but to cross it, we must first slay the dragon guarding the door: this dragon is religion.”

Russel, B. “Perché non sono cristiano”, Longanesi & C., Milano, 1960, p.24

Now, as biting as these criticisms may be, it is helpful to point out that it is legitimate, and perhaps even necessary, to agree with some of the claims made in the essay. It is undeniable that many people, claiming to be Christians (or of other religions), have indeed committed reprehensible acts throughout history, often abusing their social position provided to them by religion; and it is equally understandable to agree with the insistence on the need to reject an uncritical faith (one that is not aware of what it believes and why it believes it).

That being said, it is also necessary to point out that such criticisms are, in fact, open to strong counterarguments, which can be articulated along three lines of response.

1. The preaching of Christ and its impact on society

First of all, it is easy to demonstrate how the true Christianity, as embodied and preached by Jesus Christ himself, is radically different from other religions and, in many cases, from how Christians have portrayed it. True Christianity, in fact, far from being a source of violence, has at its root the persuasion through inner contrition rather than external coercion through the use of force. It is of no coincidence, therefore, that when Jesus, just hours before his death sentence, was in Gethsemane and Peter tried to defend him with weapons from his enemies, not only did he order his disciple to put away his sword, but he also healed the servant of the high priest who had been injured by that sword (Mt 26:51-52; Lk 22:51).

Furthermore, it is easy to show that true Christianity is not only not a cause of harm to society but that society as a whole has benefited from the influence of Christianity, which has created hospitals, the Red Cross, orphanages, universities… to the point that an atheist journalist wrote in The Times that in Africa, the contribution of evangelism to the progress of society has far exceeded that provided by any other organization, governmental or otherwise (M. Parris, The Times, 27.12.2008).

2. A society that wants to get rid of God

Secondly, it can just as easily be shown that a society in which God is removed opens the door to any violation and abuse by the powerful, precisely because it removes the premise that one must be accountable for his own actions before a just God. The 20th century is full of such examples, from Stalin’s Russia to Mao’s China, to Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in this regard, stated that “if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to say: men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened” (A. Solzhenitsyn, Templeton Prize Address, 1983).

3. Flawed argument

Finally, it can be pointed out that the very principles by which religion is criticized today are Christian principles, principles that would not exist without the cultural revolution brought about by Jesus and the subsequent Christianity. The freedom, equality, progress, and peace that seem to be questioned in society by religion are, in fact, nothing more than the product of Christianity, and we are so immersed in them that they are like the air we breathe (cf. G. Scrivener, The Air We Breathe, Introduction).