To address this issue, we must first determine the perspective from which we intend to consider it. If we start from a religious perspective grounded in Christian doctrine, the answer is clear. It rests on a faith rooted in the Gospels, which clearly state that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. We cannot abandon this understanding, as doing so would immediately conflict with Christian faith, as evident in the wording of Historic Evangelical Doctrines:
«We believe that Scripture consists of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament as originally inspired and given by the Holy Spirit. We believe that Scripture is infallible, inerrant, and to be received, read, believed and obeyed as the written Word of God.»
It makes sense to simplify the original question by reducing it to a single, precisely definable concept. That concept is historicity. Accordingly, the initial question can be rephrased as follows: Is Jesus Christ, as described in the canonical Gospels, a historical figure?
A question posed this way has a clear answer. No, the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels is not a historical figure. These books do not portray Jesus Christ as a human being. Instead, he is presented as both God and man. He could walk on water, turn water into wine, raise the dead, and predict the future. Furthermore, he rose from the dead. These are all religious elements and cannot be considered historical within a rational or scientific framework.
However, another possibility exists. A real historical figure may have existed who made a strong impression on his contemporaries and inspired religious reflection in the Gospels and other New Testament documents. In this case, the Gospels would not be considered historical writings. They would be works of fiction, classified as historical novels, much like the novels of Alexandre Dumas. Such novels combine historical figures with characters created by the authors' imagination.
Thus, the question of Jesus' historicity hinges on two key factors: our underlying worldview and our approach to the extant sources. These sources are books, specifically the four Gospels.
When we speak of Alexandre Dumas’s historical novels, we refer to works the author himself defined as belonging to that genre. We know this author existed, when he lived, and what he wrote. But we know nothing about the authors of the Gospels. We do not know whether Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually existed; we do not know when the Gospels were written; and we do not know of any other works by these authors. We can only assume that the names listed refer to the authors of the corresponding texts. Moreover, these assumptions trace back to Eusebius of Caesarea—the author of "Church History", who lived in the fourth century AD.
The Institute of the Christian Church accepted Eusebius's assumptions as indisputable facts, and over the following centuries, these facts became part of humanity's collective consciousness. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim.
The only established fact is that we have four books that tell a similar story. According to modern scientists, the oldest manuscripts of these books date back to the fourth century. Each book's title contains the word "Gospel" and the name of the person to whom the Gospel is attributed. All four works describe the same characters and attribute the same supernatural qualities to Jesus Christ, the main character.
Assuming that the four names mentioned in the book titles are the authors', many questions arise. For example, how can we explain that the authors do not cite one another or any other sources from which they drew the stories they describe? Why don't any of the authors discuss how their works were created? Furthermore, the authors themselves do not claim authorship of the texts.
Some believe that a source known as "Q" served as the basis for the three Gospels. However, this theory raises other questions. Why is Jesus’s birth described in only two of the three Gospels? Why do the accounts of his birth differ?
There are no definitive answers to the questions listed above. However, we can examine the four Gospels from a different perspective. These four books are written in such a way that they give the impression of being authored by eyewitnesses to the events they describe. Each Gospel has its own "author," suggesting there are four eyewitnesses. This could be a literary technique employed by the actual author to create the illusion of historical accuracy.
Supporting this theory is the fact that all four Gospels
have been preserved as part of a single document, the New Testament, which was
established as the foundation of the Christian religion at the First Council of
Nicaea in the fourth century.
No comments:
Post a Comment