The question of what really happened in the public ministry of Jesus as well as in his resurrection from the dead, although reported in the Gospels, arises out of our concern for genuineness and truth of what has been communicated to us. We agree with and support the spirit behind the query insisting at the same time , as mentioned in previous posts, that there are no 'pure facts' and 'pure history' because there are always interpretations of some kind or other involved in them. This is all the more the case with regard to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as it is both historical, happening in this world and trans-historical, having its reverberations in the next world. Not only reverberations, a new humanity is inaugurated through the resurrection of Jesus that could not be contained in the limits of this material world, pouring out the divine spirit transforming the believers. Because the Apostles and the disciples were transformed after the resurrection of Jesus and the infusion of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, their version of the events that took place earlier in the public ministry of Jesus would also have been transformed. This kind of change is not something negative as very often the disciples understood the meaning of what Jesus said only after his resurrection. An instance is when Jesus warned the Apostles not to say anything about his transfiguration before Peter, James and John till he rose from the dead. They did not understand what was meant by rising from the dead at the time, but only after the resurrection of Jesus. In the same way, they could not understand the significance of suffering and death of Jesus until after Pentecost. Is it not befitting that things should be so understood when we are dealing with matters not immediately evident to us and yet have relevance for eternal salvation? It does not, however, mean that the authors of the Gospel wrote down unhistorical items from their own imagination. We have seen in the previous posts how the Gospel message was transmitted till it was written down and there could not have been a better method of faithfully preserving history than seen in the Gospels. As for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead innumerable authors have brought forward arguments from the evidence of 'empty tomb' as well as of 'appearances' of Jesus to the Apostles and disciples. We consider those evidences convincing to our reasoning faculty although an element of faith cannot be avoided to fully appreciate the reality of resurrection that crosses the limits of this world.
The real crux of the problem is in the confusion between history and theology with the notion that any mention of theology along with history is bound to contaminate the latter. We know that the meaning or significance of the Gospel events and sayings is their theology, which cannot dilute the gravity of history itself. What happened or what was said in the Gospel narratives were not altered by anyone, but only explicated better to understand their implications. People with an open mind to accept the challenges resulting from them do not have to fear as the message is Good News enhancing their lives. As Plato said it is understandable when children are afraid of darkness, but not when men are afraid of light!
In this context, we may turn our attention to an interesting case filed before a judge of Viterbo in Italy by a certain Luigi Cascioli against Father Righi challenging him to prove in the Court of Law that Jesus Christ really existed. The background to the case is in Father Righi's denouncement in his parish Newsletter of Cascioli for questioning Jesus Christ's historical existence in his book "The Fable of Christ". The first thing Fr. Righi must do, in our opinion, is to demand from Cascioli to specify what would count as proof for him to be satisfied about the historical existence of Jesus Christ. His answer, if he is willing to give any, would bring the cat out of the bag in that we would be able to come to know the kind of bee singing in his bonnet! In other words, one would be able to counter-check whether the same criteria of evidence hold when dealing with other historical figures like Julius Caesar for instance as to historicity. Besides, has a reasonable person the scope for fore-closing all possibilities beyond the confines of this world especially when it is a question of the total well-being of human persons? Cascioli seems to distrust the Gospel accounts by clearly demanding evidence from sources other than the Gospels and at the same time insisting that they should be contemporaneous with Jesus, if he really existed. One may see from these demands of his that there cannot be any history satisfying his arbitrary criteria. As for the Gospels, we have seen in the previous posts how they are to be seen as historical in spite of the fact that they are also theological. Cascioli needs thorough education in the meaning of 'facts' as there are no 'pure facts' according to the hermeneutic principles of a philosophical tradition of which he himself is a part.
The real crux of the problem is in the confusion between history and theology with the notion that any mention of theology along with history is bound to contaminate the latter. We know that the meaning or significance of the Gospel events and sayings is their theology, which cannot dilute the gravity of history itself. What happened or what was said in the Gospel narratives were not altered by anyone, but only explicated better to understand their implications. People with an open mind to accept the challenges resulting from them do not have to fear as the message is Good News enhancing their lives. As Plato said it is understandable when children are afraid of darkness, but not when men are afraid of light!
In this context, we may turn our attention to an interesting case filed before a judge of Viterbo in Italy by a certain Luigi Cascioli against Father Righi challenging him to prove in the Court of Law that Jesus Christ really existed. The background to the case is in Father Righi's denouncement in his parish Newsletter of Cascioli for questioning Jesus Christ's historical existence in his book "The Fable of Christ". The first thing Fr. Righi must do, in our opinion, is to demand from Cascioli to specify what would count as proof for him to be satisfied about the historical existence of Jesus Christ. His answer, if he is willing to give any, would bring the cat out of the bag in that we would be able to come to know the kind of bee singing in his bonnet! In other words, one would be able to counter-check whether the same criteria of evidence hold when dealing with other historical figures like Julius Caesar for instance as to historicity. Besides, has a reasonable person the scope for fore-closing all possibilities beyond the confines of this world especially when it is a question of the total well-being of human persons? Cascioli seems to distrust the Gospel accounts by clearly demanding evidence from sources other than the Gospels and at the same time insisting that they should be contemporaneous with Jesus, if he really existed. One may see from these demands of his that there cannot be any history satisfying his arbitrary criteria. As for the Gospels, we have seen in the previous posts how they are to be seen as historical in spite of the fact that they are also theological. Cascioli needs thorough education in the meaning of 'facts' as there are no 'pure facts' according to the hermeneutic principles of a philosophical tradition of which he himself is a part.
No comments:
Post a Comment