today's readings helped me think of something... why should we believe in something that happened so long ago with only scant archaeological proof today? how do we know if God really did those amazing things in the Old Testament, that Jesus really lived and died as the New Testament described - if we only have some textual proof?
historians may tell you that the Holy Bible represents some of the best preserved ancient texts in the world, with such an abundance of corroborating scripts that the Historicity of Jesus is probably the most textually supported case from ancient times. if we can believe that Socrates, Zheng He, or Alexander the Great existed, then Jesus' existence shd be equally acceptable.
what comes next is whether he really said all he said and did all he did in his 3-years of ministry. this is less textually provable, since details of a person's actions are often embellished by his supporters or detractors according to their whims. this is where having multiple sources from the same era (i.e. near to that person's lifetime) is important: the assumption being that people who have personally met this person or witnessed those events would either corroborate the textual representations or deny them. if a text about a person's life is well-accepted and well-propagated (in those times, replicating any papyrus meant painstakingly preparing the canvas and laboriously copying the text word by word), it is generally taken as reasonable historic proof. this is how we know of Socrates (through Plato's work; he himself never wrote anything), Zheng He's adventures (he is recorded in many different cultures), and Alexander's exploits (vast armies have obeyed him and nations have fallen beneath him; kinda hard for all that to be faked!) - and this is how we come to know Jesus, who was relatively obscure and did not do any travelling or conquering, only a 3-yr ministry around the area of Galilee. the fact that his small footprint in life has generated so much testimony is in itself already unprecedented in history. the rather widespread acceptance of his teachings and even miracles give the strongest possible reason for us, 2000 yrs later today, to accept his work as real on the basis of the ancients' testimony.
next, one naturally tends to ask: why does God not do all that in modern history (i.e. today) when everything can be so reliably preserved for ages to come? if Jesus came today instead, there would almost certainly be no problem proving to non-believers (even aliens) that he is really the Son of God and has performed amazing miracles. yet, this would completely negate the need for Faith - that utter abandonment of the material world, where the spirit needs to struggle in order to find God. providing everlasting physical proof of Jesus' divinity not only drives man to further reliance on material proof, it mat also drive man further away from relying on God's spiritual sustenance - the Word of God, the sacraments, prayer, etc. besides, perhaps if Jesus had not come, we wouldn't even have all the spanking technology we now have - his teachings on spiritual ethics remain a cornerstone of enlightenment and morality, which may be necessary historical precursors to freedom of thought and science itself (in spite of the dark ages!). illogical alternative-history speculation aside, this question remains one which our finite minds and experiences, even as the whole of humanity, may not be able to answer to the fullest satisfaction. we must have the humility and self-awareness to admit this fact.
another way to look at this is how the early christians believed in Jesus after the first few centuries - i.e. why did christians in the middle ages believe Jesus was real? the christians of the first 3 centuries were still chronologically close enough to the event to know someone associated with the disciples of the apostles, so some personal form of testimony was available. what about later on? they did not have the benefit of carbon-dating, the dead sea scrolls, or even the archaeological knowledge! did they simply believe because someone charismatic preached to them? no... i highly doubt it - at least not for the majority of christians, who displayed keen wit, if not outright skepticism. the saints are good examples: many have written lengthy, learned discourses to illustrate their logical understanding of Jesus' teachings. yes, above and beyond human testimony, we all have God's word in Jesus' teachings - which have stood the test of time and centuries of human scrutiny, within and without the Church. his articulations, although familiar beyond pastiche to most humans today, continue to strike our hearts, minds and souls with its clarity, forcefulness, and simple wisdom.
still feeling doubtful? i think it's time you pick up the Bible and flipped thru the Gospel. no doubt, there are portions which may bring some controversy, but those passages aside, the Gospels show remarkable consistency both as historical texts and presentations of teachings and arguments.
i believe because i am sufficiently persuaded in these ways - and i pray that my heart can now be fully converted. praise the Lord for loving us enough to give us free will, so we may choose to follow Him in response to the salvific graces He has given us!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Indeed, when we talk about historicity we strictly mean historical record or history that can be ascertained through investigation with real and certifiable evidence. At times, even historical records—historical annals, state archival documents, chronicles, etc.—must be questioned and reexamined. Personalities such as Alexander the Great, Socrates, Zheng He, and so on, unquestionably existed, but many of their exploits may not be historically true. As Buddha, and even Zoaster, Jesus is definitively not historical. There is no historical or archeological evidence of Jesus’ existence. All writings written about him are by his followers. Such are the facts, and are generally agreed upon by historians.
i'm not sure how i can respond if you post as anonymous... but what do you mean by 'archeological evidence' of Jesus' existence? as in his tomb? i guess he doesn't have one since he rose from the dead. his ministry was short and controversial, so stuff like paintings or depictions in his lifetime could quite likely not have been created at all. historically, we cannot be 100% sure that he did all those things in the bible, but you neglected to mention that those very acts have been corroborated by thousands of manuscripts from within 2 centuries of his supposed lifetime - and that is probably the most corroborated archaeological evidence of one person's 3-year lifetime - ever. there are many writings which describe his actions in Gnostic fashion or slanted towards some other unorthodox presentation - but they still do not attest that he was non-existent, or that it was some form of trickery, or mere mass hysteria.
while concrete (read: physical) evidence of his existence or his actions may no longer exist, concrete disproving evidence is virtually non-existent - even though the claims about him are remarkable, supernatural, and even specific to fulfilling old testament prophecies. if his very existence and actions were so controversial and detrimental to the powers that be (the Jewish king and the Roman empire), why did so many risk their lives to bear witness? why did noone stand up and claim that Jesus was a myth? why did it take dissenters and disbelievers centuries to begin forming opposite conclusions?
Post a Comment