By Peter Kazmaier

IT’S CURIOUS that, while Christians remember the death of Jesus on the cross and celebrate his resurrection [at Easter], this solemn Christian occasion inevitably coincides with a series of book launches and popular magazine articles attacking the very heart of the Christian celebration.

We can also rest assured that this same phenomenon will occur this coming Christmas.

Setting aside the observation that this calculated timing conflicts with our views of tolerance and respect which we as a society espouse toward people’s religious beliefs – although Christians have long known that, in Western society, these principles apply to other religious beliefs but not to Christianity – one still can’t help wondering at the timing.

While denigrating the worldview of millions, this very timing depends on the Christian worldview for its impact.

‘The Jesus problem’

This year was no exception. Brian Bethune wrote an article entitled ‘The Jesus Problem’  in the Easter edition of Maclean’s. I could write a book discussing the misrepresentation and inaccuracies in this article; but one picture caption particularly caught my attention: “A deep chasm exists between the devout followers of a divine Jesus and the seekers of the Jesus of history.”

This statement does not at all correspond to my personal observations. Devout followers of Jesus are intensely interested in the Jesus of history. Indeed, understanding the historical context is essential to correctly translating the ancient texts into modern languages – and also in understanding the teaching, as a Christ-follower reads these translated texts.

Furthermore, modern archaeological discoveries of ancient manuscripts in the last 150 years have moved the extant documents much closer to the time of writing of the gospels. Also, the uncovering of many other documents of that era have helped us understand the role reading and writing played in the lives of 1st century peoples.

As more and more evidence is amassed, the gospels continue to be the most significant historical evidence for the life and teaching of Jesus.

So where does the “chasm” come from, alluded to by Bethune? A clue to the answer can be gleaned from another of Bethune’s quotes:

“But over the past century, historians, archaeologists, textual and linguistic scholars in a steadily more secular West, unable to accept the miracle-working Christ of tradition, have uncovered the all-too-human way in which early Christians hammered out their dogma and holy scripture; recovered startlingly unfamiliar texts – such as the Gnostic Gospel of Judas, in 2006 – held dear by the losers in the long-ago orthodoxy wars; and arrived at new interpretations of Jesus, based on the context of his life, his essential Jewishness and the sociopolitical unrest of first-century Palestine.”

The origin of the “chasm” described by Bethune is not because of new archaeological data undermining the text of the gospels; but rather, the chasm between the devout and the secular arises because of the presuppositions secular historians bring to the discussion, and how these presuppositions filter the evidence.

Continue article >>

The support for the historicity of the gospels has increased significantly, as older and older manuscripts are recovered; but unfortunately for secular historians, the message of the gospels has remained constant.

Imposing assumptions

As a scientist I have always been taught that data is sacrosanct and cannot be ignored, filtered or manipulated – no matter how inconsistent the data may be with one’s own cherished presuppositions.

Indeed, acknowledging one’s own presuppositions is critical – since only then can we guard ourselves against unconsciously imposing our assumptions on the data.

However, it seems when it comes to the gospels and their portrayal of Jesus as God – as a worker of miracles, as a radical bent on turning the Jewish religious system on its ear – that is so unpalatable for secular historians and the liberal clergy that they (quoting Bethune again) are so “unable to accept the miracle-working Christ . . . [they] arrived at new interpretations of Jesus based on the context of his life, his essential Jewishness and the sociopolitical unrest of 1st century Palestine.”

In other words, they dismissed all references to miracles; dismissed any text which did not agree with the words that they expected of a 1st century Jewish rabbi; and trumped the many, many ancient manuscripts backing up the gospels with a single 3rd century fragment (which, by the way, acknowledges the prior existence of the gospels) – based on their conspiracy theory about the suppression of the true view by the church.

In essence, they have thrown out four-fifths of the data (since the gospel texts are historical documents) and so created the chasm with orthodoxy.

I must say that I find Bethune’s article deeply disappointing – not because he disagrees with me, but because he does not even make the attempt (with the exception of one fine C. S. Lewis quote) of providing a balanced discussion of this subject.

Why prejudice the case by assuming that the serious Christians are devout because they are unthinking, rather than attribute to them the courtesy of assuming that they are devout because they are convinced by the evidence? If one assumed, going in, that the devout hold their position because they have evidence to support it, that would at least allow the reader to examine the arguments from both sides.

Orthodox straw man

As it stands, in my view, Bethune’s article is a propaganda piece which sets up the orthodox position as a straw man – and then, using the flimsiest of arguments, demolishes that position.

I suppose I have no one but myself to blame. After ignoring Maclean’s for a long while, I have again become a subscriber – encouraged by some of their fine new writers.

I am now wondering why I am paying money to read articles such as this – which show no scholarship, and exalt unsubstantiated fringe positions, while ignoring the evidence on the historicity of Jesus – only to delude the reading public, who do not have the time or the inclination to check the ‘facts’ in this article.

Ah well, I’ll have a chance to reconsider my spending when my subscription renewal comes around.

Peter Kazmaier is an adjunct professor of chemistry at Queen’s University. He has published numerous scientific articles.

May 2008