Fitzmeyer, to his credit, opens and closes the chapter on the resurrection by stating that belief in the resurrection is the “cardinal affirmation” of the Christian faith…He writes: “Not to admit the resurrection of Jesus means that one is not a Christian.” OK. So far, so good! But then the rest of the chapter puts up question after question re: the historical validity of the Gospel accounts. Was the tomb really empty? Only Matthew writes that the tomb was actually found empty-- and clearly this was “apologetics against the Jews”…And so it goes for the rest of the chapter. Each instance where the gospels contradict each other and Paul are shown in detail.
I guess what bothers me is that so many questions are raised, and then nothing is resolved. So, really it seems like the only thing the reader can be left with is doubt. I’m finding that doubt over little details infects the credibility of larger truths. I’ve always been interested (or thought I was!) in the history of the NT…but I really wish I’d never picked up this book.
With all these different ways of seeing Jesus, as you mention – if the historical accounts are contradictory, then how do you know which to accept?
First I’m sorry to hear that reading Fitzmyer distresses you. I can understand this, expecially if this is your first foray into biblical exegesis. Part of the biblical scholars job is to raise the questions and give the reader the alternate views of what is thought. In most cases, there is a majority and minority view, still not I suppose the assurance you would desire, but in most cases thats the best they can do. To be sure, sometimes the majority is very large and one can feel more confident that what is said can be relied upon.
You should understand first and foremost that the Gospels were not historical documents. They were evangelical in nature, designed to persuade. Sometimes they were to do this for a local community of believers and sometimes they were anticipated for a much larger audience. The facts that we can discern help us evaluate the strength of the writer’s ability to portray the theological truths that are really the essence of the Gospels.
Depending on how you are reading, there is no “right” discription of Jesus or “wrong” one. If you view Jesus through a feminist lens, you see something quite different than if you view Jesus through a liberation motif. Similarly, an apocalyptic preacher or miracle worker. All in sum, give us a fuller picture, because we can be sure that Jesus was all of these and much more indeed.
Some find this kind of reading threatening to their beliefs and it makes them uncomfortable. There is no requirement certainly in the church that you read this material if it bothers you. There is a ton of apologetic and inspirational material who’s focus is more directly tied to a more literal straightforward examination of the text as they are.
The Jesuits are some of the finest biblical and theological experts in the world. That doesn’t mean they don’t err, everyone does. It just means that from a scholarly point of view, things are not investigated from a positiion of faith, but from a position as a scholar. One can be both of course, but as a pure scholar one is called upon to set aside one’s faith and try to look at the text objectively and to use the same tools that other experts would and do use in the examination of any ancient writing, say Plato or Juvenal for instance.
I find their work exciting, thought-provoking, and actually enhancing to my faith. Some do not, and those folks probably should go elsewhere to study further.
The oddity of course, is that though the Vatican places warnings to the general public as to how to treat this work, they not only do not forbid it, but of course the work is done right there at the Vatican itself. The author you are struggling with is a Jesuit, and of course Catholic. One must be careful in reading such material, and one must see it for what it is. As a reader, we attach the faith that is required in reading. The author may not do this, lest he lose his objectivity and ability to honestly describe his findings.
While our study may disabuse us of a notion or two we had assumed in faith, I never find that it in any way disturbs the theological truths the author of the writing intended. Often, at least for me, I am breathless with the extraordinary brilliance of the biblical writer, and overwhelmed by the depth of faith that produced the work. It’s quite often I find much deeper and philosophically sound that the mere reading would convey.
. Most Christians can just get on with reading the Bible, and profiting from doing so as a means of grace, without bothering about the more “academic” issues. Just as most of us don’t have to bother about the detail of the differences between attrition (if we’ve ever heard of it !) & contrition.