Byline: Carl Olson

4 min read

Sin

Conscience and Truth

Carl Olson

September 27, 2023 8:00 am September 27, 2023

4 min read

6751 views

Comments Off

4 min read

Years ago I read a most revealing article in a national newspaper that carries the descriptive “Catholic” in its masthead but rarely carries much orthodox Catholic teaching below the masthead….

Years ago I read a most revealing article in a national newspaper that carries the descriptive “Catholic” in its masthead but rarely carries much orthodox Catholic teaching below the masthead.

The article, written by a young woman, was titled, “I Am a Prochoice Catholic.” Her main assertion was simple: “I am a prochoice Catholic because my Catholic faith tells me I can be.” She recounted spending “several years” praying, reading and studying what both the “church hierarchy” and “the Catholic church — the faithful” had to say about the “right to abortion.” The result? “In the end,” she proclaimed, “after months of avoiding my conscience as to not stir up any controversy in my life, I finally discerned that I am a prochoice Catholic.”

Three quick, initial observations. First, the language she used, especially regarding the seemingly infallible nature of conscience and the vehicle of discernment, echoes what some have been saying about persons in “irregular unions” — that is, adultery. Second, this appeal to the conscience as the final word on one’s choices and actions has been a key playing card for the past 50 years or so for those who oppose the Church’s clear teaching about abortion, contraception and other evils related to sexuality. Third, I never cease to be amused and annoyed by the glaring internal contradiction that exists in appealing to Church authority in order to dismiss that same authority!

Consider the supposed logic: 1) “I am opposed to the Church’s teaching about abortion”; 2) “I am obligated to oppose that teaching because of my conscience”; 3) “And I must follow my conscience, because the Church says I must!” In other words, such folks find it convenient to follow apparent Church teaching when they desire to deny other, inconvenient teachings of the Church. Yes, it’s moderately clever, quite superficial and entirely misleading.

If we follow the logic used above, we arrive at a singular conclusion: that one’s conscience is supreme — even greater than God, truth, good and evil (though few are willing to put it that way). And, of course, this infallible supremacy of the individual conscience is not just acceptable, but is gospel truth for far too many people, including a great number of Catholics.

Yes, it’s true the Church teaches that man’s conscience holds a special place in his person, describing it as man’s “most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1776). Unfortunately, many people ignore the fine print — or, in this case, the print period. The three essentials to keep in mind here are:

1) The conscience is not man’s creation, but “a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey” (No. 1776). Conscience is not involved in creating truth, but rather in recognizing truth. In other words, conscience is a guide, not a god.

2) Conscience must be formed and informed. “A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful”; it forms judgments that conform “with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.” It must be educated and formed because humans “are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings” (No. 1783).

This education is a lifelong work involving virtue and humility. But it is worth it because “education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart” (No. 1784).

3) A conscience can be bad, poorly formed and warped by sin. Many factors can contribute to a deeply flawed conscience: “Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct” (No. 1792).

Alas, many people have it upside down, insisting that their conscience provides a unique moral code, rather than seeing how conscience guides one’s judgments about particular situations in light of universal and objective — that is, God-given — truth and goodness.

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com). He and his family live in Eugene, Ore.

Comments Off

4 min read

Scripture

Are Gospels Myth or History?

Carl Olson

September 4, 2023 9:19 am September 4, 2023

4 min read

5521 views

Comments Off

4 min read

Any Catholic who spends time reading popular atheist literature will soon encounter the claim that the Gospels are works of myth and legend, devoid of much or any historical fact….

Any Catholic who spends time reading popular atheist literature will soon encounter the claim that the Gospels are works of myth and legend, devoid of much or any historical fact.

One of my favorite examples of this popular — that is, both non-scholarly and widespread — atheist ignorance comes from a filmmaker, Brian Flemming, who recently produced a documentary titled “The God Who Wasn’t There.” The documentary, he explained, is to show that the “biblical Jesus” is a myth, created whole cloth by superstitious, unlearned early Christians. Asked to summarize the evidence for his stance, Flemming said: “It’s more a matter of demonstrating a positive than a negative, and the positive is that early Christians appeared not to have believed in a historical Jesus. If the very first Christians appear to believe in a mythical Christ, and only later did ‘historical’ details get added bit by bit, that is not consistent with the real man actually existing. … I would say that he is a myth in the same way that many other characters people believed actually existed. Like William Tell is most likely a myth…. Of course, [Jesus] is a very important myth.”

“All I’m saying,” Flemming added, “is that [Jesus] doesn’t exist, and it would be a healthy thing for Christians to look at the Bible as a work of fiction from which they can take inspiration rather than, you know, the authoritative word of God.”

Actually, it would be helpful and healthy if skeptics like Flemming would put in the time and effort demanded by the evidence. As examples of such efforts, I’ll mention just three recent, impressive works: “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony,” by Richard Bauckham (Eerdmans, 2006); “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” by Michael R. Licona (InterVarsity, 2010); and “The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Craig S. Keener (Eerdmans, 2012). These detailed, lengthy works highlight three basic facts.

First, the Gospels were written by men who knew the difference between myth and historical fact. The author of the Second Letter of Peter makes this abundantly clear: “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty” (1:16). The opening verses of Luke’s Gospel shows that Luke sought “to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,” so that “you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received” (Lk 1:1-4). Thus the Gospels and other New Testament texts include numerous references to secular rulers (Caesar Augustus, Pontius Pilate, Herod, et al.), as well as Jewish leaders (Caiaphas, Ananias) — names unlikely to be used inaccurately or even show up in a “myth.” As such, the historical content of these works should be judged not against mythologies, but against other first-century works of history.

Second, the Gospels are a combination of biography and history following the structure and approach taken by Greek and Roman authors to the same literary genres. The German historian Martin Hengel wrote that Luke was “a historian and theologian who needs to be taken seriously. His account always remains within the limits of what was considered reliable by the standards of antiquity.” As Keener shows, ancient historians — including the Gospel writers — had high standards for accuracy, even if they didn’t always employ the same techniques as modern historians. For example, ancient historians sometimes changed chronologies, or presented their works in a topical, not chronological, manner.

Third, the uniqueness of the Gospels has less to do with the literary form and much more to do with the radical identity of Jesus Christ. And this, really, is the ultimate point of conflict. Atheists begin with the philosophical assumption that there can be no divine intervention in history. Thus the Gospels must be myth. Christian historians, however, while acknowledging their belief in God, are willing to begin by examining the Gospels as historical texts, and then follow the evidence where it leads. In doing so, they are being truly open-minded.

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight. He and his family live in Eugene, Ore.

Comments Off

3 min read

Sacraments

Why Do Catholics Believe in the Real Presence?

Carl Olson

March 13, 2023 7:07 am March 13, 2023

3 min read

13772 views

Comments Off

3 min read

As a fundamentalist, and later as an evangelical, I took it for granted that the Catholic Church held to the most un-biblical, illogical and offensive beliefs about the Eucharist. But…

As a fundamentalist, and later as an evangelical, I took it for granted that the Catholic Church held to the most un-biblical, illogical and offensive beliefs about the Eucharist.

But there came a point when I began to wonder, “What do Catholics believe about the Eucharist?” This meant taking Catholic doctrine seriously, rather than mindlessly repeating anti-Catholic rhetoric from questionable sources.

I discovered that Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the second century, stated, “Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking” (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1327). I read Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which described the Eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (No. 11). And I saw that the Council of Trent had declared that “in the blessed sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the appearances of those perceivable realities” (Thirteenth Session, ch. 1).

So, I wondered, “Why do Catholics believe in the Real Presence?” I quickly learned the reasons are many and interrelated, but can be generally described as biblical, historical and theological. The biblical reasons were of primary interest to me and came in large part from the nagging suspicion that Jesus’ insistent, shocking words “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn 6:55) were not metaphorical at all, as I believed as a Protestant. The larger context of John 6 — during the Passover (see v. 4) — and the striking escalation in Jesus’ teaching about His identity and the need to eat His flesh and drink His blood pointed to something far deeper, unsettling and astounding.

If Jesus had allowed some disciples to depart over a misunderstanding regarding metaphors (see Jn 6:66), what sort of teacher and Savior would He be? If the apostle John, writing his Gospel in the late first century, also failed to clarify Jesus’ intentions, what sort of apostle and Evangelist was he? And did it make sense that the Old Covenant could boast of manna — physical food given by miraculous means — but the New Covenant had a physical symbol only? No, it didn’t. In addition, the Catholic (and Orthodox) belief in the Sacrament of the Eucharist helped make sense of other passages of Scripture, such as Jesus’ words at the Last Supper — “Take and eat; this is my body” (Mt 26:26) — and St. Paul’s warning to the Christians at Corinth that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27).

While the biblical evidence cracked the door, the historical evidence blew it open. I recall rather vividly standing in a bookstore reading a passage written by St. Ignatius of Antioch that was penned around A.D. 107, which renounced the Docetist heretics because “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (Letter to Smyrna, No. 7). Many other passages from many other writers followed, written over many centuries, each professing the same belief that the Eucharist is the true Body, Blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. In fact, no orthodox Christian interpreted the words of Jesus and Paul about the Eucharist in a metaphorical fashion until a thousand years after they were written.

Comments Off

4 min read

Mary

Don’t Catholics Worship Mary?

Carl Olson

March 1, 2023 7:00 am March 1, 2023

4 min read

21114 views

Comments Off

4 min read

There is something about Mary that drives many fundamentalists and some evangelicals nuts. Of course, they will insist Mary doesn’t bother them, but they claim the “fact” that Catholics exalt…

There is something about Mary that drives many fundamentalists and some evangelicals nuts.

Of course, they will insist Mary doesn’t bother them, but they claim the “fact” that Catholics exalt her so much she is apparently worshipped, or even — as you can read in the most extreme anti-Catholic literature — promoted to the fourth person of the Trinity. When I was a fundamentalist, I knew that Catholics worshipped Mary. Why else did they have statues of her, pray the Rosary to her and call her the “Mother of God”? Didn’t they know that God has no mother? How ridiculous!

It is hard to overstate the reactionary stance of fundamentalists toward any positive teaching about Mary. For example, in my years attending a small fundamentalist “Bible chapel” as a boy, I recall at least three sermons praising Rahab the harlot (see Jos 2 and 6:17-25), but just one about Mary, the mother of Jesus. And in that sermon, Mary was described as a “good mother” (true, of course) who was no different than anyone else.

A close relative once described the Blessed Mother as “a biological vessel” used by God — the sort of remark that would be rightly considered insulting if directed to any other mother. And a close friend from my Bible college days asked me, upon learning that I was becoming Catholic (in 1997), “But what are you going to do about having to worship Mary?”

What exists, then, is a double-pronged problem: Fundamentalists hold to a very lacking, even insulting, view of Mary because they have a deeply distorted understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about Mary. Their doctrine is almost completely negative in character, shaped in reactionary fear rather than in receptive faith.

If that sounds unduly harsh, consider that fundamentalists are loathe to admit that Mary is indeed the Mother of God. This is an essential point in addressing the accusation that Catholics “worship” Mary. Simply put, if a person refuses to admit the truth about Mary being Theotokos (“God bearer,” or Mother of God), he will not understand authentic Catholic devotion to Mary. James McCarthy, a former Catholic who operates a ministry meant to “save” Catholics, writes in “The Gospel According to Rome” (Harvest House, 1995) that “the Bible . . . never calls Mary the Mother of God for a very simple reason: God has no mother. As someone has rightly said, just as Christ’s human nature had no father, so His divine nature had no mother. This Bible, therefore, rightly calls Mary the ‘mother of Jesus’ (John 2:1; Acts 1:14) but never the Mother of God.” Like Nestorius (d. 451), who made the same basic error in the fifth century, McCarthy overlooks that mothers do not give birth to natures, but to persons. Jesus Christ has two natures, but he is one Person. While Jesus’ human nature comes from Mary and His divine nature from the Father (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 503), he is not partially divine and partially human, as McCarthy’s statement implies.

Fundamentalists claim they believe that Jesus is one person, true God and true man. But they fail to reach logical conclusions fixed upon that foundational fact. Prior to the Incarnation, God not only didn’t have a mother, He also never wore clothing, ate food, took naps or went fishing! But the Incarnation, the central event in salvation history, radically changed the relationship between God and man precisely because God became man — and He did so by being born of the Virgin Mary. Every devotion shown to Mary by Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox) is based in the belief she is the Mother of God. But this devotion is not worship; that is for God alone. Besides, if Jesus loves His mother — and we know He does — shouldn’t we also express the same sort of familial love?

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com).

Comments Off

9 min read

Christmas

Getting to the Heart of the Heart of Christmas

Carl Olson

October 18, 2022 7:31 am October 18, 2022

9 min read

5617 views

Comments Off

9 min read

A hundred years ago this month, G.K. Chesterton wrote about the “new attack” on Christmas, comparing the “old Puritans,” who attacked “Christmas in its totality,” to the “new Puritans,” who attack it “in detail, and bit by bit.” His point, in part, was that while the old attacks came from real (if exaggerated and flawed) religious beliefs, the new attacks are more subtle, as most “modern liberality consists of finding irreligious excuses for religious bigotry.” Certain modern secularists are rabidly religious, even if their religious rites, so to speak, consist only of undermining or attacking the religious beliefs and expressions of others.

There are, as we know, plenty of cases in recent decades involving public and political battles over Christmas trees and Nativity sets and Christian hymns. Many of these cases consist of debates over church-state relations, as in the 2018 case of a Nativity scene in Woodland, Washington being removed from public land because someone complained about violations of “constitutional limits.” Such instances are often classic variations on “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” as most public officials are unwilling to fight a legal battle that is, for all intents and purposes, mostly lost.

Dig a level down and you find that church-state conflict, when it comes to individuals, is usually much more of a private-public divide; that is, almost all Americans are fine with Christmas, but an increasing number no longer connect “the most wonderful time of the year” with religious belief, nor do they care if that unraveling cord is further weakened. A 2017 Pew Research Center research survey found that while 90% of Americans — and 95% of self-identified Christians — say they celebrate Christmas, only “46% of Americans say they celebrate Christmas as primarily a religious (rather than cultural) holiday, down from 51% who said this in 2013…” Almost 60% say that “religious aspects of Christmas are emphasized less in American society today than in the past, ”— and here is another layer to consider — “though relatively few are bothered by this trend.”

All that said, I have little interest here in decrying and analyzing the outside forces — the “new Puritans.” Rather, I want to reflect on how our own good intentions and perceptions of Christmas can sometimes become subtle (or even overt) obstacles to the radical and demanding truth about the Nativity of Jesus Christ. A number of surveys, as well as years of anecdotal observations — not to mention an occasional examination of my own many failings! — indicate that Christmas, for a vast majority of people, are about time with family, expressing love and affection for family and friends, and giving gifts to the same.

These are, I want to emphasize, wonderful things; these are necessary and worthy things. They are not, however, The Thing. Nor, in fact, would they exist or matter without The Greatest Good.

But, you say, isn’t that what we mean when we say, “He is the Reason for the Season?” Well, I would say the difference can be found in the response: “Yes, He is. But He is more. He Is the Season.” Ah, you say, but this is why we fight to “put Christ back into Christmas.” And a worthy battle it is. But I do wonder, leading up to what will be my 50th Christmas, if I myself really grasp that Christ Is Christmas? And that if I am not willing to ponder, contemplate, and grapple with the Heart of Christmas, my own heart will remain lukewarm and comfortably jaded?

The Heart of Christmas can be expressed in various, interwoven ways. Here are three of them, which get right to the heart of the Heart:

• “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”

• “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

• “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

This is why the Word — the Second Persons of the Trinity — became man. This.

But … become God?! Make us sharers in his divinity? Make men gods? What sort of wild language is this? Is this pantheism? Polytheism? Mormonism? Something-other-than-Catholicism?

However, as some of you know, this is the language of Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy). Which is why these three quotes are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 460) and are, respectively, taken from St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius and St. Thomas Aquinas. This is the language of Scripture and the Fathers, for as we read in 2 Peter:

His [that is, Jesus Christ’s] divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. (2 Pet 1:3-4; emphasis added)

This startling, astounding reality is described in various ways in the Eastern and Western traditions: as theosis, deification, divine sonship, divine adoption, and so forth. Thus, St. Paul tells the Galatians:

But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal 4:4-6).

And St. John tells his readers, “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are” (1 Jn 3:1). This echoes what he writes in the Prologue to his Gospel, when he explains that the reason “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth” was so that “all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (Jn 1:14, 12).

This is summed up wonderfully by Father John Saward in Cradle of Redeeming Love: The Theology of the Christmas Mystery (Ignatius Press, 2002), who observes that “the saving purpose for which Christ the Lord is born among would seem to be threefold: … we might say that the Infant Word makes the truth manifest, makes the old new, and makes men divine.” (emphasis in original). Or, again, in the words of St. John: “And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:16-17).

Christmas makes the truth manifest, it makes the old new, it makes men divine. Or, at least it should! If we ponder it just for a moment, we see why Christmas must be dimmed, dented or damaged by the world, for the world — that is, those spiritual forces and those who serve them, unwittingly or otherwise — avoids truth, disdains the new life offered by Christ through the Holy Spirit, and wish to either ignore or warp what is divine.

Now, back to family, love and gifts. Again, these are all good things. But they all, in essential ways, point to the supernatural source and goal of all three, which is the greatest Good of all. Consider the very first paragraph of the Catechism:

God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life (No. 1).

The Triune God is the source of family; the Three Divine Persons exchange perfect and eternal love — and they call us into the Church, the divine family and household of God (1 Tim 3:15). We are made for both natural and supernatural families because we are made by and for God; we long for love because we are made by and for God, who is love (1 Jn 4:8); we enjoy the giving and getting of gifts because we are made to receive the greatest gift possible, which “is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23).

Finally, having quoted from what I sometimes call “the most shocking paragraph” of the Catechism (No. 460), let’s finish with part of the (surprisingly) short section in the Catechism about Christmas:

To become a child in relation to God is the condition for entering the kingdom. For this, we must humble ourselves and become little. Even more: to become “children of God” we must be “born from above” or “born of God.” Only when Christ is formed in us will the mystery of Christmas be fulfilled in us. Christmas is the mystery of this “marvelous exchange”: “O marvelous exchange! Man’s Creator has become man, born of the Virgin. We have been made sharers in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share our humanity.”

Only when Christ is formed in us will the mystery of Christmas be fulfilled in us. Yes! There it is. I’m all for fighting political correctness and the dictatorship of relativism and the small-minded zealotry of overly sensitive skeptics. But, first and foremost, we must be partakers of the divine nature. We must embrace the fullness of being a child of God. We must let Christ form in us, so that the truth is manifest in us: “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17).

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com). He and his family live in Eugene, Ore.

Comments Off

6 min read

Jesus

Did Jesus Really Exist?

Carl Olson

October 5, 2020 7:15 am October 5, 2020

6 min read

18175 views

Comments Off

6 min read

Scouring in a used-book store a few years ago, I came upon an impressive volume of Catholic apologetics titled “God, Man, and the Universe,” originally published in 1950 in French,…

Scouring in a used-book store a few years ago, I came upon an impressive volume of Catholic apologetics titled “God, Man, and the Universe,” originally published in 1950 in French, then published in English in 1953 by P.J. Kenedy and Sons (apparently the first Catholic publishing house established in the United States). Subtitled “A Christian Answer to Modern Materialism,” the volume featured chapters by an impressive array of mostly French academics, including the great Jesuit scholar Henri de Lubac and the prolific Dominican theologian Yves M.J. Congar.

The chapter titled “The Problem of Christ” (and subtitled “The Myth of Jesus”), written by Henri Fehner, opens with this: “Did Christ ever exist? is the question so many materialists ask; and their way of framing it is a virtual anticipation of the answer.” Fehner then quotes from a work of Soviet propaganda, which contains the humorous claim that many “western European scholars” have “long ago been convinced that the Christ of the Gospel never existed.” As Fehner dryly observes, the specific time frame of “long ago” dates to the “end of the eighteenth century! Before this, nowhere at any time had there ever been any doubt about the historical existence of Christ.”

This basic bit of data will likely surprise some readers. But the “mythicist” school — that is, those who claim that the story of Jesus is entirely mythical in nature, for he never existed — is not only young, it often exhibits all of the hasty brashness and sneering insolence of youth. All of these qualities were taken up recently by the agnostic New Testament scholar (and former fundamentalist Christian) Dr. Bart D. Ehrman in his book “Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth” (HarperOne, 2013), which begins exactly where the Catholic Fehner did many decades ago:

“The first author to deny the existence of Jesus appears to have been the eighteenth-century Frenchman Constanin Francois Volney, a member of the Constituent Assembly during the French Revolution. … Several years later [after 1791] a much more substantial and influential book was published by another Frenchman, Charles-Francois Dupuis, who secretary of the revolutionary National Convention.”

Dupuis’ book, titled “The Origin of All Religions” (1795), was over 2,000 pages long and argued — as did Volney’s earlier essay — that all religions are essentially the same, each being variations on a mythology of a “solar deity.” Thus, as Ehrman summarizes, “Jesus too was originally invented as another embodiment of the sun-god.” It wasn’t until the 1850s that a biblical scholar, the “idiosyncratic” German philosopher and historian Bruno Bauer (d. 1882), a student of philosopher Friedrich Hegel, wrote a series of books arguing that the Jesus as an invention of the Gospels writers, heavily indebted to Greek mythology and Roman Stoicism. Another German, Arthur Drews, built on the work of Bauer, and his 1909 book “The Christ Myth” was quite influential, being taken up and used by Vladimir Lenin in his particular variation of atheistic Marxism.

And, coming full circle, it was this Marxist belief that inspired Catholic books such as “God, Man, and the Universe.” But, of course, not all mythicists are Marxists. But mythicists today still rely on some basic arguments used throughout the relatively short history of mythicism; these include three key claims:

1. Everything we know about Jesus comes from the books of the New Testament — and they cannot be taken seriously as works of history as they were written many decades after the facts by authors who were not eyewitnesses.

2. Jesus is not mentioned outside of the New Testament in works by Jewish or pagan authors, further substantiating the first point.

3. The stories of Jesus are based upon pagan legends and myths about dying gods and their resurrections; they have little or nothing to do with first-century Judaism.

These claims are rooted in a combination of anti-Christian bias — especially anti-Catholic prejudice, as found in the writings of supporters of the French Revolution — and hyper-Enlightenment assumptions, which have little regard for ancient sources and place a tremendous amount of faith in supposedly “scientific” evidence. And such an approach, not surprisingly, is based on the premise that anything supernatural or miraculous is, by definition, contrary to reason, logic or evidence.

There is, then, a certain built-in circularity to the mythicist project. This can be seen in a Washington Post opinion piece, titled “Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up”, written by Raphael Lataster, a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney, and first posted in December 2014 before being retweeted by the newspaper in December 2017. Lataster writes:

“The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity — which gives us reason to question them.”

The blithe sloppiness here is partially due to big assumptions and sweeping judgments — all without any evidence. So, for instance, how is it that four lengthy biographical works written between 25 and 50 years after the death of Jesus, all containing claims to being based on direct witness and firsthand testimony, does not fall under the category of “early sources”? Because, as Lataster states, he assumes the Jesus being described is the “Christ of Faith,” not the “Historical Jesus.” How so? Because, as his essay indicates, they describe supernatural (or “celestial”) characteristics. Lataster further doubles down by essentially saying that the Christian authors cannot be taken seriously because, well, they believe in Jesus Christ. As is so often the case, the elephant in the room is metaphysical assumptions, which throw up a smoke screen when it comes to the historical veracity of the Gospels and the other New Testament texts.

That is one reason (but hardly the only one) that the vast majority of scholars of the New Testament, ancient history, and theology don’t take the mythicists seriously. Yet that scholarly disinterest is a problem, precisely because the mythicists’ audience is not scholarly, even if some mythicists want to be taken seriously by scholars. In my next column, I’ll show how the agnostic Ehrman, the Catholic scholar Brant Pitre, and the evangelical scholar Larry W. Hurtado each offer substantial responses to the basic premises of mythicism.

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com).

Comments Off