Truth of the Gospels

A few years ago a two-volume work was published that was highly acclaimed by the critics. It was entitled Jesus a Marginal Jew, and was written by a Catholic priest, a professor at the Catholic University of America. Using the historico-critical method, he examined the four Gospels and came to the conclusion that very little in them was historically true. Most of what they tell was invented either by the Christian community or by the "fertile imagination" of the four evangelists.

For instance, John’s Gospel tells us that Jesus changed water into wine at Cana. This modern critic says no such miracle took place.

All four evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) affirm that with only five loaves of bread Jesus fed a large multitude consisting of five thousand men besides women and children. No such miracle took place, says this modern critic. The most he would concede is that something unusual or memorable must have happened involving bread.

Three of the evangelists (Matthew, Mark and John) tell us that after feeding that large multitude, Jesus overtook his disciples’ boat at night by walking on the water of the Lake of Galilee. This modern critic says that is merely a story intended as a sequel to the story of the feeding of the five thousand.

And so on.

This modern critic is, of course, not alone. He merely joins the chorus of critics who use the historico-critical method.

We have therefore an interesting situation. On one hand we have the four evangelists (who wrote in the first century of the Christian era, only a few decades after the life and death and resurrection of Jesus) telling us that these things happened. On the other hand, we have critics who, two thousand years later, tell us these things never happened. Which of them should I believe?

Even prescinding from any consideration of divine inspiration (which ultimately must be considered), I would be inclined to believe those who were nearer the events and who lived among communities that preserved traditions handed them by the apostles.

So, if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell me that Jesus fed a large multitude, I would believe them, even if modern critics say the thing never happened. And if the evangelists tell me Jesus walked on the water, I would accept their testimony, even if it is pooh-poohed by the modern critics.

And if John tells us that Jesus changed water into wine, I would say, why not? He had the power to do so – even if a biblical professor says the thing never happened.

And if John says that the water was changed into wine as a result of Mary’s intercession, I would say, "Of course. That’s exactly what Mary would do, and that’s exactly what Jesus would do."

This, of course, exposes me to the ridicule of all learned persons. And if they say of me, "What a naïve fellow, he is not a man of science" – I would totally agree. I am not a man of science. I am a man of faith.