Conclusions

The facts recorded here and the commentaries quotedfrom several extremely eminent Christian experts inexegesis have refuted affirmations of orthodoxy supportedby the line adopted by the last Council on the absolutehistorical authenticity of the Gospels. These are said tohave faithfully transmitted what Jesus actually did andtaught.

Several different kinds of argument have been given.

Firstly, quotations from the Gospels themselves showflat contradictions. It is impossible to believe twofacts that contradict each other. Neither can one acceptcertain improbabilities and affirmations that go againstthe cast-iron data provided by modern knowledge. In thisrespect, the two genealogies of Jesus given in theGospels and the untruths implied in them are quiteconclusive.

These contradictions, improbabilities andincompatibilities pass unnoticed by many Christians. Theyare astonished when they discover them because they havebeen influenced by their reading of commentaries thatprovide subtle explanations calculated to reassure themand orchestrated by an apologetic lyricism. Some verytypical examples have been given of the skill employed bycertain experts in exegesis in camouflaging what theymodestly call ‘difficulties’. There are very few passagesindeed in the Gospels that have been acknowledged asinauthentic although the Church declares them canonic.

According to Father Kannengiesser, works of moderntextual criticism have revealed data which constitute a’revolution in methods of Biblical exegesis’ so that thefacts relating to Jesus recorded in the Gospels are nolonger ‘to be taken literally’, they are ‘writings suitedto an occasion’ or ‘combat writings’. Modern knowledgehas brought to light the history of Judeo-Christianityand the rivalry between communities which accounts forthe existence of facts that today’s readers finddisconcerting. The concept of eyewitness evangelists isno longer defensible, although numerous Christians stillretain it today. The work done at the Biblical School ofJerusalem (Fathers Benoit and Boismard) shows veryclearly that the Gospels were written, revised andcorrected several times. They also warn the reader thathe is “obliged in more than one case to give up thenotion of hearing Jesus’s voice directly”.

The historical nature of the Gospels is beyondquestion. Through descriptions referring to Jesushowever, these documents provide us above all withinformation about the character of their authors, thespokesmen for the tradition of the early Christiancommunities to which they belonged, and in particularabout the struggle between the Judeo-Christians and Paul:Cardinal Daniélou’s work is authoritative on thesepoints.

Why be surprised by the fact that some evangelistsdistort certain events in Jesus’s life with the object ofdefending a personal point of view? Why be surprised bythe omission of certain events? Why be surprised by thefictitious nature of other events described?

This leads us to compare the Gospels with thenarrative poems found in Medieval literature. A vividcomparison could be made with the Song of Roland(Chanson de Roland), the most well-known of all poems ofthis kind, which relates a real event in a fictitiouslight. It will be remembered that it describes an actualepisode: Roland was leading Charlemagne’s rear-guard whenit was ambushed on the pass at Roncevaux. The episodewhich was of minor importance, is said to have takenplace on the 15th August, 778 according to historicalrecords (Eginhard). It was raised to the stature of agreat feat of arms, a battle in a war of religion. It isa whimsical description, but the imaginary element doesnot obliterate one of the real battles that Charlemagnehad to fight in order to protect his frontiers againstthe attempts made by neighbouring peoples to penetratehis borders. That is the element of truth and the epicstyle of narrative does not remove it.

The same holds true for the Gospels: Matthew’sphantasms, the fiat contradictions between Gospels, theimprobabilities, the incompatibilities with modernscientific data, the successive distortions of thetext-all these things add up to the fact that the Gospelscontain chapters and passages that are the sole productof the human imagination. These flaws do not however castdoubt on the existence of Jesus’s mission: the doubt issolely confined to the course it took.