Question corner
Q: Some of my non-Catholic friends say that most of the Gospel is made up, as the earliest records show Jesus survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene and moved away, leaving his disciples to carry on their new religious movement. They say the church was well aware of all of this, but covered it up. I’ve never heard anything like this. Could you comment? (Indiana)
A: I have heard various statements like this over the years in different contexts as attempts to supposedly refute Christianity in general. But in my mind, a basic knowledge of history and a bit of logical, common-sense reasoning makes such assertions seem far less plausible.
First of all, when your friends refer to “the earliest records,” my guess is that they are not specifying exactly which writings they have in mind. This is because the books and letters of the New Testament, as well as some of the writings of the early church fathers, are actually our “earliest records” with respect to Christianity.
The New Testament is generally considered to have been written roughly between the years 40-100 A.D., within the lifespan or at least the living memory of the apostles who knew Jesus personally while he still walked the earth.
While there are some pseudo-Gospels (like the so-called “Gospel of Thomas”) from the ancient world which describe radically different and often more fanciful versions of Jesus’ life story, these were not included in the compilation that would ultimately become the Christian Bible for a very good reason. Namely, because the Fathers of the Church — who were much closer in time to Jesus’ earthly life than we are now — discerned that these works were not historically accurate.
Perhaps this discernment might be construed as “knowing and covering it up,” but I think that’s a bit of a stretch. In the church’s early centuries there were many spurious Gospel-themed accounts in existence, but they had roughly the same status as “fan fiction” today. Declining to lend official endorsement to such spurious writings is not the same as arranging to hide them via secret conspiracy.
Furthermore, aside from Judas, all of the original apostles and many of the early popes and bishops either died as martyrs for the faith or endured comparable levels of persecution. It seems unlikely that these men would have been willing to suffer so intensely and give up so much if they themselves did not sincerely believe in the truth of what they were professing.
Reasoning it out, what would have been the apostles’ motivation for making up a new religion if it meant that they had everything to lose but nothing in this world to gain?
Looking at the idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion, this seems improbable from a purely historical perspective, since it’s well known to historians that the Romans were very effective executioners. And the Gospel accounts themselves do not describe Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances as being emblematic of someone who suffered brutally but recovered.
Rather, the Gospels describe Jesus as having been truly resurrected, that is, brought from real death into a radically new kind of life. For example, the resurrected Jesus is able to enter locked rooms (Jn 20:19), disappear from sight in an instant (Lk 24:31), and change his appearance (Lk 24:16).
Finally, if Jesus had been married in the normal human way, there would have been no reason for the Gospels to hide this fact. Marriage was generally understood in Jesus’ culture as the normal way of serving God and growing in holiness. The idea of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is something novel that Jesus introduces in the Gospels.
The church does not teach that Jesus was holy because he was celibate; rather, the church teaches that evangelical celibacy is holy because this was the new way of life that Jesus freely chose for himself.
Jenna Marie Cooper, who holds a licentiate in canon law, is a consecrated virgin and a canonist whose column appears weekly at OSV News. Send your questions to CatholicQA@osv.com.
