The Resurrection by Caravaggio
Available from Amazon
Book Length: 242 pages
In our time, the itching ears of men have become so deaf to the truth to the point that a sizable number of infidels deny both the divinity and the humanity of Christ. Surely, there were infidels in the past who did both; but now this assault, in progress for over a century at this point, dares to attack the obvious historical truth of the humanity of the Son of God, Who, as St. John testified, “…was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). This modern atheistic attack on the Scriptures has resorted to devising the insidious claim that the four Gospels were of dubious authorship, and furthermore, these Gospels were mere folklore composed by men far removed from the first generation of Christians. In their worldview, the Christians simply “made up” the story of Christ, and the “original story” is something quite different from what we have received all these years later. Yet, as in the case of the Mohammendans, the absence of their mysterious “original Gospels” is somehow proof of their purported existence!
Considering that the theories which have inspired this denial are continuously taught in universities, even so-called Catholic ones, it can be ascertained that this shameful ignorance is only becoming further entrenched in the minds of the youth and academia. Hence, scholar Brant Pitre bravely set out some years ago to address these false teachings in the form of this book. In doing so, he has rendered to all men a great service by skillfully dismantling the biases upon which these theories rest, and has shown that in reality, the great quantity of evidence which stands in support of the Catholic position on the Sacred Scriptures.
Writing in a level accessible to the average reader, his work does not lose its academic charm. It is always admirable when an author backs up his information with references, and Pitre is an exemplar at this. Not only are there footnotes given at the end of each chapter, but a section (forty pages in total!) lies at the very end of this book dedicated to this purpose. Among the many sources referenced in this thorough and concise book range from Fathers of the Church, such as St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, to modern New Testament scholars such as M. David Litwa and Fr. Joseph Fitzmeyer SJ. The writings of Bart Ehrman, perhaps the most famous scholar who promotes the aforementioned skeptical denialism, are referenced as well and given a satisfying rebuttal.
In his evaluation of the claims of Jesus and the historicity of the Gospel, Pitre manages not only to refute false ideas, but also provides exceptional insight. My favorite example, which I will summarize in brief, is his explanation of the obscure “Sign of Jonah” mentioned in the Holy Gospel.
…[W]hen Jonah says that he cried from “the belly of Sheol” and “the Pit” these are standard Old Testament terms for the realm of the dead…[W]hen Jonah says that his “soul” (Hebrew: nephesh) fainted within him, this is another way of saying that he died. In other words, Jonah’s prayer is the last gasp of a dying man. Thus, when the fish vomits out Jonah onto the land, it is vomiting up his corpse.
(187)
Finally, with all this in mind, notice what God’s first word to Jonah is: “Arise” (Hebrew: qûm). This is the same Semitic word Jesus uses when he raises Jairus’s daughter from the dead and says to her: “Talitha cumi,” meaning “Little girl, I say to you, arise” (Mark 5:41). In other words, the story of Jonah is the story of his death and resurrection.
(187-188)
…[A]s any first century Jew would have known, the climax of the book of Jonah is not his miraculous “arising” after being vomited out by the fish; it is the even more miraculous repentance of the city of Nineveh.
…
In response [to the scribes and Pharisees] Jesus declares that the only “sign” that will be given to his generation is the sign of the prophet Jonah…The “sign of Jonah” is both the resurrection of the Son of Man and the repentance of the Gentiles that will follow his resurrection.
(188)
However, in light of such fascinating information, it should be also be noted that Pitre seems only to dimly differentiate between the Old Covenant religion and Talmudic Judaism. Considering that, throughout this book, Pitre highlights the importance of viewing the claims of what Jesus said through the “ancient Jewish lens”, this is an unfortunate oversight, as most today have very little clue concerning the substantial divergence between ancient and modern Judaism. Such a digression could easily turn into its own book. Nevertheless, it is a point is of great importance when discussing these subjects, and would have been worthy of a brief mention at the very least.
There is also the unfortunate reference to Elie Wiesel—fanatical con-man and liar—in one of the early chapters of this book, as the author saw fit to use his example in attempting to prove the point that “…some people die young; other people live long enough and write books” (89). Wiesel was once quoted as saying, “I describe incidents which may or may not have happened but which are true,” thus rendering him a false witness by his own admission.1 Given this, to present his case as somehow vaguely analogous to that of the Four Evangelists adds insult to its needlessness. Would it not have been preferable to use the example of a Catholic (say, for instance, Cardinal Mindszenty) who wrote a memoir to preserve the memory of a true persecution? Though such a minor detail is important in the grand scheme of things, it does not invalidate the truth value of the main thesis of this book and the rest of its presentation. The only other criticism I have with it is that Pitre uses the RSVCE translation instead of the Douay Rheims when he quotes from the Holy Bible.
In spite of its flaws and on account of its merits, this book is quite likely one of the best out there on the subject of New Testament studies. Anyone interested in this topic, from scholar to layman, should consult this book. Furthermore, this is a book that the average layman should read, for it provides many answers and points for reflection in its treatment of, as Chesterton once termed them, the riddles of the Gospel.