While it is important to look to the New Testament to understand who Jesus was, it is also important to look at what Christians from the second to fourth centuries were saying.
This does not mean that Church Fathers have the same authority as the New Testament, but it helps us to interpret the New Testament. R.G. Price understands this in his Case Against Historical Christ.
There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries
R.G. Price claims that one of the reasons that we should doubt the existence of the historical Jesus is the conflicting understanding of who Jesus was among certain groups in the second to fourth centuries.
Were there conflicting interpretations? Yes, but not in a way that supports Price’s argument. There were three basic interpretations of who Jesus was:
- Only human.
- Human and divine.
- Only divine.
What these various interpretations all held in common (and there were many differences between them) is that all held that Jesus appeared in history. It’s just the nature of that Jesus that was questioned.
Was that Jesus just a human prophet? Was he God incarnate in human flesh? Was he a divine being that only appeared to be human but actually had no physical flesh? But none of them argued that Jesus never existed.
There are a couple of other problems with Price’s claims. He says: “The Catholics, in fact, were late-developing group, that came along after some of these other groups.” I would like to know what he means by “Catholic.”
Does he mean those who lived after the Council of Nicaea? Does he mean those even before that council that became known as catholic/orthodox?
If by Catholic he means Christians who believed that Jesus Christ was God incarnated in a human being, he is wrong. We see that in the New Testament and even second century apologists are arguing for that faith.
Price also pulls the popular Mythicist tactic of bringing up Origen, who taught about the importance of allegorical interpretation. Such Mythicists are hoping their readers have not read Origen.
I have read Origen and he goes out of his way to argue for the historicity of the events described in the Gospels. He addresses directly the historical meaning of the stories, only arguing that there is also a deeper allegorical meaning.
