Article content continued

Q. You are asking a lot of religious readers of Zealot to somehow accept that what they believe is not really historical. For example, you write the Catholic Church insists Jesus had no siblings to prop up the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary and that Jesus was not a gentle peacemaker and the resurrection was not historical. What would you say to them?

A. There is a difference between what the person of faith is asking and what the historian is asking. The person of faith is interested in what is possible. And the historian is interested in what is likely. But they need not be in conflict. Christians [who have written me] say the book has empowered their faith. They believe the man I’m describing is also God. But nevertheless seeing him in this sort of earthly environment and in the context of his time, as a Jew speaking to other Jews, has actually given them a new sense of appreciation for the miraculous way this no-name Jewish peasant ended up launching the world’s largest religion. And that in and of itself is proof of his divine favour, if you will.

Q: Your idea of what is likely and possible is not just about the resurrection, correct?

A: Yes. For example, is it possible that Jesus, unlike 98% of his fellow Jews, could read and write? It’s possible but not likely. Is it possible he was born in Bethlehem and not Nazareth? Again, it’s possible but not likely. What this book is interested in is what is likely without necessarily denying what is possible.