.jpg)
The relationship between art and faith is deeply intertwined, yet fundamentally distinct from the realm of historical documentation. Religious art does not set out to prove the existence of God or validate theological claims through empirical evidence; rather, it aims to elevate spiritual engagement, to foster awe, contemplation, and devotion. Caravaggio’s Crucifixion of Saint Peter is not a journalistic rendering of an execution but an artistic meditation on suffering, humility, and sacrifice. The power of this painting does not rest on whether Peter was literally crucified in this manner or even in Rome, but in how it evokes the spiritual weight of martyrdom. Religious masterpieces—from Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel frescoes to Rembrandt’s The Return of the Prodigal Son—invite introspection rather than offer proof. They resonate not because they substantiate history, but because they express something deeper: the longing, the faith, the sorrow, and the hope that define the human experience.
By contrast, books like The Fisherman’s Tomb and the broader sphere of pseudo-archaeology take a different approach, one that seeks to bind faith to material proof. The quest to prove that Peter’s remains lie beneath St. Peter’s Basilica is not merely an archaeological investigation; it is an attempt to force belief into a rigid, evidentiary framework. But faith is not science, nor should it be. The impulse to validate belief through relics and artifacts suggests an insecurity rather than a confidence in the power of faith itself. As Tertullian wrote in the second century, "I believe because it is absurd." Faith does not demand verification; it exists precisely because it transcends what can be seen or measured.
Pseudo-archaeology, including religiously motivated excavations that begin with a foregone conclusion, distorts both faith and history. When relics or sacred sites become the foundation of belief, they risk turning faith into something brittle, subject to collapse when the physical evidence does not align with expectation. The medieval obsession with relics—a splinter of the True Cross, a thorn from Christ’s crown, the bones of saints—provided a tangible connection to the divine, but also led to rampant forgeries and disillusionment when such artifacts were exposed as fraudulent. If faith hinges on such shifting foundations, then what happens when the evidence fails to hold up?
Art does not suffer from this vulnerability because its purpose is not verification but vision. It does not ask us to confirm, but to feel. Standing before The Crucifixion of Saint Peter, we are not tasked with evaluating historical accuracy but with contemplating its emotional and theological depth. The weight of Peter’s struggle, the forceful movement of his body, the faceless executioners going about their grim work—all of this speaks to something more profound than historical fact. Similarly, sacred music—whether Bach’s Mass in B Minor or Mozart’s Requiem—is not proof of divinity, yet it can stir the soul and bring one closer to the ineffable far more effectively than any archaeological claim.
I am not a person of faith, but I respect faith and, more importantly, the art that it has produced. I see in religious art an expression of something that goes beyond doctrine, something deeply human. I do not need to believe in the literal truth of Peter’s martyrdom to be moved by Caravaggio’s rendering of it. I do not need to accept the historical reality of Mary cradling Christ’s body to be struck by the sorrow in Michelangelo’s Pietà. These works endure not because they offer proof, but because they tap into something eternal: suffering, devotion, love, and the search for meaning.
Faith does not require external validation to be real. If anything, it is strongest when it exists independent of evidence. Pseudo-archaeology attempts to bolster belief by anchoring it to tangible proof, but in doing so, it risks making faith conditional—something that can be substantiated or refuted. This is why debates over the authenticity of relics, the Shroud of Turin, or the precise locations of biblical events so often lead not to deeper faith, but to doubt and division. What happens when an artifact once thought sacred is proven inauthentic? A faith dependent on such things is an unstable faith.
Religious art, however, endures. Its power is not in what it proves, but in what it reveals. It allows us to engage with mystery, to explore the divine not as a sequence of verifiable events but as a lived, emotional reality. If we want to enrich faith, we should look not to relics but to reflection—on sacrifice, devotion, and the stories that shape our understanding of belief. Caravaggio understood this, as did Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and countless others who sought not to confirm but to inspire. The real question is whether the relentless pursuit of proof, the obsession with verification, actually strengthens faith—or reduces it to something small and fragile.
Ultimately, art does not ask us to believe in relics or archaeology. It asks us to believe in something far greater: the enduring human search for meaning, the weight of suffering, and the hope that faith—whether one holds it or not—can provide. That is something no excavation, no relic, no so-called proof can ever replicate.