"Embellished" Gospels? How Much is "True"?

[edrubbra2]

I recently attended a Catholic Marist seminar on stewardship of the the environment at which the above problem was raised. The brother facilitating claimed that later written gospels such as Luke had “embellishments” such as the shepherds and the angels in Luke 2 and he claimed that this was a “literary form” of the time, much like our telling of tall tales to make a point. In other words, the shepherds and the angels probably didn’t happen.

My worry is, if there are embellishments, how can we differentiate them from what is “factual”? I can today never meditate on the Birth of Our Lord in the Rosary in quite the same way again after learning this awful news!

 

[Todd_Easton]

Do not give much credance to what the brother said about the Gospels. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church unhesitatingly vouches for the historical character of the Gospels in their entirety:
19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4). (Vatican II, Dei Verbum)

 

[Verbum]

Hi Todd,

The Gospels are historical. But they are historical in the sense that history was understood when they were written.

Yes there are “literary forms”,some of wich we understand and some of which we don’t. (Exegetes, following papal exhortations are working on that.) History as it was understood in Jesus’ days and history as it is understood today are not the same. For example, one ancient author talking about Hannibal before crossing the Alps, has a long speech, for which he has no source. It is a literary device. He has analyzed Hannibal’s character and style. He has composed a speech in which he expresses what Hannibal must have felt before starting that enterprise.

Now look at the New Testament. Mary’s visit to St. Elizabeth. She bursts out into the Magnificat. Sure God could have inspired Mary with this poem, but why call for a miracle when it is likely that the author is using a literary device, very common in ancient times, to express Mary’s sentiments about her situation?

That being said, a little knowledge is a dangereous thing, and I fear that many more or less qualified moderators use terms like “literary forms” a bit too loosely. For the average guy, the important thing is to get God’s message in scripture. What if the angels’ singing is a literary device? What is important is what they are saying and how all this fits into the history of salvation.

When these people stray, ask them questions that will keep them on the message. If they can’t do that, then cut yourself loose.

Verbum

 

[Della]

edrubbra2:

I recently attended a Catholic Marist seminar on stewardship of the the environment at which the above problem was raised. The brother facilitating claimed that later written gospels such as Luke had “embellishments” such as the shepherds and the angels in Luke 2 and he claimed that this was a “literary form” of the time, much like our telling of tall tales to make a point. In other words, the shepherds and the angels probably didn’t happen.

The Marist brother ought not to have said anything about the speculations of Bible scholars and theologians to a group like yours. Honestly, a little “knowledge” can really be a dangerous thing when people who are unqualified to talk about a subject, as if they actually know anything about it at all. They read something in some commentary and think they’ve run across a new wrinkle to pass along to unsuspecting lay people. I call it showing off, and it has no place in normal teaching.

I called it speculation and that’s all it is–not fact. Be assured of that. Scholars and theologians come up with all sorts of hypotheses to help them better understand the Bible and what it means. But, such speculations are NOT Church teaching, which is why the brother ought not to have been telling lay people that these things are facts that explains Church teachings when they are no such thing.

My worry is, if there are embellishments, how can we differentiate them from what is “factual”? I can today never meditate on the Birth of Our Lord in the Rosary in quite the same way again after learning this awful news!

There are many literary forms in the Bible, such as poetry, parables, stories passed down from antiquity, etc. The OT is full of such forms. However, the NT writers weren’t poets or passing down stories from antiquity, rather they were eyewitnesses to the life of Christ and/or the formation of the early Church. They used poetry within their writings and referred to ancient stories, but they did not write in those forms themselves. There is no good reason to doubt Mary actually declared her Magnificat. There are several incidences in the OT of people singing spontaneous songs of praise and prophecy and there is no good reason to doubt they composed their own songs, either. As I wrote above, the idea that they didn’t is merely speculation on the part of modern, and I do emphasize the word modern, Bible scholars and theologians. The Early Church Fathers did not see it as these moderns do, nor does the Church accept such speculations as any sort of hard and fast truth.

 

[buffalo]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

		 **[According to the Clementine Tradition]**

		 **By**

		 **Dennis Barton**

		 [**
		The Gospels are Historical**](http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

FOREWORD

		 The theory that Mark's gospel was the first to be written 			dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious **and widespread **doubts about the 			historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.

		 'The Authors of the Gospels' sets forth an alternative view.  Using primary sources written 			by the earliest Christian historians (**The** Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time 			of Jerome.

		 This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written 			by eyewitness companions of Jesus.** The author 			points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican 			Council.**

		 **K.J.Gajewski**

 

[buffalo]

Critics Turn Up the Heat on Jesus Seminar

Catholics need to be on guard against the dangers posed to their faith by the skeptical treatment of the Gospels in the Jesus Seminar, according to critics of the seminar.

Members of the Jesus Seminar are academics who are promoting their own views and taking those ideas “directly to the believer in the pew” through the secular media and by influencing clergy and educators, according to Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis magazine which sponsored a conference that examined the impact of the seminar.

Hudson made his comments at a press briefing arranged by Crisis at the start of a Nov. 12-14 conference in New York.

The conference, titled “The Bible and the Catholic Church: Challenging the Findings of the Jesus Seminar,” is the first of a number of session to be held around the country on the same subject.

The Jesus Seminar is a group of scholars who assemble twice a year to vote on the historical accuracy of what is found in the Gospels.

Hudson said he learned of the seminar only recently when a student of his went to a program held by the Jesus Seminar in Washington, D.C., and returned uncertain how to handle the theories presented there.

“The Jesus Seminar is taking their view directly to Christians in the pew, and they’re saying, ‘The Jesus you know from your childhood is a myth, and you should be liberated from that,’” said Hudson. “What is up for grabs is nothing less than the authority of the Pope, canon law and the distinction between genuine doctrine and heresy.”

more…

 

[davethecatholic]

edrubbra2:

I recently attended a Catholic Marist seminar on stewardship of the the environment at which the above problem was raised. The brother facilitating claimed that later written gospels such as Luke had “embellishments” such as the shepherds and the angels in Luke 2 and he claimed that this was a “literary form” of the time, much like our telling of tall tales to make a point. In other words, the shepherds and the angels probably didn’t happen.

I hope someone in the audience asked the brother how he knew there were no angels and shepherds in Luke 2!! Where does he get such information? What are his sources? Why would Luke 2 come up at a seminar on stewardship of the environment, anyway???

I agree that it is irresponsible for a brother to promote such a theory.

My worry is, if there are embellishments, how can we differentiate them from what is “factual”? I can today never meditate on the Birth of Our Lord in the Rosary in quite the same way again after learning this awful news!

Don’t let your faith be swayed by such things…especially your Rosary meditations!!!

Take a look at this on “Biblical Inspiration” and “Biblical Inerrancy”
Hope this is helpful.

drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson2

 

[edrubbra2]

I “hope someone in the audience asked the brother how he knew there were no angels and shepherds in Luke 2!! Where does he get such information? What are his sources? Why would Luke 2 come up at a seminar on stewardship of the environment, anyway???”

The seminar was looking into the somewhat controversial theological and environmental beliefs of Teilhard de Chardin and other “cosmic” theologians and the mention of literary forms in use in the Gospels was just a tangential discussion.

One poster here brought up the Magnificat from Luke. This is again a problem point in that was it a literary form, or did Mary actually pray it as written? It seems out of context with the surrounding narrative. I would say that it is a literary device, as it has an Old Testament flavour, but this again raises questions of faith. Is tyhe Magnificat a “sentiment” or did Mary actually pray it as written? I know the spiritusl basis behind this prayer, but the textual problems seem to me to be very difficult to understand here, hence my continued worry over “literary forms”!!!

 

[davethecatholic]

Well, we seem to be on two seperate topics here…

1. Shepherds (and the Angels that appeared to them)
2. The Magnificat (on next thread)

On the first point (Shepherds and Angels), the Catechism states:

437 To the shepherds, the angel announced the birth of Jesus as the Messiah promised to Israel: “To you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.” 32 From the beginning he was “the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world”, conceived as “holy” in Mary’s virginal womb. 33 God called Joseph to “take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, so that Jesus, “who is called Christ”, should be born of Joseph’s spouse into the messianic lineage of David. 34

486 The Father’s only Son, conceived as man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, is “Christ”, that is to say, anointed by the Holy Spirit, from the beginning of his human existence, though the manifestation of this fact takes place only progressively: to the shepherds, to the magi, to John the Baptist, to the disciples. 123 Thus the whole life of Jesus Christ will make manifest “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.” 124

525 Jesus was born in a humble stable, into a poor family. 202 Simple shepherds were the first witnesses to this event. In this poverty heaven’s glory was made manifest. 203 The Church never tires of singing the glory of this night:

The Virgin today brings into the world the Eternal
And the earth offers a cave to the Inaccessible.
The angels and shepherds praise him
And the magi advance with the star,
For you are born for us, Little Child, God eternal! 204

559 How will Jerusalem welcome her Messiah? Although Jesus had always refused popular attempts to make him king, he chooses the time and prepares the details for his messianic entry into the city of “his father David”. 308 Acclaimed as son of David, as the one who brings salvation (Hosanna means “Save!” or “Give salvation!”), the “King of glory” enters his City “riding on an ***”. 309 Jesus conquers the Daughter of Zion, a figure of his Church, neither by ruse nor by violence, but by the humility that bears witness to the truth. 310 And so the subjects of his kingdom on that day are children and God’s poor, who acclaim him as had the angels when they announced him to the shepherds. 311 Their acclamation, “Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord”, 312 is taken up by the Church in the “Sanctus” of the Eucharistic liturgy that introduces the memorial of the Lord’s Passover.

725 Finally, through Mary, the Holy Spirit begins to bring men, the objects of God’s merciful love, 107 into communion with Christ. And the humble are always the first to accept him: shepherds, magi, Simeon and Anna, the bride and groom at Cana, and the first disciples.

333 From the Incarnation to the Ascension, the life of the Word incarnate is surrounded by the adoration and service of angels. When God “brings the firstborn into the world, he says: ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’” 196 Their song of praise at the birth of Christ has not ceased resounding in the Church’s praise: “Glory to God in the highest!” 197 They protect Jesus in his infancy, serve him in the desert, strengthen him in his agony in the garden, when he could have been saved by them from the hands of his enemies as Israel had been. 198 Again, it is the angels who “evangelize” by proclaiming the Good News of Christ’s Incarnation and Resurrection. 199 They will be present at Christ’s return, which they will announce, to serve at his judgement. 200

 

[davethecatholic]

On the Magnificat (Luke I: 46-55)…Continued from earlier thread:

722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” 102 should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the **angel Gabriel ** to greet her as the “Daughter of Zion”: “Rejoice.” 103 It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle 104 lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son.

2619 That is why the Canticle of Mary, 91 the Magnificat (Latin) or Megalynei (Byzantine) is the song both of the Mother of God and of the Church; the song of the Daughter of Zion and of the new People of God; the song of thanksgiving for the fullness of graces poured out in the economy of salvation and the song of the “poor” whose hope is met by the fulfillment of the promises made to our ancestors, “to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

2097 To adore God is to acknowledge, in respect and absolute submission, the “nothingness of the creature” who would not exist but for God. To adore God is to praise and exalt him and to humble oneself, as Mary did in the Magnificat, confessing with gratitude that he has done great things and holy is his name. 14 The worship of the one God sets man free from turning in on himself, from the slavery of sin and the idolatry of the world.

In short, it seems the Church’s teachings on these subjects are clear and consistent. The opinions of this particular brother do not seem to match up with the Catechism.

If anything, I would hope your faith would be strengthened by the fullfillment of the OT prophesy in Luke I and II: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive; and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” Isaiah 7:14.

 

[edrubbra2]

Dave,

Thanks for your posting of the official statements. I have often found the problems I am writing about here when listening to “educated” clergymen, and thise who are trying to fit the Church’s teaching into secular thinking. There was even in the 80’s a theory going the rounds in our RCIA at the time that the resurrection didn’t really happen, which was made known to us by out curate of the time. It caused much sorrow and heated debate as I remember.

There will always I feel, be tension when we try to reconcile scholarship with tradition. I have rarely come out of such a discussion feeling “satisfied” Thoughts??

 

[TOME]

I have to say after reading the post of Verbum and Della it is not difficult for me not to add to anything they said, so I wold suggest all who read my post study theirs. I think it is especially important to understand what they brought out about how too often what should really stay in an academic enviroment leaves that environment and too often for all the wrong reasons of which for some it helps them sell books and others it helps them look intellectual both not realizing the possible harm that could be done especially by the confusion their position often cause.

I would like, however, to add one thing and I hope it doesn’t distract from either Della or Verbum. I once heard a professor, a Protestant, explain that we should not look on the Infancy Narratives as add on ( or in keeping with this thread) but if you cannot accept them as fact, then try to look at them the same way as one would look at a prelude of an opera. It sets the tone, introduces the theme and gives you an introduction to the music and work in general. For me, since I heard that I have look at Matthew and Luke’s additions in a new light that has really help me to come to a greater appreciation their meaning and importance.

 

[davethecatholic]

I think, as Catholics, we all need to be aware of the fact that Our Faith is constantly under attack. Keep the Faith of the Fathers, the Faith of the Catechism!!!

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

Call it secular culture…call it spirtitual blindness…or call it what I think it is…Satanic influence. I know we don’t like to hear such things, but a brother, a man of religious life, contradicting the teachings of The Church…what else could it be!!

“For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world” Wisdom II

“then the devil cometh, and taketh the word out of their heart, lest believing they should be saved” Luke VIII

“For Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light” II Corinthians

“your advesary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” I Peter

The answers are all out there. They’re in The Catechism. Stick with that and it won’t let you down, despite what some irresponsible so-called “experts” may want you to believe!!! The only experts we need are our Lord Jesus Christ and The Faith he transmitted to the Apostles that is The Catholic Church. Don’t be swayed by anything else. Don’t give the bad guy an inch of your faith!!!

“To him that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God” Apocalypse II

“He that shall overcome, shall not be hurt by the second death” Apocalypse II

“He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot his name out to the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, adn before his angels” Apocalypse III

I certainly don’t mean to over-do it with the Scripture, but this is the Sacred Scripture forum!!!

I am an RCIA sponsor this year and have been shocked at some of the discussions. I can only imagine what was going on in the 80’s!! I also agree with your characterization of “sorrow” when people fall from the teachings of The Church. Even though WE ARE ALL SINNERS, it is still difficult and sad to experience.

I don’t think there needs to be any tension when reconciling scholarship with tradition. There is only tension with scholars who do not follow tradition and need reconciling with The Church!!!

 

[SueKrum]

davethecatholic:

The answers are all out there. They’re in The Catechism. Stick with that and it won’t let you down, despite what some irresponsible so-called “experts” may want you to believe!!! The only experts we need are our Lord Jesus Christ and The Faith he transmitted to the Apostles that is The Catholic Church. Don’t be swayed by anything else. Don’t give the bad guy an inch of your faith!!!

Ahmen brother!!!
I just want to add one more scripture here
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. **All scripture is inspired by God ** and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 tim 3:14-17

 

[edrubbra2]

“but if you cannot accept them as fact, then try to look at them the same way as one would look at a prelude of an opera. It sets the tone, introduces the theme and gives you an introduction to the music and work in general. For me, since I heard that I have look at Matthew and Luke’s additions in a new light that has really help me to come to a greater appreciation their meaning and importance.”

This is I think a very good way of looking at these “add-ons” if you could call them that. The Magnificat as we read it seems to summarise Mary’s vocation. Another “add-on” in Matthew is the contentious *“may his blood be upon us and upon our children” *which, whenever I read it, ask myself “why did the author put this phrase into the discussion?” Yes, he may have been writing for the Jews, but this phrase seems totally out of place and seems to have been writte as an afterthought.

These textual difficulties are so common within especially the NT that it can be quite frustrating when trying to get a clear picture of the text you are examining!

 

[davethecatholic]

“but if you cannot accept them as fact, then try to look at them the same way as one would look at a prelude of an opera. It sets the tone, introduces the theme and gives you an introduction to the music and work in general. For me, since I heard that I have look at Matthew and Luke’s additions in a new light that has really help me to come to a greater appreciation their meaning and importance.”

This is I think a very good way of looking at these “add-ons” if you could call them that. The Magnificat as we read it seems to summarise Mary’s vocation. Another “add-on” in Matthew is the contentious *“may his blood be upon us and upon our children” *which, whenever I read it, ask myself “why did the author put this phrase into the discussion?” Yes, he may have been writing for the Jews, but this phrase seems totally out of place and seems to have been writte as an afterthought.

These textual difficulties are so common within especially the NT that it can be quite frustrating when trying to get a clear picture of the text you are examining!

I think this says it well…

597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. 385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. 386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. 387

As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council: . . . neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture. 388

 

[adnauseum]

Be not afraid. Catholics are afraid of nothing, and interested in everything. Nothing that is true can possibly threaten you.

I don’t know whether or not embellishments occurred in this case. But that doesn’t matter. Embellishment does not cast the slightest suspicion on the truth.

For example, today is the 40th anniversary of the famous incident when Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat. In her honor, the seat behind the driver in buses are being left open today because that was her seat on that fateful day. But now we find this isn’t based in fact. It turns out she did not occupy the seat behind the driver, according to witnesses.

What’s my point? My point is that pivotal moments in history are not immune to embellishment. But why are they embellished? To cover up a lie? Absolutely not. They are embellished to illuminate the underlying meaning of the event, to make it more salient and enduring for future generations. Most importantly, if they are embellished, they are embellished by devout and well-meaning friends, not mean-spirited pranksters, or idiots.

So assume the story about embellishment is true, which it might or might not be. Turn your gazed toward the idea that the witnesses at the time grasped and discerned something beyond description if the account they passed on were spontaneously embellished with such glory. What must that event have been like for people to feel the need to glorify it in their accounts?

 

[buffalo]

davethecatholic:

As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council: . . . neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture. 388

Right, it is very similar for me to be blamed for slavery of the past. However, one must always look to see if there is continued persection.

**If **Jews were actively persecuting Catholics today for their beliefs what would one make of it?

 

[buffalo]

adnauseum:

Be not afraid. Catholics are afraid of nothing, and interested in everything. Nothing that is true can possibly threaten you.

I don’t know whether or not embellishments occurred in this case. But that doesn’t matter. Embellishment does not cast the slightest suspicion on the truth.

For example, today is the 40th anniversary of the famous incident when Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat. In her honor, the seat behind the driver in buses are being left open today because that was her seat on that fateful day. But now we find this isn’t based in fact. It turns out she did not occupy the seat behind the driver, according to witnesses.

What’s my point? My point is that pivotal moments in history are not immune to embellishment. But why are they embellished? To cover up a lie? Absolutely not. They are embellished to illuminate the underlying meaning of the event, to make it more salient and enduring for future generations. Most importantly, if they are embellished, they are embellished by devout and well-meaning friends, not mean-spirited pranksters, or idiots.

So assume the story about embellishment is true, which it might or might not be. Turn your gazed toward the idea that the witnesses at the time grasped and discerned something beyond description if the account they passed on were spontaneously embellished with such glory. What must that event have been like for people to feel the need to glorify it in their accounts?

If Scripture is inspired would the Holy Spirit allow false embellishments? Wouldn’t they cloud the truth? Since God is speaking through Scripture would God be lying? But we know God cannot deceive or be deceived.

Just some points to ponder.

 

[adnauseum]

buffalo:

If Scripture is inspired would the Holy Spirit allow false embellishments? Wouldn’t they cloud the truth? Since God is speaking through Scripture would God be lying? But we know God cannot deceive or be deceived.

Just some points to ponder.

It’s just as odd for me to think of God as disabling or denying man’s natural tendency to embellish facts over time, especially when embellishment reflects the personal joy and awe of the witnesses.

I think I understand your underlying concern, you’re adamant that one should not open the floodgate of doubt in the first place.

I am more sympathetic to that view than I might seem.

Yet there is good precedent in the Church Doctors for the spirit of my argument. Augustine and Aquinas wrote on many occasions that we must strive to understand scripture’s sense, not on the literal level alone, specifically because we must be careful to avoid alienating educated, worldly people, who will pounce on factual discrepancies to undermine the reality of the gospel itself.

Whether we like it or not, the original poster expressed distress not because somebody gave him the information, but it seems because he has a sense that what he was told is plausible. Granted one defense is to refute the plausibility of the view. But you can’t set this guy at war with himself; if he truly finds it plausible that scriptures were embellished, then shouldn’t it be pointed out that, if it were true that sciptures were embellished, that would in no way threaten the precise and everlasting truth that the event occurred, and has the meaning we believe it has?