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

[buffalo]

adnauseum:

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 always its literal meaning, 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?

If one means the original writers falsely embellished the truth, then it really cannot be truth.

If it means that over time commentators embellish then that is different.

I understood the OP question as to the original authors.

 

[mspencer]

This is to refer again to the statement of Vatican II that the Church unhesitatingly asserts that the Four Gospels are historical. Of course this statement that the Gospels are historical was made by Twentieth Century bishops to Twentieth Century Catholics during Vatican II. I am puzzled then why you seem convinced that when the bishops said the Gospels are historical that they mean it was historical in the sense of ancient times, rather than historical in the sense they and we give to this word now?

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

 

[edrubbra2]

“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?”

Ad Nauseam, this is the sentiment that I feel that the Marist brother gave in the seminar I attended where this matter of embellishment was brought up. I don’t know whether the embellishments were made by copyists as the text of Luke came into being (textual variations) or whether they are a literary style, but I think one thing stands out clearly: that these textual variations do not in any way alter the basic meaning of the texts. Are there any forum members here who have knowlegde of how the St Luke’s Gospel came to be written, e.g. different manuscripts or copies that have been found to be in existence? It would be wonderful to take a trip back in time to find this out and find out how the “embellishments” and other textual variations came about! Are there textual variations and “embellishments” in the various early copies of the NT that we have access to???

 

[davethecatholic]

I think we need to be very careful here. I know we all want to be accomodating to others in the forum. But, I am sensing a bit of doubt in some of the responses to the original question posed by edrubba. What I mean to say is be careful not to doubt the power of The Holy Spirit (God, remember) in terms of the inspiration of the authors of the Bible in communicating truth or The Spirit’s constant presence today in The Church. This presence guides us, as Catholics, and ensures that we do, indeed, possess the spiritual Truth which is always “embedded” in Our Faith.

Given the above, passages like the one below make me nervous.

1864 “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” 136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. 137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

This passage from the Catechism may be seen as quite harsh…there is no doubt about that. This is the reason I would advocate caution, here. I certainly am not qualified to comment on whether believing in “embellishments” would be a violation of this Church teaching. Among other reasons (more important ones), because it is unclear as to how someone interprets that word “embellishments”. We each probably have a slightly different vision of what that word means.

However, it seems to me that our “belief” is an outgrowth of Our Faith. Our Faith is guided, constantly, until the end of time, by The Holy Spirit. Given this, I would urge caution on this topic.

The Catholic teaching on biblical inspiration seems quite clear. I don’t feel we should encourage anyone to diverge from that position.

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”; 33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”. 34

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.” 42

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.” 43

Continued on next thread…

 

[davethecatholic]

Continued from previous thread…

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” 69
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” 70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” 71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” 72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.” 73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.” 74

I just don’t want someone to come away from this thread thinking it’s acceptable to doubt the power of The Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the authors of Sacred Scripture or any part of Our Faith. I think I understand the “hairs being split” over the word “embellishment”, however, at the same time, I don’t want others (especially edrubba) to get the wrong idea about what The Church teaches.

To edrubba I would say (hope I’m not being too “preachy”) re-focus those curious impulses surrounding “embellishment” back into The Catechism. If you are having trouble with a passage or, in this case, something mentioned regarding Sacred Scripture, use the Index of Citations. You will find the corresponding section in The Catechism which also opens up related passages and related reading from Sacred Scripture or The Fathers. By examining The Faith, as laid out in the Catechism and guided by The Holy Spirit along with the related Sacred Scripture and writings from The Fathers, I can’t help but believe that the word “embellishment” will cease to have the intrigue for you that it seems to right now.

 

[buffalo]

“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?”

A Are there any forum members here who have knowlegde of how the St Luke’s Gospel came to be written, e.g. different manuscripts or copies that have been found to be in existence? It would be wonderful to take a trip back in time to find this out and find out how the “embellishments” and other textual variations came about! Are there textual variations and “embellishments” in the various early copies of the NT that we have access to???

It’s all here - take the time to read it.

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS -
[According to the Clementine Tradition]

            [**By**](http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

            [**Dennis Barton**](http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

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

Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternatively quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).

…
In the first chapter of his third book in the series known as Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus records that the apostles of Christ preached the Gospel verbally. He then continues:

           `Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and             Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple             and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the             follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple             of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of             Asia`. ((RO 128-9: IAH 3. 1,1; and EH 5: 8, 2)).

           This quotation above comes from the Latin translation of his work. But we also possess the same             passage in the original Greek as quoted by Eusebius. This confirms the Latin translation is accurate.

 

[mspencer]

I don’t consider the questions as to whether there were shepherds and angels at the birth of Jesus not important. Here as always the Gospels were showing a number of things. When God called the shepherds there rather than others, rather than the rich and powerful, it shows God raising up the poor, a manifestation of Mary’s prayer that God was raisng up the poor through her son. Too when God called the magi as well as the shepherds it showed how the Messiah had come for all nations and that now salvation would be for the Jews too but also for other nations. I expect that very many things besides these could be said, teaching that would suddenly lack point of the reader believed that these events didn’t occur at all.

 

[buffalo]

mspencer:

I don’t consider the questions as to whether there were shepherds and angels at the birth of Jesus not important. Here as always the Gospels were showing a number of things. When God called the shepherds there rather than others, rather than the rich and powerful, it shows God raising up the poor, a manifestation of Mary’s prayer that God was raisng up the poor through her son. Too when God called the magi as well as the shepherds it showed how the Messiah had come for all nations and that now salvation would be for the Jews too but also for other nations. I expect that very many things besides these could be said, teaching that would suddenly lack point of the reader believed that these events didn’t occur at all.

Many people including most of the Apostles died for what they observed. If this stuff was just a way of getting a fluffy point across, would you die for it? If you were a witness to Christ and hearing Him tell His life story together with the teachings and miracles you witnessed, you just might.

 

[OriginalJS]

“What,” said Pilate, “is truth?” Those who stated above that a little learning is a dangerous thing were right. The Bible is extremely difficult for us laypersons to comprehend for many reasons.

First, most of us don’t have the Greek and Hebrew language skills much less a thorough knowledge of 1st century Mediterranean culture to allow informed reading. The translations do not reflect the differences, for example, in Mark’s Greek and Luke’s Greek although scholars will tell you there is a wide variation.

Second, it is easy to fall into literalist interpretations that will raise doubts. If you read the gospels literally with 21st century understanding, for example, you read in one that after Jesus was born, Joseph took Jesus and Mary to Egypt until Herod died, while in another you will read that the three kings, the wise men, came within two years after Jesus was born following a star, consulted with Herod who was very much alive, and then found Jesus living with his parents in Bethlehem. As another example, there are two genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels that are different. Read literally this can’t be true. As a matter of pure logic one may be true, one may be false and both may be false but they both can’t be true.

In the Old Testament there are things that just seem daft read literally in light of today’s understandings and views. People are commanded not to have contact with a menstruating woman (Lev. 15:19-24), eating shellfish or anything that lives in the water that does not have scales is an abomination (this would include shrimp, scallops, and catfish.) (Lev. 11:9-12) God condones human sacrifice (Lev. 27:28).

It is for these reasons that the scriptures must be approached very carefully and with great circumspection.