Gospel-Mark or Luke

[vtmike08]

I am confused, which Gospel is more “accurate” Mark, Luke, Matthew or John? Are they true authors?

Thank you

 

[buffalo]

They are all true, historical and accurate.

 

[JMJ_coder]

They are all accurate. Saint Matthew and Saint John were Apostles of Christ. Saint Luke was a disciple of Saint Paul (so his Gospel is from the Pauline perspective). And Saint Mark was a disciple of Saint Peter (so his Gospel is from the Petrine perspective). All of them are accurate, but each one is directed toward a specific audience, written from a certain perspective, and emphasizes different things.

You may want to read Saint Augustine’s On the Harmony of the Gospels.

 

[COPLAND_3]

They are all just as accurate as the other. Now Luke was maybe more meticulous than the others as far as being a man stuck on details. He was a doctor and historian, and he is acknowledged even by non-Christians and skeptics as being dead on with his details concerning locations and even dialects spoken in those areas. Luke’s Gospel and Acts have played a big part in the conversions of skeptics because of his fine details and reliability.

 

[patg]

I am confused, which Gospel is more “accurate” Mark, Luke, Matthew or John? Are they true authors?

Accurate? How do you define “accurate”?

1. 
   *]They all accurately and inerrantly present the truths about salvation the authors intended to present - a statement which is naturally a matter of faith. They present these truths very differently depending on their intended audience and specific circumstances.
   *]None are historical or biographical accounts, as we know history and biography.
   *]We don’t really know who the authors were.
   *]We don’t have any of the original texts.
   *]Our copies are only as “accurate” as any translation can be.
   *]They are not eyewitness accounts and do not describe the literal words and deeds of Jesus.
   For some official insight on this subject, you should read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *by Paul VI and the Pontifical Biblical Commission (available online).

 

[buffalo]

Accurate? How do you define “accurate”?

1. 
   *]They all accurately and inerrantly present the truths about salvation the authors intended to present - a statement which is naturally a matter of faith. They present these truths very differently depending on their intended audience and specific circumstances.
   *]None are historical or biographical accounts, as we know history and biography.
   *]We don’t really know who the authors were.
   *]We don’t have any of the original texts.
   *]Our copies are only as “accurate” as any translation can be.
   *]They are not eyewitness accounts and do not describe the literal words and deeds of Jesus.
   For some official insight on this subject, you should read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *by Paul VI and the Pontifical Biblical Commission (available online).

1. 
   And we should remember that the Gospels are Historical.
   
   THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
   By
   Dennis Barton
   **
   The Gospels are Historical**

 

[patg]

And we should remember that the Gospels are Historical.

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

By

Dennis Barton

[

The Gospels are Historical](THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS by Dennis Barton)

Well, who you gonna believe (or base your scripture analysis on)? An official Church document by the Church’s own most recognized scripture scholars and authorized by a Pope or a random internet document of no authority whatsoever from a website that presents no credentials or even references to what organization fronts it?

I agree the gospels have a historical core, but insisting that they are “history” (as we know it) implies a fundamental misconception of what a “gospel” is and why they were written.

 

[buffalo]

Well, who you gonna believe (or base your scripture analysis on)? An official Church document by the Church’s own most recognized scripture scholars and authorized by a Pope or a random internet document of no authority whatsoever from a website that presents no credentials or even references to what organization fronts it?

I will believe the article and this:

Are the Gospels Historical?

Jesus of Nazareth - Pope Benedict VI

Dei Verbum - “The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold, that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached, in fulfilment of the commission of Christ, afterwards****they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed onto us in writing: … the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”.
“… 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…”

 

[buffalo]

and I forgot:
The Replies of the Biblical Commission

 

[tobinatorstark]

equally accurate

 

[patg]

I will believe the article and this:

Are the Gospels Historical?

Jesus of Nazareth - Pope Benedict VI

Dei Verbum -“The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold, that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached, in fulfilment of the commission of Christ, afterwards****they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed onto us in writing: … the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”.“… 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…”

I will believe Pope Paul VI and the Church’s direct instruction on the historical truth of the gospels.

You put an awful lot of undeserved importance on a very general and nebulous comment like “historical character”. I will believe Pope Paul VI and the PBC’s document which speaks in definitve terms as to what the historical character really is. No matter how big and bold a font you use, you are still quoting very generalized terms:

Apostolic origins? That doesn’t exactly name the authors.

*…afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed onto us in writing *This says they wrote down what they preached - it says nothing about literal eyewitness accounts.

*the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, *Ah, “historical character”! Yes they have “historical character” - many works of historical fiction do and that says nothing about them being history books.

You really need to read what Pope Paul VI and the PBC have said - it puts some real meat on the bones of *Dei Verbum *and that other strange unsubstantiated document you keep referencing.

But then again, the Church doesn’t mind which way you go.

 

[buffalo]

I will believe Pope Paul VI and the Church’s direct instruction on the historical truth of the gospels.

You put an awful lot of undeserved importance on a very general and nebulous comment like “historical character”. I will believe Pope Paul VI and the PBC’s document which speaks in definitve terms as to what the historical character really is. No matter how big and bold a font you use, you are still quoting very generalized terms:

Apostolic origins? That doesn’t exactly name the authors.

*…afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed onto us in writing *This says they wrote down what they preached - it says nothing about literal eyewitness accounts.

*the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, *Ah, “historical character”! Yes they have “historical character” - many works of historical fiction do and that says nothing about them being history books.

You really need to read what Pope Paul VI and the PBC have said - it puts some real meat on the bones of *Dei Verbum *and that other strange unsubstantiated document you keep referencing.

But then again, the Church doesn’t mind which way you go.

I too will eagerly await more of Benedict’s writings.

 

[Genesis315]

It bears noting Pope Paul VI promulgated Dei Verbum after the the PBC instruction cited above and Dei Verbum soming from the supreme authority of course would control if there were conflict. However, the PBC instruction does not call into question the historical accuracy of the Gospels or their traditional authorship nor does it imply equivalence with “historical fiction.” On the contrary, it affirms the rules set down by Pius XII regarding such matters. That fact taken with the subsequent judgment of the dogmatic constitution from the ecumenical Council (citing the constant tradition of the Church including the forceful defense of authorship and accuracy by St. Ireneaus), and our conclusion should be clear.

As an aside, the PBC had its magisterial authority removed in 1966–so the instruction in question from 1964 does have such authority (Dei Verbum was promulgated in 1965).

 

[patg]

As an aside, the PBC had its magisterial authority removed in 1966–so the instruction in question from 1964 does have such authority (Dei Verbum was promulgated in 1965).

It does, however, have the direct approval of Paul VI and was issued under his authority.

 

[patg]

It bears noting Pope Paul VI promulgated Dei Verbum after the the PBC instruction cited above and Dei Verbum soming from the supreme authority of course would control if there were conflict.

I don’t see a conflict. Dei Verbum clearly states that scriptural truth is presented in many different forms, only one of which is history. For example, the “infancy narrative” is a recognized classical literary form and both documents support treating those passages as fiction with some “historical core”. After all, “For in composing them the sacred writers employed the way of thinking and writing which was in vogue among their contemporaries.”

However, the PBC instruction does not call into question the historical accuracy of the Gospels or their traditional authorship nor does it imply equivalence with “historical fiction.”

I think that is a bit extreme. There is no Dogma of Authorship; you only need to accept the vague term “apostolic origins.”

I believe there is a *lot *of “historical questioning” when I read such things as: “From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches.”

and "…the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. "

and especially: "*Let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, *and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense."

While one might have faith that the gospels contain absolute accuracy in “truth”, the PBC document clearly expresses a lack of consistent “historical accuracy”.