Hearsay in the Bible

[sanchoquijote]

That society require male eye witnesses accounts during those times for something to be regarded to be credible. Sometimes, 2 male witnesses are required for coercive purposes. Paul’s letters are the earliest NT writings. He appeals to eyewitnesses for the validity of his accounts. For example in 1 Cor 15:6 he specifically mentioned that Christ resurrection appearance to the 500 brethren most of whom were alive then. Meaning, one can confirm what he said is true by checking with those still alive.

Looking at the approximate dates the Gospels were written, the apostle John was still alive. If any of those accounts were wrong, he would have spoken out. In fact his Gospel was meant to bolster the other Gospels. Filling in gaps and adding details.

Oral testimony is interesting. If the Apostles were preaching stuff that contradicts each other or just plain wrong, the hearers would have spotted those discrepancies. Remember that this infant Church has many enemies that wanted to see it fail. All the infant Church needed to do is messed up her own message. The Pharisees/Sadducees could easily find data that does not support what was claimed. Whether it is the birth of Jesus, his genealogy, what he preached, the miracles he performed etc if any of these were not true, the Jews would have pounced upon it immediately and destroy the case. It is is not true, it wouldn’t have survived then. The Jews just need one example of a miracle claimed that was false, a hoax, a scam, Christianity would be gone in a second. In fact the best proof is to deny that Jesus ever resurrected. But the evidence is to the contrary. Too many people have seen him.

And his apostles started to do miracles (see Acts). With an obvious display of such power, it is hard to deny that they have got something. If the temple priests can’t do those things these simple fishermen folks are doing, it speaks volume. And these apostles are speaking in the synagogues. Making a case for Jesus. If these fishermen could out argue religious teachers,those with proper training, it must mean their message is valid and better than those religious teachers. And they were able to convert hundreds, thousands. You know how difficult even for a legally trained person to convince a handful of ordinary folks your side of the story.

Well said, but a couple of points in response. First, at that time in place in history, communication and communication were obviously more of a challenge. How easy would it have been for communities hundreds or thousands of miles away to do due diligence on stories that they were hearing from the original eyewitnesses. Not very.

Second, I’ve always wondered about the “500 witnesses.” If that had happened, don’t you think there’d be other written accounts of his resurrection by more impartial witnesses than the Apostles? That would have amazed anyone. In fact, if that actually did happen, I’d say Christianity should have spread like wildfire overnight. It grew quickly, but not quite like that.

 

[sanchoquijote]

We don’t have to believe that. If you think we do then you are sadly ignorant about the Catholic faith in general and how we look at Scripture.

CCC 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.”

The senses of Scripture

CCC 115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

CCC 116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

CCC 117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

CCC 118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

CCC 119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.

I didn’t say that we have to believe that. I’m saying that that seems to be his position.

And yes, I think there are a number of people on these boards who would argue that one has to believe in a lot of Old Testament nonsense in order to be a “good” Catholic.

 

[ericc]

Well said, but a couple of points in response. First, at that time in place in history, communication and communication were obviously more of a challenge. How easy would it have been for communities hundreds or thousands of miles away to do due diligence on stories that they were hearing from the original eyewitnesses. Not very.

Second, I’ve always wondered about the “500 witnesses.” If that had happened, don’t you think there’d be other written accounts of his resurrection by more impartial witnesses than the Apostles? That would have amazed anyone. In fact, if that actually did happen, I’d say Christianity should have spread like wildfire overnight. It grew quickly, but not quite like that.

You just answered your own point. It would be be difficult to spread like wild fire given the distances and difficulty of convincing communities far apart via oral communication. There is no evidence to suggest the existing methods were not effective or non-credible for those communities.

But we ought to be wary of misapplying anachronistic burden of proof. I can’t expect 21st century technology in 1st century AD. And by the same logic 31st century burden of proof may be so vastly different to 21st century. So what is acceptable to you as proof now may not be acceptable in the 31st century. Since that will only kick the can down the road further, therefore we shouldn’t appeal to this kind of logic.