Historical reliability of the 4 gospels

[buffalo]

patg:

Wow, that’s a new one! Where did you get this?

We don’t even have a complete copy of any gospel dated less than a hundred years after Jesus’ death so the chance for historicity and reliability is pretty small.

Matthew is mostly a copy of of Mark (except fot the “Q” pieces). And John is so radically different from the others that its difficult to believe that he is even writing about the same person as the synoptics.

I suggest you read up on the Clementine Tradition.

Try this - ** The Gospels are Historical **

It rebuts the Markan theory quite ably. It shows the evidence and outside references that Matthew is first as the Church has claimed right along (and in Hebrew).

Matthew, Luke, Mark and John

John is a clarifying Gospel that adds details to the other Gospels as the article shows:

Cerinthus spread his errors throughout Syria and Asia Minor, and the Gospel of St. John was written especially to combat his wicked heresies. ((BC 155)).

		 In the major 1955 printing of the Bible by the CTS, we read at the head of John’s Gospel:

		 “Many things that they [the other evangelists] had omitted were supplemented by him, …  			When he was earnestly requested by the brethren to write the Gospel, he answered he would do it, if, by ordering 			a common fast, they would all put up their prayer together to the Almighty God.” .

 

[whowantsumadebo]

patg:

Matthew is mostly a copy of of Mark (except fot the “Q” pieces). And John is so radically different from the others that its difficult to believe that he is even writing about the same person as the synoptics.

This guy discusses Q while sticking to Marcan Priority:
ntgateway.com/Q/

According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, (paraphrasing) an alternate dating for John may be proposed, due to: certain accurate historical details, depiction of the powerful Temple Hierarchy, and notion of Jesus replacing the Temple. That is, at least in its earlier form.

The seemingly complex Christology of John cannot be used to determine the date of its composition. Jewish wisdom literature had been around for hundreds of years, as was the belief in Wisdom as a divine reflection of God.
The Irony is that though in John, whence Jesus may seem to be “more God” than in the synoptics, he is portrayed as being more human–weeping at Lazarus’ death, being thirsty on the Cross, etc.
Finally, the letters of Paul seem to have quite a Johanine slant to them at times, wouldn’t you say?

Ps. You know what? This is tons o’ fun!

 

[Mad_Amos]

Alas, yet another thorn in the side of Sola Scriptura…

Remember and understand very clearly, first and foremost, that the Gospels are not the basis for the Church. Christ is the basis for the Church. She was fully “alive and kicking” in her ministry long before the first Gospel ever saw paper. The New Testament Scriptures are simply a chronicle of her early childhood, a way of distilling her message and crystallizing her memory for future generations. As such they were, by definition, written after the events they describe.

The fact the Gospels were not authored at the very moment that each of Christ’s words was spoken ultimately means and proves very little. That they were written at all should suggest that there was, in fact, something to write about in the first place. If the Bible had never been, the Church would still be

In short, the Gospels were meant to be a summary of Christ’s life, not His birth certificate.

To cite the “possible” historical inaccuracy of the Gospels as proof of Christ’s non-existence, however, is disingenuous. Using such thinking we can easily call into question the veracity of every biographical record ever written.

Now one can easily appeal to external authority to assert that Jesus truly existed as a historical personage. The eminent Jewish historian makes reference to Him in his famous Antiquities of the Jews, and in The Annals the Roman senator Cornelius Tacitus alludes to His execution under Pontius Pilate. I also highly recommend all of the references that have been cited in this thread thus far. But your most powerful ally in this struggle, greater even than the above, is one to which we all have ready access: common sense.

Consider the following: There’s an old joke that says “if your parents didn’t have children, then neither would you”. Amusing, but the point to be taken is that the Church, as it exists, must be the progeny of someone. This begs the question: if not Christ, then who? And, more importantly, why?

To take this a step further, let us examine the Church herself. Every other religion in existence today was born of superstition or ulterior motive and grown through familial transmission. Not so with the Church. An organization as ancient, global and powerful in its scope as the Catholic Church is not rooted in error or half-truth, nor could it be, especially when you consider that its founders lived completely without promise of temporal reward and ultimately went to their deaths - sometimes quite gruesomely - without repudiating the beliefs they so ardently espoused.

The Church was born in strife, labored and tested through strife, and has flourished in spite of strife. She has seen entire civilizations rise and fall. Countless numbers of kings, emperors and armies have been out-pointed before her.

An institution as gloriously magnificent as the One Holy Catholic Church does not erupt fully formed like some child of Zeus. No. The Church’s Foundation is VERY real indeed, the man Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son of the Living and True God.

 

[Liberian]

patg:

I was about to start a list or refer to any of the dozens of books which discuss this but then I thought of a better question (or maybe I’m just too lazy to start this endless process again) - are historical errors really errors when they occur in something which is never meant to be history in the first place? If we could ever settle that, we wouldn’t have to discuss the errors.

As Socrates said, first define your terms. An “error in the Gospel,” for my purposes, is a statement that something happened when in fact it did not happen. If that is not acceptable for you then please suggest an alternative.

I’ve read some of the books to which you are probably referring. The gist of them is that (a) the Gospel says ; (b) the only interpretation that the author of the book can think of is ; (c) this interpretation is wrong; therefore (d) the Gospel is wrong. It doesn’t cut much ice with me.

I do have to ask, though, how you can tell that the authors of the Gospels did not mean for their works to be history. They wrote a couple of thousand years ago, in another language, in a culture that is completely alien to us. C.S. Lewis had a very good commentary on people figuring out what an author has in mind when he writes something. It had happened to him a few times–literary critics writing about his motivations in their reviews of his work–and the assessments were invariably wrong. If people in the same culture at the same time can’t figure out the author’s motivation for writing a particular thing, what chance does someone have who is as far removed from the Gospel writers as we are?

There are any number of stories included throughout the gospels to teach theological truths which aren’t and don’t need to be history. Even near the end of Jesus’ life, there are things like the story of Barrabas at the trial - the release of a prisoner at Passover was never a Jewish or Roman custom. So, even though it is a symbolic story about the Jews, the average reader assumes it is history becasue it “sounds like history”.

How do we KNOW that the release of a prisoner at Passover was never a Jewish or Roman custom? Or that it was not practiced by this particular governor of this particular province at this particular time? Simply because it hasn’t been found in any other writings is not proof at all that it was never practiced.

Again, it is indeed true that these stories have theological meanings. This does not, however, mean at all that they are not historically true.

• Liberian

 

[Liberian]

patg:

I don’t know what you mean by “reliable”. I cited it because:

1. 
   *]Someone asked for some “catholic” references and you can’t get any more Catholic than this.
   *]It encourages the historical-critical process and describes how truth is conveyed in non-historical writings which appear historical to us.
   
   I don’t know what “reliability” has to do with it - it talks about the past and present of scriptural interpretion and the use of newer tools for future investigations. It leaves open the literal vs. non-literal historical questions so it is not reliable as a “magic bullet” to settle that debate but that openness is what allows continued work and progress in this field of study.

1. 
   Pardon me, by “reliable” I meant “can be trusted to be correct.” You cited Dei Verbum in saying that the historical/critical method of Bible interpretation is valid and you were using the historical/critical method to state that the Gospels are not history. When someone cited Dei Verbum to affirm the historicity of the Gospels, you said that it could be used to support pretty much any position in the field of biblical interpretation. So: either Dei Verbum will support erroneous conclusions, or it will not. If the former, then you shouldn’t be citing it to show that the historical/critical method is valid and that the gospels are therefore not historically accurate; if the latter, then you need to accept its statement that the Gospels are historically accurate. Take your pick.
   

   Ok, we can stick to the gospels - gospels are not history and the church does not require belief that everything in the gospels is literal history. They may contain historical elements but their purpose is not to describe events with what we think of as historical accuracy. Dei Verbum specifically states that we must consider the “literary form” of bible writings and the gospels contain many different literary forms, many of which are not history.

   I just entered a post elsewhere in this thread about the perils of trying to “read the author’s mind” through what he wrote. I don’t think you can prove–or even come close to proving–that the purpose of the Gospels is not to describe events with what we think of as historical accuracy.
   • Liberian

 

[patg]

Liberian:

So: either Dei Verbum

will support erroneous conclusions, or it will not. If the former, then you shouldn’t be citing it to show that the historical/critical method is valid and that the gospels are therefore not historically accurate; if the latter, then you need to accept its statement that the Gospels are historically accurate. Take your pick.

You are assuming Dei Verbum provides black and white definitive answers, which it does not. It does not state that the gospels are historically acurate nor does it state that they are literal history. It supports differences of opinion in interpretation and encourages future study. It deals mostly with the tools and processes of scriptural analysis. Since it condones the concept that not all biblical writings are not history, we are free to come to that conclusion when it is warranted by the evidence we have.

Scriptural analysis is and will probably always be a “work in progress” with new information, new sources, new discoveries, and new ideas always on the horizon.history, it can reliably be used to support that conlusion.

I just entered a post elsewhere in this thread about the perils of trying to “read the author’s mind” through what he wrote. I don’t think you can prove–or even come close to proving–that the purpose of the Gospels is not to describe events with what we think of as historical accuracy.

That reminds me of the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck” story. Scholars have studied the ancient writings for centuries. We know that “infancy narratives” were standard literary forms, we know what the standard elements are, and thus we are pretty darn certain when we see one. Sure, the author may be tricking us into thinking it is something it is not, but when everything lines up exactly, what is the point of denying the obvious?

Dei Verbum states that authors can and do use non-historical stories to teach theological truths. When there is no historical evidence (or contradictory evidence) for something, when the author gives us direct clues as to what they are writing about, and when the story is dripping with clear symbolism, what is the point of insisting that it is ALSO literal history? That insistence is often a barrier to getting at the truth the author is trying so hard to present.

 

[patg]

Liberian:

As Socrates said, first define your terms. An “error in the Gospel,” for my purposes, is a statement that something happened when in fact it did not happen. If that is not acceptable for you then please suggest an alternative.

No, I don’t like that definition because it does not take into account the “literary form” of the writing (as required by Dei Verbum). If a history book has a date wrong, the book is in error as a history book. History books should be free of historical errors, math books of mathematical errors, and gospels free of theological errors. The gospels contain many errors that have nothing to do with relating the teachings of Jesus. Do you deny that an author is free to compose a fictional story to relate a theological truth? Are the details of history irrelevant (or at least unimportant) in such discourse? Is John placing the last supper, arrest, and trial on the day before that of the synoptics an error? Maybe… or maybe the synoptics moved it a day to enhance the “paschal lamb” image of Jesus they were developing. Was the inclusion of the Barabbas story an historical error? Maybe, or maybe it is an excellent use of symbolism to depict the Jews as rejecting God’s choice as messiah.

How do we KNOW that the release of a prisoner at Passover was never a Jewish or Roman custom? Or that it was not practiced by this particular governor of this particular province at this particular time? Simply because it hasn’t been found in any other writings is not proof at all that it was never practiced.

Ah, but when you take the most studied and analyzed writings in human history and no one of thousands of scholars over hundreds of centuries has any evidence that this was a common practice AND there is clear symbolism involved in the aramic name Barabbas which shows that this event was related to once again show the Jews rejecting Jesus - how could one come to any other conclusion? Only superficial ignorance allows one to gloss over these facts.

Again, it is indeed true that these stories have theological meanings. This does not, however, mean at all that they are not historically true.

…and vice-versa…

 

[buffalo]

patg:

You are assuming Dei Verbum provides black and white definitive answers, which it does not. It does not state that the gospels are historically acurate nor does it state that they are literal history. It supports differences of opinion in interpretation and encourages future study. It deals mostly with the tools and processes of scriptural analysis. Since it condones the concept that not all biblical writings are not history, we are free to come to that conclusion when it is warranted by the evidence we have.

Scriptural analysis is and will probably always be a “work in progress” with new information, new sources, new discoveries, and new ideas always on the horizon.history, it can reliably be used to support that conlusion.

That reminds me of the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck” story. Scholars have studied the ancient writings for centuries. We know that “infancy narratives” were standard literary forms, we know what the standard elements are, and thus we are pretty darn certain when we see one. Sure, the author may be tricking us into thinking it is something it is not, but when everything lines up exactly, what is the point of denying the obvious?

Dei Verbum states that authors can and do use non-historical stories to teach theological truths. When there is no historical evidence (or contradictory evidence) for something, when the author gives us direct clues as to what they are writing about, and when the story is dripping with clear symbolism, what is the point of insisting that it is ALSO literal history? That insistence is often a barrier to getting at the truth the author is trying so hard to present.

The Markan theory will not stand the test of time. It is here where the issue arises. Matthew was first and in Hebrew.

Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels

In appropriate cases the interpreter is free to seek out what sound elements there are in “the Method of Form-history,” and these he can duly make use of to gain a fuller understanding of the Gospels. He must be circumspect in doing so, however, because the method in question is often found alloyed with principles of a philosophical or theological nature which are quite inadmissible, and which not infrequently vitiate both the method itself and the conclusions arrived at regarding literary questions. For certain exponents of this method, led astray by rationalistic prejudices, refuse to admit that there exists a supernatural order, or that a personal God intervenes in the world by revelation properly so called, or that miracles and prophecies are possible and have actually occurred. There are others who have as their starting-point a wrong notion of faith, taking it that faith is indifferent to historical truth, and is indeed incompatible with it. Others practically deny a priori the historical value and character of the documents of revelation. Others finally there are who on the one hand underestimate the authority, which the Apostles had as witnesses of Christ, and the office and influence, which they wielded in the primitive community, whilst on the other hand they overestimate the creative capacity of the community itself. All these aberrations are not only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but are also devoid of any scientific foundation, and are foreign to the genuine principles of the historical method.

…

Our Most Holy Lord, Pope Paul VI, in an audience graciously granted to the undersigned Most Reverend Consultor-Secretary on April 21, 1964, approved this Instruction and ordered its publication.

Rome, April 21, 1964
Benjamin N. Wambacq, O. Praem.,
Consultor-Secretary

 

[buffalo]

Dei Verbum

The following is taken from - THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

Paragraph 18: The Church has always and everywhere maintained, and continues to maintain, the apostolic origin of the four Gospels. The apostles preached, as Christ had charged them to do, and then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they and others of the apostolic age handed on to us in writing the same message they had preached, the foundation of our faith: the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Paragraph 19: Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute consistency maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels just named, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, ….

Paragraph 19 continued: The sacred authors, in writing the four gospels have told us the honest truth about Jesus. … Their purpose in writing was that we might know the “truth”….

When Paragraph 19 was being drafted, it was suggested that, believed and continues to believe, should replace maintained and continues to maintain, since this was a truth always accepted in the Church through an act of faith. But a revision was not made because the historicity of the gospels was a truth which could be accessed both by faith and reason, and not just by faith alone ((TMH 7)). Chapter XVII of this booklet touched on this aspect.

An early draft of another section of paragraph 19 read: they always tell us true and sincere things about Jesus. But Pope Paul on the 18th October 1965, informed the theological Commission that it did not guarantee the real historicity of the gospels; and on this point, as is obvious, the Holy Father could not approve a formula which would leave the slightest doubt about the historicity of these most holy books. The Commission proposed the phrase whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, and the Council approved this. ((GC 228ff and TMH 28)).

 

[buffalo]

more…

13 On 27th January 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger gave a lecture entitled: ‘Biblical Interpretation in Crisis’. In his opening paragraphs he said:

           “To speak of the crisis of the historical-critical method today is practically a truism. This,             despite the fact that it had gotten off to so optimistic a start. ... equipped with a methodology which promised             strict objectivity, ... we were finally going to be able to hear again the clear and unmistakable voice of the             original message of Jesus.

           Gradually, however, the picture became more and more confused. The various theories increased             and multiplied and separated one from the other and became a veritable fence which blocked access to the Bible             for all the uninitiated. Those who were initiated were no longer reading the Bible anyway, but were dissecting             it into the various parts from which it had to have been composed.

           ... No one should really be surprised that this procedure leads to the sprouting of ever more             numerous hypotheses until finally they turn into a jungle of contradictions. In the end, one no longer learns what             the text says, but what it should have said, ...” ((JRL 1-4)).

           14. The Apostolic Exhortation, `Redemptoris Custos` of 1989 **accepts the historicity of the narrative             stories in the two Gospels.**

           In section 9 it describes the journey to Bethlehem and Jesus being registered in the census as:             `this historical fact`.

            In section 10: `Joseph … witnessed             the homage of the magi`.

           Section 14 has: `Herod learned from the magi` and he `killed all the male children in Bethlehem             …`

           Section 21 speaks of: `The Holy Family`s life first in the poverty of Bethlehem, then in their             exile in Egypt and later in the house of Nazareth`. ((JPRC)).

 

[buffalo]

**From the Catechism:
**

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

 

[buffalo]

From THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

An example of methods used by Markan priorists, to have their views tolerated within the Catholic Community, emerged with the publication of the 1989 New Jerome Biblical Commentary. The authors were Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and Roland Murphy. They were the three leading Catholic Markan priorists in America. It contained a vast volume of informative and interesting details, but a review by John Young led him to write:

		 ` … a logical person who accepted its conclusions would consider himself bound to reject the 			Catholic Church as a reliable guide to the Bible`. ((TW second paragraph)).

		 The book boasted three `Nihil Obstats`, meaning that three church censors had declared it to 			be free of doctrinal error.  It claimed it was being published in memory of Pope Pius XII, `The great promoter 			of Catholic biblical studies`, and of Pope Paul VI, `Who defended and solidified progress in these studies`.  			One of the two `Forwards` was by Cardinal Bea.

		 **But Young pointed out that the three censors of this book by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and 			Roland Murphy, were Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and Roland Murphy !!!  The writers had judged themselves 			to be free from error.** ((TW fourth paragraph)).

		 The two Popes mentioned were strong upholders of the historicity of the Gospels and, as mentioned 			above, Paul VI had gone to great lengths to ensure the wording of Dei Verbum would leave no ambiguity. The three 			authors had no right to imply that the Popes, if they had still been alive, would have been pleased to read the 			theories and claims made in their Commentary.  These two Popes had urged the use of modern methods of biblical 			study while never endorsing the Markan priority theory.

		 Cardinal Bea had written the Forward to the 1968 `Jerome Biblical Commentary` but, according 			to the rear cover of the new paperback edition, the 1989 version was `almost two-thirds new`. As the book was greatly 			changed, what right had the authors to use the old ‘Forward’ to promote a book propagating their personal theories, 			twenty years after the Cardinal had died?

 

[patg]

As a general reply to the above from someone who has been through this many times, it is very difficult and tedious to discuss this broad topic in this format.

Both sides can quote endless scholars and documents which support their side and the most recent relevant church documents allow for both.

Most arguments on the history side come down to discussing authority and tradtion rather than specifics.

Most arguments on the non-history side come down to a consideration of history, lierary form, and culture.

Thus there is little common ground on which to debate.

I confidently follow modern scholars and what is being taught in today’s adult ed classes in the church. I do not follow people like Lee Strobel who write, in my opinion, in a popularist superficial way.

If anyone wants to continue this, I suggest we pick a couple of specific passages and discuss these in detail rather than try to deal only with church authority or documents.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

Most arguments on the history side come down to discussing authority and tradtion rather than specifics.

.

Show me! - What documents allow the exclusion of the other?

 

[buffalo]

patg:

A

I confidently follow modern scholars and what is being taught in today’s adult ed classes in the church.

They haven’t caught up yet.

 

[Liberian]

patg:

Most arguments on the history side come down to discussing authority and tradtion rather than specifics.

Most arguments on the non-history side come down to a consideration of history, lierary form, and culture.

Thus there is little common ground on which to debate.

I confidently follow modern scholars and what is being taught in today’s adult ed classes in the church. I do not follow people like Lee Strobel who write, in my opinion, in a popularist superficial way.

If anyone wants to continue this, I suggest we pick a couple of specific passages and discuss these in detail rather than try to deal only with church authority or documents.

patg,

Your reply sounds a lot like “I’m using my head and you aren’t.” I’ve seen a bit of what you are calling “modern scholarship” and I don’t think much of it. For example …

westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Easter/easter.html

Another eye-opener is looking at the “modern scholarship” of several decades ago, when the people who wanted to debunk the historical accuracy of the Bible took much the same tone as the current people do. They have been pretty thoroughly discredited now, and so you don’t hear much about them, and I have a fair idea that today’s higher critics won’t fare much better.

In reply to your suggestion, let me pick a specific thing: the state of Jesus’ tomb on Easter Sunday morning. First, was it donated by Joseph of Arimathea, as the Bible says, or was it just a shallow grave somewhere? Second of all, would Jesus’ dead body have been found there, or would it have been absent because He rose from the dead as the Bible says? I realize that this is not a specific passage, but I hope it will fill the bill.

• Liberian

 

[patg]

Liberian:

They have been pretty thoroughly discredited now, and so you don’t hear much about them, and I have a fair idea that today’s higher critics won’t fare much better.

I agree that there are many varieties of “modern scholarship”. I’m not sure what you mean by “higher critics” - I assume you mean those presenting the extreme ideas that are pretty unbelievable and will eventually be forgotten. However, the “modern scholarship” which gives us better insight to the words of the gospels is important and will be remembered - all scriptural scholarship was"modern" at some point. I believe that the following statement from Dei Verbum gives modern scholarship its lasting importance:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

reply to your suggestion, let me pick a specific thing: the state of Jesus’ tomb on Easter Sunday morning. First, was it donated by Joseph of Arimathea, as the Bible says, or was it just a shallow grave somewhere? Second of all, would Jesus’ dead body have been found there, or would it have been absent because He rose from the dead as the Bible says? I realize that this is not a specific passage, but I hope it will fill the bill.

The story of Joseph of Arimathea is interesting in a historical discussion primarily because there is nothing “historical” to tie him to - no dates or historical artifacts or non-gospel references. This guy just appears out of nowhere to seemingly help get one more of the lines from Isaiah into the passion and death narrative. He does appear in all 4 gospels so his story must have been a strong part of the oral tradition.

There are a few questionable things about him:

• He is a prominent Jewish citizen, possibly a member of the Sanhedrin, and yet he is openly helping out the people whose leader was just condemned
• There is no previous mention of such a prominent disciple and no subsequent mention of someone as significant as he appears to be.
• He is a pretty dedicated follower in Jerusalem where Jesus is not known to have spent much, if any, time previously.
• He serves the convenient purpose of getting the body into a prominent tomb so that the disappearance can, in hindsight, be better documented.
• He allows one more reference to Isaiah (a rich man and the tomb) to be included in the death narratives.

Is his story literal history? Or the creative use of midrash and fiction to make a theological point?
I tend towards the latter, but I don’t have really strong feelings about it since it is pretty insignificant in the overall scheme of theology and doctrinal development.

Now the empty tomb stories… I’ll continue later.

 

[Liberian]

patg:

I agree that there are many varieties of “modern scholarship”. I’m not sure what you mean by “higher critics” - I assume you mean those presenting the extreme ideas that are pretty unbelievable and will eventually be forgotten. However, the “modern scholarship” which gives us better insight to the words of the gospels is important and will be remembered - all scriptural scholarship was"modern" at some point.

patg,

I think we are in complete agreement on the above points. If I remember correctly, the 'higher critics" flourished 50-80 years ago and were regarded as the epitome of “modern scholarship” in their time. And indeed, all scholarship is “modern” at some point. The difference comes in determining whether an idea is “extreme” and “unbelievable.” I guess in another 50 years we’ll know whether any of the present-day “modern scholarship” has stood up.

The story of Joseph of Arimathea is interesting in a historical discussion primarily because there is nothing “historical” to tie him to - no dates or historical artifacts or non-gospel references. This guy just appears out of nowhere to seemingly help get one more of the lines from Isaiah into the passion and death narrative.

We have here another illustration of the problems that I have with the “modern scholarship.” First, you say that there is “nothing historical”–specifically mentioning no non-gospel references. You appear to have assumed that the Gospels are not historical and then concluded that since something is not seen outside the Gospels, it is unhistorical. It is kind of like there is a bias against believing what is in the Bible.

Second, you say that Joseph of Arimathea’s seeming purpose in the Gospels is to help get one more prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled, as if this had some bearing on whether or not he is historical. Once again, just because some event makes a theological point does not mean that it did not actually happen. You cite a couple of difficulties with him, but no real evidence that he did not actually donate his tomb for Jesus’ burial. And yet you say that you tend to believe that he didn’t.

By all means continue with the state of the tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Was there a dead body inside it, or was there not? And do you have any solid evidence that there was a dead body in it, or is it just more “this makes a theological point, so it can’t possibly have happened for real”?

• Liberian

 

[patg]

Liberian:

We have here another illustration of the problems that I have with the “modern scholarship.” First, you say that there is “nothing historical”–specifically mentioning no non-gospel references. You appear to have assumed that the Gospels are not historical and then concluded that since something is not seen outside the Gospels, it is unhistorical. It is kind of like there is a bias against believing what is in the Bible.

That’s not really what I was referring too here. One of the basics of any historical research is the concept of “multiple attestation” which simply means that if something is mentioned in sources unrelated to the one you are investigating, it is more likely to have actually occured. And the likelihood increases the more references you find. I’m not assuming anything about the historicity of the gospels - I’m saying that this particular event doesn’t have any support outside the gospels, *and that’s all I’m saying. *

Second, you say that Joseph of Arimathea’s seeming purpose in the Gospels is to help get one more prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled, as if this had some bearing on whether or not he is historical. Once again, just because some event makes a theological point does not mean that it did not actually happen.{/quote]
I agree

You cite a couple of difficulties with him, but no real evidence that he did not actually donate his tomb for Jesus’ burial. And yet you say that you tend to believe that he didn’t.

True, there is no evidence against the donation. My “tend to believe” is just based on the evidence of his high position in the “opposition” and the lack of any other mention of such an important person in the gospels (especially in Jerusalem, where little , if any, time was spent).

By all means continue with the state of the tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Was there a dead body inside it, or was there not? And do you have any solid evidence that there was a dead body in it, or is it just more “this makes a theological point, so it can’t possibly have happened for real”?

I’ll start gathering my thoughts…

 

[Liberian]

While this looks like a reply to KGM, it is actually a reply to patg. I moved it here because the level of replies (physical level, not level of discourse) has gotten to where I need to click twice to see them, and on a 56K modem this is not trivial.

There is also an extremely relevant essay on the subject of Bible interpretation at

christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/biblical-crisis.htm

Anybody who wants to cite authority is welcome, at least in my book, to cite that one.

patg:

That’s not really what I was referring too here. One of the basics of any historical research is the concept of “multiple attestation” which simply means that if something is mentioned in sources unrelated to the one you are investigating, it is more likely to have actually occured. And the likelihood increases the more references you find. I’m not assuming anything about the historicity of the gospels - I’m saying that this particular event doesn’t have any support outside the gospels, *and that’s all I’m saying.

*True, there is no evidence against the donation. My “tend to believe” is just based on the evidence of his high position in the “opposition” and the lack of any other mention of such an important person in the gospels (especially in Jerusalem, where little , if any, time was spent). **
I agree with you completely about the principle of multiple attestation; it’s generally an excellent policy. The Voice of America radio station in its news broadcasts had (and maybe still has) a policy that it does not broadcast any news item until it has heard it from at least two sources.

If I get your meaning correct, you are saying that Joseph of Arimathea’s donation of his tomb for Jesus’ use is not mentioned outside the Gospels, and that is all that you are saying. What I am asking, though, is slightly more: did it, or did it not, actually happen?

The statement that “such an important person would most likely have been mentioned elsewhere” is not necessarily correct. Somebody who would have been important in society before he became a Christian may have retired to a monastery somewhere and never been heard of again after his conversion. (Think Charles Colson, only more so.) And he wasn’t necessarily so important in the opposition; after all, most of the rest of the Sanhedrin go unnamed and unmentioned.

  Quote:

By all means continue with the state of the tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Was there a dead body inside it, or was there not? And do you have any solid evidence that there was a dead body in it, or is it just more “this makes a theological point, so it can’t possibly have happened for real”?

I’ll start gathering my thoughts…

Great, thank you.

• Liberian