L
Liberian
Guest
I’ve replied elsewhere in this thread.
- Liberian
- Status
P
patg
Guest
I can’t answer that with a yes or no.
If you think that the church requires you to believe that everything in the gospels is literal history, then you must say “yes, it really happened”. But this answer is authority based, not evidence based. I’m not saying that is “wrong” in any sense but it is based on what I see is a false requirement (thinking everything is literal history).
I read the story and can only say that there is certainly a possibility that it happened but I don’t see how the real answer can be yes or no.
Its not like the story of Barabbas which I believe is definitely fiction. In the Barabbas case, we have a very definite reference to a “common practice” - a practice which makes no logical sense and for which there is not a shred of evidence. There is no such reference in the case of Joseph of A.
Another thing I thought of is that it is similar to the infancy narratives. The gospel writers wanted to stress the importance of Jesus so they used a literary form commonly used at that time to describe his wonderous beginnings. People would not assume it was history any more than they would assume the Caesars were actually born from gods. In a similar manner, they couldn’t stand to have his dead body dumped in the ground by the Romans so they have Joseph appear to put him in an expensive unused tomb in a garden setting. That provides a much more fitting end for the body of a “king”. But, once again, there is no absolute answer.
L
Liberian
Guest
I understand your position, I think. Correct me if I’m wrong, but regarding specifically Joseph of Arimathea and the donation of his tomb you have said that there are several theological reasons for the story to be included in the Gospels and that those theological reasons are sufficient for its inclusion. Hence it being historically true is not necessary; hence you conclude (because there are some minor difficulties with Joseph of Arimathea) that the story is not historically true.
You say above, then, that a conclusion that the story is historically accurate is based on the Church’s authority in saying that the Gospels are historical, not on evidence. But so far you have not given me any evidence that the story is not historical. You have cited its theological usefulness, but that does not argue against its historical accuracy. In fact, you yourself said that “there is no evidence against the donation.” And the idea that there is no evidence for the donation begins by assuming that the Gospels are not evidence. In short, we have to assume our conclusion.
OK, let’s consider Barabbas. First, the practice makes no sense if you are sitting in a comfortable chair in an ivory tower. If you are in charge of a very restive populace that you are trying to keep quiet at any cost for just long enough for your successor to get there, it starts making more sense.
Your statement that “there is not a shred of evidence” is very telling. Once again, there may not be a shred of evidence outside the Gospels, but that is different from there not being a shred of evidence. Your bias is showing again.
Once again we have the accusation that the Gospel writers used literary forms with a casual disregard for the physical truth. I can appreciate that stars don’t usually go before travellers to guide them to a particular house, but we are dealing with God here. To God, whose finger is on every quark in every proton and neutron in every star, planet, and piece of interstellar dust and gas in the universe–not even considering the wonderful complexities in a single cell of your body–guiding a star in an unusual manner is a small thing. And as for the behavior of angels, the scientific and historical record is even more sparse. Just because something fulfills a theological purpose is most emphatically not an argument against its physical truth.
- Liberian
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Patg,
I’d be interested to know how and where you draw your distinction(s). By what measure do you extract Truth from the Bible? If the Barrabas story is not factual, is the crucifiction? the cross? the ressurection? More importantly, how do you (or are we) to know where story telling ends and Truth begins?
P
patg
Guest
By much study and analysis. As Pope Paul VI said in Dei Verbum:
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.
Its not easy and it does require opening oneself up to the fact that its not all history. The things I have brought up here are not random thoughts I have come up with; they are concepts acquired from years of study of a wide range of scholars. And yes, I reject some of “modern” scholarship also.
B
buffalo
Guest
From “The Gospels Are Historical”
Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels. + The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.
Code:
+ The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.
+ Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis
+ The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.
Code:
The Biblical Commission issued a short letter of guidance for the use of the bishops. As the bishops were about to formulate the wording of `Dei Verbum` [The Word of God], it was deliberately ambiguous and became redundant with the passing of the decrees of the Council. Yet some today quote from it as if it is authoritative, while ignoring `Dei Verbum` itself, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Devine Revelation.
In April 1964 the PBC issued, `An Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels`. This was a more substantial document and the Commission was still a teaching organ of the Church with binding authority. A few excerpts will indicate its tone:
`Let the Catholic exegete …diligently employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which the historical method, taken in its widest sense, offers to him-…the interpreter may examine what reasonable elements are contained in the `Form-Critical method` …But … theological principles have often come to be mixed with this method, …some proponents …begin with a false idea of faith, as if it had nothing to do with historical truth-or rather were incompatible with it.
Others deny the historical value and nature of the documents of revelation almost a priori. Finally, others make light of the authority of the apostles as witnesses to Christ, and of their task and influence in the primitive community, extolling rather the creative power of that community. All such views are not only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but are also devoid of scientific basis and alien to the correct principles of historical method` ((PBCG 925 and 926)).
B
buffalo
Guest
It quotes John Chrysostom:
Paragraph 19:
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 ((PBCG 930)). Later it adds: Those who instruct the Christian people in sacred sermons …are to refrain entirely from proposing vain or insufficiently established novelties. ...those who publish for the faithful …should consider it a sacred duty never to depart in the slightest degree from the common doctrine and tradition of the Church. ((PBCG 934 and 935)).
Code:
The Council was seen as primarily a pastoral council examining ways to converse with the modern world, but two Doctrinal Constitutions were also issued. One of these, `Dei Verbum`, reiterated traditional teaching, as the following paragraphs make clear:
Paragraph 7: `Christ …commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, …This was faithfully done: it was done by the apostles …what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, …it was done by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who …committed the message of salvation to writing` ((AF 753)).
Note: `other men associated with the apostles` [ipsi et apostolici viri] has also been translated as `apostolic men` ((WMA 115)). Footnotes to this paragraph refer readers to the decrees of Trent and the First Vatican Council.
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`.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, ….
Code:
We are then referred to Adversus Haereses 3: 11, 8 by Irenaeus. This opens with:
`Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue…`.
B
buffalo
Guest
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”….
Code:
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)).
This Doctrinal Constitution as revised was agreed overwhelmingly by the bishops and promulgated on the 18th of November 1965. As such it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It may be noted that the unrevised draft was not advocating Markan priority but, if allowed, could have given the impression that the historicity of the Gospels was in doubt.
It should be noticed that the wording was agreed after extensive discussion so as to find words to convey a precise meaning. This background, together with the words being part of a **Dogmatic** **Constitution**, means that these words must be read with great attention to detail.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
Dittos here for Lee Strobel’s book. His sources and references have some real heavy-duty academic credentials, and he covers just about every angle the critics take. Sounds like your sister has heard or read something from some “scholar” or group of scholars (Jesus Seminar) and has believed it. Strobel’s sources meet anyone at any level and can answer whatever it is she has read or heard, quite specifically.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
That is all he is, a presenter. The references and sources contain the real work, and if you have a serious interest in the subject I would recommend tracking all those down.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
Kind of like the Jesus Seminar. Preclude any possibility of divine intervention into human history at the outset, and then on that basis hack and slash until nothing is left.
Like many critics, all they’ve really said is that they don’t believe in the possibility of divine intervention and it is thus a preconceived circle.
It says nothing about historical accuracy. Strobel however, while presenting mostly conclusions from a Christian perspective, gives the sources that have researched the facts. That is where the real debate is. And he does give a few examples of how some of the “inaccuracies” have been demonstrated to be far more accurate than some scholars had once claimed.
Also, it must not be assumed that someone who is not a Christian scholar is not biased.
P
patg
Guest
Les Richardson:
Without starting an detailed analysis of this book in this thread, here’s a summary of my take on it - The Case for Christ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not even made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn’t address objections the critics do make (e.g., the complete inauthenticity of the Testimonium Flavianium, the failure of Jews to produce the body is inconclusive evidence for the empty tomb, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. Those who are primarily interested in the truth, however, will want to hear both sides of the story.
P
patg
Guest
No, I didn’t say it is not historically true - I said there is no way to definitely determine that. I also indicated that I don’t think it really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Not quite - I am saying that the only way one can give a definite “yes” answer to the question is to base the answer on authority.
Bias?? I think the reverse is true - it is incredibly biased to assert that the gospels are literal history and then either deny the results obtained when using the tools of historical research or deny even the use of these tools. Our church claims to be historically based and yet many within it deny the tools and results of historical research.
That statement really bothers me. Why deny the writers the use of their talents at writing? Why casually assume these guys were so limited in their skills that could only relate bare dry events? If a writer wants to use their literary skills to teach a truth and they want to use allegory, fiction, myth, legend, or even history, they are quite free as authors to do this. It is ridiculous to say they are casually disregarding history when they are using the skills all writers use to make their point. When the infancy narratives talk about Herod’s slaughter of the innocents and the flight to Egypt, we can clearly see that the author is painting a portrait of Jesus as the new Moses - a valuable insight and teaching which loses none of its value even if it is pure fiction (which it probably is).
Its funny, then, that when we read of the origins of Alexander the Great or the Caesars or the Pharoahs, we casually pass over with a knowing smile the stories of divine origins, celestial events that accompanied their births, geologic upheavels, omens and portents because we know these were fiction meant to dramatize the importance of these individuals. We know that these “infancy narratives” were common then and mostly unused in our enlightened time. That people then and now recognize them as fiction even though the fiction was teaching something very important. Then we read nearly identical stories written during the same era by similar Greek oriented writers and the literary form screams “Infancy Narrative” (as we are prompted to recognize and consider by our popes). However, the name Jesus is in there so we mysteriously foget everything we know and say that this must be literal history! And if that’s not bad enough, we also ignore the impossible to reconcile date conflicts, the significant “historical” events for which there is no record, and the references to Jewish rituals which did not exist.
B
buffalo
Guest
From the Gospels are Historical
In his opening words, Luke says that many,
had taken in hand, to produce an account in order. He then says he is going to write an account in order. Luke, in the opening words of Acts, describes this order. He explains that his Gospel told of all that Jesus began to do and to teach. We may note how he gathered together the teaching material into a central section (Luke 9: 52-18: 14) and in doing so changed the order of Matthews passages. This could have caused confusion amongst his readers regarding chronology, so he acted to avoid this. When changing the order of a passage from Matthew which contained a note of place and time, he omits this note and uses the phrase, And it came to pass…Justin Martyr addressed a letter to Emperor Antoninus Pius who reigned from 138 –161. After telling of the registration of the Holy Family in the census, he adds that details can be found in the official Roman archives ((JMA 1: 34)).
About 200 AD Tertullian, in his
Adversum Marcionem, writes:
Code:
`There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their enquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ` ((TE Book 4: 19,10)).
So at this time there was still historic proof of the census available. Sentius Saturninus was the pagan priest appointed by Augustus to head the planning of the worldwide census.
L
Liberian
Guest
Mmmph–we’re in danger of losing focus and getting back to generalities. Let’s try to settle Joseph of Arimathea and his donation of his tomb for Christ’s burial. Regarding specifically that person and event, you just said …
patg:
Second, when you got pinned down, you said that there is no way to definitely determine whether the story is true. Before you got pinned down, you said that the Gospels are not historical and that they are “full of historical errors and inconsistencies.” You did not want to debate generalities, having done it (I am sure) many times to no conclusive result, and I took up your challenge to debate the historicity of a specific event. Now you are saying that there is no way to tell from the evidence whether this specific event actually happened. The way you phrased it is …
Regarding the donation of Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, you say that the only way to give a definite “yes” answer is to base it on something besides the evidence. I submit to you that the only way one can give a definite “no” answer to the question is also to base the answer on something besides the evidence. And a definite “no” is what we usually hear from the followers of the historical-critical method until they are pinned down.
Regarding Barabbas, you say that there is “not a shred of evidence” supporting the story (is that a fair summary of what you said?) and call me biased for considering the Gospels historical. I disagree, calling you biased for assuming that the Gospels are not evidence. Objectively speaking, I would say that we’re both right: I’m biased and you’re biased. Now that this is out in the open–as if it were ever hidden–let’s work with our biases, correct for them, and try to arrive at some truth.
But Barabbas was not part of the original deal; with your permission I’d rather tackle the state of Jesus’ tomb (whether or not it was donated by Joseph of Arimathea) a few hours after dawn on Easter Sunday morning.
First, it does matter in the grand scheme of things. If you are going to say that these details are not historical, then in a few years you are going to say that more important stories (such as the multiplication of the loaves and fishes) are not historical, and within a generation you have thrown out the entire Gospels.
Second, when you got pinned down, you said that there is no way to definitely determine whether the story is true. Before you got pinned down, you said that the Gospels are not historical and that they are “full of historical errors and inconsistencies.” You did not want to debate generalities, having done it (I am sure) many times to no conclusive result, and I took up your challenge to debate the historicity of a specific event. Now you are saying that there is no way to tell from the evidence whether this specific event actually happened. The way you phrased it is …
In other words, your answers have changed.
Regarding the donation of Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, you say that the only way to give a definite “yes” answer is to base it on something besides the evidence. I submit to you that the only way one can give a definite “no” answer to the question is also to base the answer on something besides the evidence. And a definite “no” is what we usually hear from the followers of the historical-critical method until they are pinned down.
Regarding Barabbas, you say that there is “not a shred of evidence” supporting the story (is that a fair summary of what you said?) and call me biased for considering the Gospels historical. I disagree, calling you biased for assuming that the Gospels are not evidence. Objectively speaking, I would say that we’re both right: I’m biased and you’re biased. Now that this is out in the open–as if it were ever hidden–let’s work with our biases, correct for them, and try to arrive at some truth.
But Barabbas was not part of the original deal; with your permission I’d rather tackle the state of Jesus’ tomb (whether or not it was donated by Joseph of Arimathea) a few hours after dawn on Easter Sunday morning.
- Liberian
P
patg
Guest
True
I don’t see that as a necessary progression and I especially don’t see how the importance of what an author is teaching is lessened in any way by whether it is literal history or not. That’s a common problem I have with the literal history proponents - why do they think that the world will end and their faith be in vain if they discover that an author used historical fiction to make a point? Have they never learned anything from reading something that was not simple facts?
I don’t think so and I’m sorry if you got that impression - I never said that there was nothing historical in the gospels. I’ll admit that saying “full of historical error…” may imply a lot of non-historicity but in no way did I say there was no history,
I believe there are three general levels:
*]Certain history, such as the cruifixion
*]Uncertain/not able to be determined history, such as Joseph of A.
*]Historical fiction, such as Barabbas and the infancy narratives
My answer is still a definite “no way to know”.
I have to admit it is truly a pleasure to discuss this with someone who is at least willing to discuss it. That is not very common here.
Ok, I don’t see a way to make a firm decision on that - tell my what it is that:
A. Makes it important or makes its historicity matter
and
B. Why you think/believe it is historical
L
Liberian
Guest
While it may not be a necessary progression, I have seen exactly that “slippery slope” progression at work. I point to the Jesus Seminar as a fine example. But again we are getting into generalities. You may agree or you may disagree with my assessment, but to me at least the question is important.
St. Augustine, I believe, once said that if you are going to use an example to illustrate a point you should stick to real examples. Unreal examples weaken your case considerably. You can build all sorts of spiritual, moral, and theological truths upon a foundation of literal fact, but if you knock the literal fact out from under the rest of it, you are left with speculations and not a whole lot more.
Jesus used parables, of course, and those are obviously not simple fact but do still tell a truth. But the “not simple fact” means only that Jesus didn’t have a specific farmer on a specific date in mind when He told the parable of the sower, for example. Enough farmers have sown enough seeds into enough different types of soil that Jesus’ listeners knew of an immediate example in their own lives that they could relate to. The story of Joseph of Arimathea is a completely different kettle of fish.
My answer is still a definite “no way to know”.
OK, I think that pretty much settles the discussion of Joseph of Arimathea: you say that you have no way to know and I will continue with my bias in favor of taking the Gospels literally.
Thank you.
OK, one of the best summaries of why the state of Jesus’ tomb is important is I Cor 15:14: if Christ is not raised, then our faith is in vain. One of the lines in the Creed is “I believe in the resurrection of the body.” That is rather concrete. The state of Jesus’ tomb on Easter Sunday morning is important because as far as I know the Church teaches that it was empty. (Note: If you have a reference to where the Church teaches otherwise, please do correct me.)
I think it is historical simply because the Church teaches that Jesus rose from the dead, and I have never heard any official Church teaching saying that this resurrection did not involve the dead body reanimating. The Gospels also make it fairly clear that the dead body wasn’t in the tomb any more, and I have a bias in favor of believing what the Gospels say.- Liberian
P
patg
Guest
Another thought on this I came up with while thinking about the “empty tomb” discussion is that there were apparantly a lot of rumors at the time concerning what happened to the body - was it stolen, moved, not buried at all, did anyone know where the burial site was, etc.
Many of these are referred to in the gospels. For example, doubts arose even in the circle of the closest intimates (Matt. 28:17), and the rumors of alternative explanations circulated in Jerusalem. One of these, apparently widespread among uninvolved Jews, is formally reported in Matthew; namely, that the body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples (Matt. 28:13,15).
Thus, the Joseph story is important as part of the attempt to answer these rumors - if the body was taken by a well known person and put in a prominent tomb, then of course we knew where it was all the time and it was definitely buried, etc. I still believe that this is more of an “answer the critics” literary device and doubt that this is historical but it does serve a valuable purpose.
B
buffalo
Guest
This is for you patg -
Catholic Biblical Studies: The Golden Legend
…
…Dr. E. Michael Jones, in a number of recent writings and lectures, has exposed the way in which the forces aligned against Christian moral principles made devastating inroads into American Catholicism - and thus into the broader culture - especially from the mid-1960s onwards. In reading and listening to Jones, I have been struck by a remarkable chronological parallel which has come to light in my research into the recent history of Catholic biblical studies. For it was in the same crucial years - from about 1962 to 1967 -that what might be called a rationalist revolution scored several stunning victories that gave it effective control of all the main Catholic institutions promoting Scripture scholarship, beginning with the very top: the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Catholic convictions consist basically of ‘faith and morals’; and it looks as thought the Enlightenment’s cultural strategy of the mid-60s took the form of a two-pronged attack on both of these poles. Jones has been documenting the assault on morals, but the simultaneous assault on faith in those years, largely by means of undermining the credibility of faith’s sources in Sacred Scripture, is a story which remains to be told. During and after that assault, the technique of rewriting history, especially via the manipulation and selective quotation of Catholic magisterial documents, has played a major role in gaining and maintaining de facto acceptance for this revolution on the part of the Church’s shepherds.
more…
Catholic Biblical Studies: The Golden Legend
…
…Dr. E. Michael Jones, in a number of recent writings and lectures, has exposed the way in which the forces aligned against Christian moral principles made devastating inroads into American Catholicism - and thus into the broader culture - especially from the mid-1960s onwards. In reading and listening to Jones, I have been struck by a remarkable chronological parallel which has come to light in my research into the recent history of Catholic biblical studies. For it was in the same crucial years - from about 1962 to 1967 -that what might be called a rationalist revolution scored several stunning victories that gave it effective control of all the main Catholic institutions promoting Scripture scholarship, beginning with the very top: the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Catholic convictions consist basically of ‘faith and morals’; and it looks as thought the Enlightenment’s cultural strategy of the mid-60s took the form of a two-pronged attack on both of these poles. Jones has been documenting the assault on morals, but the simultaneous assault on faith in those years, largely by means of undermining the credibility of faith’s sources in Sacred Scripture, is a story which remains to be told. During and after that assault, the technique of rewriting history, especially via the manipulation and selective quotation of Catholic magisterial documents, has played a major role in gaining and maintaining de facto acceptance for this revolution on the part of the Church’s shepherds.
more…
P
patg
Guest
I don’t see a problem. Our church strongly claims to be the one, true, historically based institution of religion. It is therefore only reasonable that the myriad of claims and teachings based on that history be at least somewhat supportable within its historical context - and that’s what we are discussing here.
I understand the stress being created when someone questions basic assumptions about the historicity of the bible and I am not here to “convert” anyone. I am here to participate in discussions and, in so doing, learn why people believe the way they do.
Condemning all historical methods as modern enlightenment heresy is not a good thing when one is defending an historically based institution.
- Status