Historical reliability of the 4 gospels

[Liberian]

patg:

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.

patg,

I’m confused. Is this about Joseph of Arimathea, about the state of Jesus’ tomb on Easter Sunday morning, or both?

If it’s about Joseph of Arimathea, it appears to be another example of “this story was put in for some reason other than that it was true.” We covered, I think, that this is not evidence against the event actually having happened.

If it’s about the state of Jesus’ tomb on Easter Sunday morning, then I guess we start talking about that. I’ve given my reasons for believing that Jesus’ tomb was empty and why I consider it to be important. I’m also familiar with the statements in the Gospels that some of Jesus’ disciples doubted his resurrection–Thomas the Twin used to be my favorite apostle for exactly that reason. What evidence is there that Jesus’ physical body stayed dead–except for the generalization that dead people do not get up and walk?

• Liberian

 

[patg]

Liberian:

patg,

I’m confused. Is this about Joseph of Arimathea, about the state of Jesus’ tomb on Easter Sunday morning, or both?

Sorry, this was just a follow up on the Joseph story…

 

[patg]

Now for the empty tomb, here are some opening thoughts:

As far as Jesus is concerned, study of the Synoptics shows that the concept of resurrection did not play an important part in his vision of the hereafter; he preferred to speak about it more in terms of eternal life than of reawakened dead bodies. Neither the authors of the Old Testament nor post biblical Jewish writers inferred that either the death or resurrection of Israel’s Messiah was expected in any way. This means that Jesus and his disciples were not preconditioned by tradition or education to look forward to a risen Christ; so the first narrators of the Jesus story had no pattern to follow when they tried to explain what happened to their deceased and buried teacher.

What do we find, then, in the Gospels? It seems clear that the disciples did not entertain any hope of an impending resurrection, judging from their behavior after Jesus’ arrest - they all fled - and their original disbelief on Easter day. Neither did the women who set out for the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus. But this lack of expectation patently conflicts with the claim repeated no less than five times in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus distinctly predicted not only his death, but also his resurrection on precisely the third day (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-31; 11:28). This most significant prophecy of Jesus appears to have fallen on deaf ears or to have sunk straight into oblivion, with not a single apostle or disciple recalling it during the crucial hours between Friday and Sunday, or even later when the resurrection became the central topic of the preaching of the primitive church. Luke alone realized this internal contradiction and tried to overcome it by suggesting that the women were reminded of Jesus’ prediction by the two men they had met in the empty tomb (Luke 24:7-8). If all his close companions had known exactly what was going to happen, despite their instinctive anxiety they would have comforted themselves with the thought that on the third day all would be well. As this manifestly was not the case, one is inclined to conclude that the announcements concerning the resurrection of Jesus are later editorial interpolations. They are often accompanied by clumsy explanations, namely, that Peter was unwilling to believe the words of Jesus and began to rebuke him (Mark 8:32-33; Matt. 16:22-23), and that the apostles were dimwitted and could not comprehend what resurrection from the dead meant (Mark 9:10; 9:32; Matt. 17:23; Luke 18:34).

As we might expect, the earliest of the Gospels gives the least elaborate and polished account of the resurrection (I understand that this is not accepted by everyone). According to Mark, as soon as the sabbath was over, i.e., Saturday after sunset, Mary Magdalen, another Mary, and Salome purchased spices and early on Sunday morning before sunrise hastened to the tomb to complete the burial rites (Mark 16:1-2). Finding the stone rolled back, they entered and to their amazement they found seated there a white-robed youth from whom they learned that Jesus, who had risen and gone, had left for them an instruction to pass on to Peter and the apostles that they should meet him in Galilee (Mark 16:3-7). However, the women were so terrified that they ran away, intending to say nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). In the oldest manuscripts Mark’s Gospel stops abruptly at this point, with three women frightened out of their wits fleeing from the dark empty tomb.

The other Gospels endeavor to improve on this unsatisfactory ending. Even supposing that, when calm, Mary Magdalen and her two companions told the apostles what they had seen, the earliest evidence for the resurrection of Jesus would depend on hearsay, on the words of a single unknown young man reported by three unreliable female witnesses. Luke increased the number of the women, but still let it be known that the apostles discounted their report as silly, an “idle tale” (Luke 24:10-11). Finally Matthew (Matt. 28:2-3,5) reinforced the primary source by substituting an angel as the herald of the resurrection for Mark’s youth, while Luke wrote of two men, splendidly dressed (Luke 24:4). On second thoughts, Luke also identified the two men as angels (24:23).

continued…

 

[patg]

continuation of above…

The account as it related to the female witnesses also underwent various modifications. While Mark’s women fled terrified and unwilling to speak, those of Luke calmly reported the story to the apostles (Luke 24:4, 6-8). Matthew represents a halfway house: his women, both frightened and joyful, ran to the disciples (Matt. 28:8). However, in the patriarchal society of intertestamental Judaism a woman’s testimony could not be trusted. Hence Luke brought in male witnesses (Luke 24:24) and according to the Fourth Gospel Peter and another apostle’ went to check Mary Magdalen’s account (John 20:3-8). No doubt still not satisfied with their record, the evangelists added to the list a series of apparitions of Jesus starting with two disciples traveling to Emmaus. They met a stranger on the road whom they later believed to be the risen Jesus (Luke 24:13-34).

Thereafter the story of the empty tomb was allowed to fade away and faith in the resurrected Jesus was supported by apparitions seen by an increasing number of disciples. Nevertheless even at this more advanced stage of the tradition the account of Matthew still contradicts that of Luke. According to Matthew; Jesus appeared some days later, and only once, to the eleven apostles on a Galilean mountain; most of them believed, but some doubted the reality of the manifestation (Matt. 28:16-17). Luke, on the other hand, having already stated that Simon Peter had seen the Lord, refers to a further visionary experience by all the apostles in Jerusalem. They first thought they were watching a ghost, but were reassured by Jesus that he was not bodiless. Luke knows nothing of a meeting with Jesus in Galilee and makes him ascend to heaven on Easter Sunday (Luke 24:50-51). But according to the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus is allowed to spend another forty days on earth. The tradition transmitted by Paul ignores the empty tomb, and founds Christian faith in the resurrection of Jesus, not just on the word of Peter, James, and all the apostles and on his own vision, but on the massive testimony of five hundred brethren who experienced together, at an unspecified time and in an unnamed location, an apparition of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:5-7).

In short, Gospel tradition was manifestly trying to strengthen the reliability of the evidence from the “idle talk” of panic-stricken women to what comes nearest to firsthand testimony, the attestation by trustworthy men, numbering from one to five hundred, of having seen Jesus alive.

As has been noted, 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). But if no one expected him (or the Messiah) to rise from the dead, why should anyone feign a resurrection?
Three further explanations are implicitly evinced in the Gospels. In John, Mary Magdalen wondered whether the body of Jesus was reburied by someone in another place. Mistaking the resurrected Jesus for the “gardener” in charge of the burial ground, she inquired of him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away” (John 20:15).

The same Gospel of John tries to thwart another explanation, but it periodically resurfaces even nowadays, namely, that Jesus did not really die on the cross and was revived later. To counter such gossip, the evangelist stresses that the Roman military executioners saw that Jesus had died before the other two men who had been crucified with him. However, just to make death absolutely certain, one of the soldiers sank his spear into Jesus’ chest (John 19:33-34).

Finally, another sneaking suspicion had to be quelled. Did the women, by any chance, who were no doubt physically and mentally exhausted after two sleepless nights and who had dragged themselves still in the dark to anoint Jesus, enter the wrong tomb? The emphasis laid by all three Synoptists on the women’s knowledge of the location of the grave was meant to refute the rumor about a possible mistaken identity of Jesus’ burial place.

The implicit evidence of the Acts of the Apostles may be of help. According to that chronicle the apostles attributed the continued efficacy of their charismatic healing and exorcistic activity to the power of the name of Jesus risen from the dead and enthroned in heaven.

I believe that belief in the physical resurrection (the empty tomb) is a matter of faith and is not a verifiable event. The certainty is that Jesus rose in the hearts of his disciples who had loved him and felt he was near.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

KGM:

I am currently writing a letter to my sister who has fallen away from the Catholic Church. She doesn’t believe in the historical reliability of the 4 gospels.

As it stands, this is very vague - explain ? ​

Therefore she does not believe that Jesus came and died for our sins.

That is a theological, not a historical, judgement. Although theology and history are related, the uncertainties in one do not imply or presuppose identical uncertainties in the other.​

For example: accurate historical knowledge of Jesus, does not in itself imply or cause faith in Him

and

Believing that Jesus is Lord, does not presuppose - though it is compatible with presupposing - that he is a Galilean Jew:

because

It is Jesus Himself Who brings about faith in us - not ideas about him, wrong or right. They may help or hinder the growth and maturing of faith, or have no effect on it at all - but they are not it, and they are not Him. ##

Her arguement is that they were written so many years after Jesus died that they can not be entirely reliable.

That is illogical - see below​

How can I explain to her that the 4 gospels are indeed the word of God and are reliable? Thanks for any help. I’m struggling to write this letter. KGM

If this helps:​

1. Early does not = reliable. The four Gospels are God’s word written, not because they are early, but because the Church, having used them, has come to discern in them a testimony of the Spirit of God to Jesus Christ which is uniquely constitutive of the Christian life and faith. This testimony is not something that can be proved to be what it is by historical or scientific evidence or methods - their relation to it is indirect. It can be discerned, but not bottled like a genie or a patent medicine. We can say, “This is the work of the Lord, and it is marvellous in our eyes” - but we cannot measure or calibrate or anatomise or dole out God and His works. God’s deeds are facts - but it does not follow that they are facts of the empirically verifiable sort: which is how the Resurrection & the Ascension can be facts, but not facts to be proved by historical evidence. They are too real to be confined to merely historical reality.

A fourth century-text can perfectly well be more reliable in its message than a second century one - if the later text is a textually-faithful copy of a document which was itself reliable in its message. A mediaeval text of the Aeneid may quite possibly be a more reliable form of Vergil’s poem than a text that is much older. It may be - or, it may not: which is why textual criticism is important. Date, is not a guarantee or a disproof of reliability, either of text or of meaning or message. Which is not to say it is not important in certain respects - but it is not decisive as an indicator of truth in those respects; it is part of the evidence supplied by a text.

1. Integrity of text does not = preservation of message.

If it did, the Koran would be more trustworthy than the NT - because there are fewer textual uncertainties. To require a necessary relation between spiritual realities and material realities, would lead to saying (for example) that the taller a Saint is, the holier he is. Which is silly. Matter and spirit are related - but not in so direct a way. ##

 

[buffalo]

From the Gospels are Historical

1. The Last Verses of Mark
   

          This Gospel breaks off abruptly at 16: 8, before continuing for 12 more verses. This break involves             ending with an enclitic form of Greek grammar, and this is inappropriate for the ending of a paragraph, never mind             a book. Many suggestions have been put forward in explanation of these additional verses. As mentioned in our earlier             Chapter VII, Orchard suggested that they might have been notes for an undelivered further talk.
   
          My suggestion is as follows: The audience listening to Peter would have known the information             in the Gospel by Matthew. But for many the material in the gospel of Luke would have been new. Orchard has pointed             out that Peter stopped at the point his personal eyewitness of the earthly life of Christ ended ((RO 271-8)). Also             Peter had not commented on all the new interesting pieces of information provided by Luke. I suggest that the audience             would have asked questions, and that these last verses record the answers supplied by Peter. To illustrate:
   
          As the `he` of verse 9 does not refer to the young man in verse 5, one would have expected to             read `Jesus`. But if the name of the Lord had been contained in a question, the use of `he` would be correct.
   
          Matthew in 28: 1-10 says that Mary Magdalene was, with another woman, the first to see Jesus,             and Luke confirms this (24: 10). But earlier Luke had mentioned a woman of the same name, `a Mary who is called             Magdalene`, who had been possessed by seven devils (Luke 8: 2). We should not be surprised if someone, remembering             her history, asked if this was the same person. Peter replies that it was (Mark 16: 9). He then confirms that Luke             was also correct when he wrote that it was she who told the Apostles.
   
          Matthew had not reported that Christ had appeared to two men walking, but Luke gives this incident             much space (Luke 24: 13-31). Should the audience accept this story as true? As Peter was not one of the two, he             was unable to confirm all the details, but he does confirm that Christ did appear to two disciples walking in the             countryside (Mark 16: 12).
   
          Luke then tells the story of Christ appearing to the eleven (24: 33-36), yet Matthew has not             mentioned this. So was it true? Peter, being there, is able to confirm that it was true (Mark 16: 14).
   
          Matthew says followers of Christ were to teach and baptise (28: 19), but Luke says they are to             preach penance and forgiveness (Luke 24: 47). Was there a discrepancy here? Peter explains how baptism follows             on from successful preaching (Mark 15: 15-16).
   
          In his second volume, Luke says that Paul was able to cast out a devil (Acts 16: 18). There was             no mention of this power in Matthew. So was it true? Peter, not being present at the incident, could not confirm             it, but gives it credibility by saying Christ had foretold that such happenings would occur (Mark 16: 17).
   
          In Acts 2: 4 and 10: 46, Luke reports Peter as having being been present on two occasions when             speaking in tongues had taken place. Matthew had not reported these events. Peter implicitly confirms them in his             response to the question about casting out the devils (Mark 16: 17).
   
          The audience had read in Acts 28: 5, that Paul was impervious to the poison of a snake. Matthew             had not recorded such an incident. Could it be true? Not being present at the incident, all Peter can do is again             refer to the words of Christ. We then read of a similar question regarding the laying on of hands. He answers in             the same way regarding this practice (Mark 16: 18).
   
          Luke in his gospel 24: 51 and in Acts 1: 9, describes how Christ ascended to heaven. The audience             must have found this of great interest as Matthew had not described it. Peter, as an eyewitness, was able to confirm             and slightly embellish Luke`s account (Mark 16: 19).

 

[buffalo]

When a person is answering questions, his style will be different from when he is giving a talk. The different style of these final verses has often been noted. After a talk has been given, we often see a copy circulated without the answers to questions. Then, after a time, a version including the answers is printed. This could explain how two editions came into circulation. Some early copies of Mark`s Gospel have been found with the twelve last verses replaced by a shorter ending. Clement of Alexandria tells us that Mark first issued the words of Peter while Peter was still alive. Irenaeus informs us that Mark published his Gospel after the death of Peter. While both editions would have the same authority behind them, the one with the answers was chosen for inclusion in our bible.
If the above suggestion is accepted it points to Acts, as well as Luke`s gospel, having been seen by some of the audience prior to or during the period of the talks. In addition to Mark the audience is likely to have included Paul, his guard, Luke, Linus, Cletus, Clement of Rome, Alexander, Rufus and Hermas.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Axion:

Historical-critical theories have driven more people away from the church than almost anything else. Their whole basis is that the bible-writers were liars, conmen and deceivers. These theories have been consistently condemned by the Church, but keep reappearing because of their near-universal acceptance by modernist bible-“scholars”.

You must have been very unfortunate in your reading of the critics. ​

In my reading of the OT, I have read books by John Bright, Roland de Vaux, John Gray, and others. The point is - that though they have occasion every so often to say of something, “this is an error”, what they do not do, is go hunting for them: still less adopt as their “whole basis” the idea “that the bible-writers were liars, conmen and deceivers”. This is not the basis of OT scholarship any more than of scholarship in Ancient Greek.

Biblical scholarship is part of a continuum - ideas about the date of the Exodus have a bearing on ideas about the authorship of the Torah. The date of the Exodus is vbased in part on OT evidence. Other evidence for the date of the Exodus, comes in part from what is known of Egyptian history. Dating of Egyptian history depends in part on the dating of Hittite and Babylonian history, and on the evidence for the dating of these. Babylonian history is related to that of Assyria & the Hurrians: as well as to the later of Israel and Judah - and so it goes on.

IOW - Biblical history is impossible to take in isolation: decisions about it, have effects on decisions about the histories of many other lands, and on the histories of their cultures. There is in a sense no such thing as Biblical history - that, is impossible to separate from these other lands’ histories. No clear and tidy separation is possible between Israelite and Assyrian history, because both countries have preserved info about the other, as well as about their other neighbours. So if we ignored everything outside the OT, we would be ignoring some of the evidence for the life of Israel. Ignore anything but the OT - and there are lots of loose ends trailing from the OT to other lands, which one is refusing to look at. And that impoverishes understanding of the OT.

“Not a lot of people know this” - but the scholars do. They should. And because they do, they have to take these things into account. After all, The God Who inspired Scripture, is also the Lord of all that happens - so it is inconsistent to accept the truth in the Bible, and to ignore the truth outside it. God is the god of all creation; not of that part alone which is contained in the Bible. So what Shalmaneser III of Assyria says about his wars with Israel, is as relevant to Biblical study as the accounts of them in the Book of Kings. Scholars can’t ignore evidence - that would be immoral. ##

The fact is these people have no evidence at all for their claims. Yet they repeat hem consistently as if they were fact. and they sneak into the notes of the NAB and NJB - again as if they were facts. Therefore those people with weak faith who read these notes, find themselves being told that Matthew and Luke made up the infancy narratives, that most of what we read about Jesus was invented, and that most of the Old Testament is fiction. **Is it any wonder that these people then lose their Faith? **

My faith is unhurt , TY. With a bit of education in these matters, people should find them less of a jolt than if they read about them unprepared.​

IMO this is largely a matter of trust. Not because scholars are inerrant or omniscient (who is ?), but because:

1. They are doing something worthwhile
2. Many Catholics (& others !) think that what they are doing is very destructive - so, ruinous to faith
3. What they are doing, can be used destructively.
4. There is destruction of what is false or inadequate, to replace it with what is true or truer -
5. Just as there is destruction for the sake of it.

The difficulty, is to tell 4 & 5 apart. And this is where those who know the difference can help: they can tell the rest of us - if we let them. Which is where trust comes in. This is risky - it makes one vulnerable to being let down. But if Christ could take the great risk of loving perfectly in a fallen world, Christians should be able to risk a bit of trust once in a while.

There has been a lot of criticism of them - but what about our own shortcomings ? Why take for granted that (say) Haydock is always right, and the NAB is always wrong ? Why is this method (which is “indispensable”) to be regarded as always in all respects bad ? ##

**

To take just one example of the historical-critical madness relevant to the original question. When was the Gospel of Luke written?

**

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continue]

The Liberal “bible-scholars” say - 90 AD or 2nd Century. Why? Because the gospel mentions a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. And since, according to them, a realised prophecy HAS to be a later addition, inserted by a lying author, the gospel must have been written **after **the event!
But actually Luke is part of a two part work that finishes with ACTS. Acts contains a first person account of the voyages of Paul and finishes abruptly with Paul’s imprisonment in the 60s AD. Since Paul’s martyrdom is not included, and would be the culmination of the story, it is fairly clear that Acts and Luke were written no later than 65 AD.

Other historians of the period are studied critically - why exempt him ? An historian may be very precise in his description of the death of Tiberius - that does not prove he is accurate. Philostratus in the 3rd century wrote a life of Apollonius of Tyana which is full of miracles - but a description, is not proof of the reality of what is described.​

If Luke is to be studied as an historian, he must be studied as an historian - not as an inspired author. To do that, is the theologian’s territory, not the historian’s. Even if the historian is a man of faith. Gods may well have won the battles of the Assyrian kings; the gods Castor and Pollux may well have saved a Roman army from defeat - why not ? These claims are in principle no less valid than saying that Jesus or Elijah worked miracles: but they are not claims which are verifiable as purely historical facts. Such claims can be recorded - but they cannot be tested by tested by historical evidence, because they are about things not entirely of this world.

Christians who refuse to believe that the “great gods, my lords” Ashur and Ishtar and Shamash and Ninurta and Anu and Adad helped the Assyrian kings “have no evidence for their claims”. Ishtar, in her great love for Esar-haddon, sent him several comforting oracles - which were confirmed: she gave him victory, secured the royal succession, extended his empire, and prolonged his life. It is sheer bias to accept the goodness of JHWH to Hezekiah, and to ignore the kindness of Ishtar to Esarhaddon, and to so many kings before him. ##

 

[Liberian]

patg,

Let me begin by saying WOW! You have obviously put a good deal of thought and effort into these postings, and I appreciate it. Naturally I have a bias against your conclusions, but I will absolutely be giving what you have written the care and attention that it deserves in trying to figure out what is what. Obviously I won’t be able to answer everything all at once, but here is a start.

I have to begin by asking, how do you decide what in the Synoptics to believe and what not to believe? I realize that this is a very general question, and we are trying very hard to avoid generalities, but you begin your discussion with “study of the Synoptics shows that the concept of resurrection did not play an important part in [Jesus’] vision of the hereafter.” I mean, I certainly agree that we can get a lot of what Jesus said from the Synoptics, but the entire thrust of your argument has been that the Gospels contain things that are not historically accurate. What criterion do you use to decide what is accurate and what is not accurate?

Certainly the disciples between Holy Thursday night and Easter Sunday morning had no thought that Jesus would rise bodily from the dead. But this certainly does not mean that Jesus had not told them this plainly. They were, to put it mildly, under a lot of stress during those sixty hours or so, and could easily have forgotten what He had said. They hadn’t accepted it in the first place; after all, Peter is recorded as rebuking Jesus about it and being rebuked by Jesus in turn as “Satan.” Even after the Resurrection they were asking about restoring the kingdom to Israel. So the fact that the disciples were not comforting each other with the idea that Jesus would rise from the dead on Easter Sunday morning is not at all surprising and does not, in my book at least, indicate at all that Jesus had not plainly told them about it.

Let me take a break here and try answering some more later.

• Liberian

 

[Liberian]

patg,

If I may continue with the disciples’ failure to heed and remember Jesus’ prophecies of His death, I will repeat that during the stress of Thursday night through Sunday morning they could easily have forgotten something that they had never accepted in the first place. First, the idea that a dead man will get up and walk causes a severe cognitive dissonance so that it would not penetrate their psyches. Second, starting on Thursday evening they had to deal with:

 - A series of shocks at the Last Supper, ranging from "This is my Body" to "One of you is going to betray me."
 - About two or three hours of sleep Thursday night
 - Watching Jesus get arrested--and noting that Judas was among the contingent sent to arrest Him
 - Going into hiding from the police, wondering whether Judas was going to bring the police after them as well
 - Hearing (and in John's case seeing) that Jesus had been crucified

Is it any wonder that they weren’t at their most lucid?

You mention that Jesus’ prophecy of His death and resurrection had fallen on deaf ears “even later when the resurrection became the central topic of the preaching of the primitive church.” I’m not sure what you mean. Also, I would need some evidence to support this statement.

With this explanation, at least of the disciples’ forgetting the prophecies during the original Triduum, the “internal contradiction” goes away and no longer needs overcoming. There is no need “to conclude that the announcements concerning the resurrection of Jesus are later editorial interpolations” and the “clumsy explanations” can be seen for what they really are, accurate accounts of practical men reacting to a concept that is totally foreign to them.

If I may also respond to the idea that questioning what resurrection from the dead meant makes the disciples dimwitted, I would ask how many times you have to go over a new concept before you understand it well enough to live by it? How many times did you have to review your multiplication table before you could use it in long division? How many times have you read a specific instruction in assembling a garage door opener so that you knew that it was this bolt you had to tighten and not that bolt? Needing some time to wrap your mind around a new concept does not make you dimwitted.

More later. Feel free to start responding to the earlier replies.

• Liberian

 

[SFH]

KGM:

I am currently writing a letter to my sister who has fallen away from the Catholic Church. She doesn’t believe in the historical reliability of the 4 gospels. Therefore she does not believe that Jesus came and died for our sins. Her arguement is that they were written so many years after Jesus died that they can not be entirely reliable. How can I explain to her that the 4 gospels are indeed the word of God and are reliable? Thanks for any help. I’m struggling to write this letter. KGM

I should point out that the historicity of the Gospel narratives is a matter of faith that all Catholics are obligated to accept. That being said, the case for the historicity of the Gospel narratives is best made by St. Augustine in his classic “The City of God”: If the Gospels are true, then we are forced to accept the miracles in them and adhere to the truths taught by the Catholic Church. If the Gospels are not true, then we are faced with the even greater “miracle” of thousands of men and women dying to preserve a lie and an entire empire rejecting its ancient religion and adopting Christianity with no other argument than the lies they were told by the Christians.

In the end, it is not so much a question of whether miracles and prophecies were done and made in the Old and New Testaments as whether miracles and prophecies are ever done or made.

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” Song of Bernadette

 

[patg]

SFH:

I should point out that the historicity of the Gospel narratives is a matter of faith that all Catholics are obligated to accept.

That is certainly not true. Church documents such as Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Soiritu clearly state that there is much non-history in all the bible. The church actually insists that very few passages must be considered literal history.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

That is certainly not true. Church documents such as Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Soiritu clearly state that there is much non-history in all the bible. The church actually insists that very few passages must be considered literal history.

patg,

You keep repeating the same error. Did you read the Gospels are Historical yet, or are you avoiding it? Dei Verbum is addressed there.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

patg,

You keep repeating the same error. Did you read the Gospels are Historical yet, or are you avoiding it? Dei Verbum is addressed there.

Yes, I looked at it and it contains some interesting theories and attempted explanations, some logical and some which were rather contrived to make sure that the desired result was obtained at all costs. Is it part of the deposit of faith all Catholics must believe?

You keep ignoring the simple truth of *Dei Verbum *which is quite clear all by itself and which quite clearly states the obvious - the bible is not a literal history book.

Have you read:

• *And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms *by Margaret Ralph, Paulist Press. This is the textbook for Catholic Adult Religious education in numerous dioseses.
• A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by Fr. John Meier (written under the imprimatur) Professor of New Testament studies, Catholic Univ. of America
• The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible by Donald Senior which discusses the non-historical nature of the Infancy Narratives among other things.

 

[SFH]

patg:

That is certainly not true. Church documents such as Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Soiritu clearly state that there is much non-history in all the bible. The church actually insists that very few passages must be considered literal history.

There is much non-history in the Bible (e.g., Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon). But where the Bible presents historical narrative all Catholics are bound to accept the historical accuracy of the narrative. True Catholic exegesis seeks to reconcile the gifts of archeology with the historical accounts presented in the Bible not explain away passages of the Bible as historically inaccurate.

“It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations, on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. … *t is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated.” – Leo XIII Prov. Deus

This position on the historical accuracy of Sacred Scripture (including the Gospel narratives) was confirmed by Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu and remains the position of the Biblical Commission in Rome.

Where the Gospel narratives speak of the Virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, etc., the historical accuracy of those narratives must be accepted by a Catholic. Those historical facts are not open to debate. If Catholics don’t want to accept the historical accuracy of those narratives, they should consider one of the Protestant sects where they will be free to believe whatever they want.*

 

[SFH]

patg:

Yes, I looked at it and it contains some interesting theories and attempted explanations, some logical and some which were rather contrived to make sure that the desired result was obtained at all costs. Is it part of the deposit of faith all Catholics must believe?

You keep ignoring the simple truth of *Dei Verbum *which is quite clear all by itself and which quite clearly states the obvious - the bible is not a literal history book.

Have you read:

• *And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms *by Margaret Ralph, Paulist Press. This is the textbook for Catholic Adult Religious education in numerous dioseses.
• A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by Fr. John Meier (written under the imprimatur) Professor of New Testament studies, Catholic Univ. of America
• The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible by Donald Senior which discusses the non-historical nature of the Infancy Narratives among other things.

BTW, the statement “only a Sith thinks in tems of absolutes” is itself an absolute statement by someone who is thinking in terms of absolutes.

 

[patg]

SFH:

But where the Bible presents historical narrative all Catholics are bound to accept the historical accuracy of the narrative.

Another untruth. Unfortunately, I can’t find the statement “The following is literal history” in any bible I have. We wouldn’t need the centuries of bible scholars if things were this simple. Read Dei Verbum - it talks about this.

True Catholic exegesis seeks to reconcile the gifts of archeology with the historical accounts presented in the Bible not explain away passages of the Bible as historically inaccurate.

So we should lie about them instead? The church teaches we should strive to understand the intent of the author and that the intent was often not to teach history, Read Dei Verbum - it talks about this.

“It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations, …” – Leo XIII Prov. Deus

This position on the historical accuracy of Sacred Scripture (including the Gospel narratives) was confirmed by Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu and remains the position of the Biblical Commission in Rome.

Things have been updated a bit since then - read Dei Verbum - it talks about this.

Where the Gospel narratives speak of the Virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, etc., the historical accuracy of those narratives must be accepted by a Catholic. Those historical facts are not open to debate.

Another untruth - they are debated constantly by nearly all catholic scripture scholars and this debate is encouraged by Dei Verbum.

If Catholics don’t want to accept the historical accuracy of those narratives, they should consider one of the Protestant sects where they will be free to believe whatever they want.

I’m sorry but this is against church teaching, besides encouraging the acceptance of something quite untrue.

 

[patg]

SFH:

BTW, the statement “only a Sith thinks in tems of absolutes” is itself an absolute statement by someone who is thinking in terms of absolutes.

Yeah, but I like it…

 

[SFH]

patg:

Another untruth. Unfortunately, I can’t find the statement “The following is literal history” in any bible I have. We wouldn’t need the centuries of bible scholars if things were this simple. Read Dei Verbum - it talks about this.

So we should lie about them instead? The church teaches we should strive to understand the intent of the author and that the intent was often not to teach history, Read Dei Verbum - it talks about this.

Things have been updated a bit since then - read Dei Verbum - it talks about this.

Another untruth - they are debated constantly by nearly all catholic scripture scholars and this debate is encouraged by Dei Verbum.

I’m sorry but this is against church teaching, besides encouraging the acceptance of something quite untrue.

OK. Since you repeatedly refer to Dei Verbum (without any specific citations I might add), let’s see what Dei Verbum really says:

“19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that 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 until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).”

Thus, Dei Verbum makes two assertions about the Gospel narratives: (1) they are historical; and (2) the historical narrative is a faithful representation of what was really said and done by Christ.

BTW, the Virgin birth is a dogma of faith defined by several ecumenical councils and witnessed by the Gospel narratives. You cannot deny it and remain a Catholic. Similarly, the bodily resurrection of the Blessed Lord, the miracle of the Holy Eucharist, and several of the other miracles enumerated in the Gospel narratives are also defined dogmas of faith that cannot be denied by a Catholic.

Those Catholics who deny the Virgin birth or the bodily resurrection of Christ are no longer Catholics and they are lying to their fellow Catholics and the Holy Spirit if they pretend otherwise.