Historical reliability of the 4 gospels

[patg]

Liberian:

Obviously I won’t be able to answer everything all at once, but here is a start.

Likewise for me

I have to begin by asking, how do you decide what in the Synoptics to believe and what not to believe? … 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?

Well in the simple case for this discussion, the gospels are really all we have to go on so I’m just basing my thoughts on what we find there. I don’t start out assuming everything is inaccurate.

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.

The problem I have with this reasoning is that it would make perfect sense if it had been written “on the scene” but as something composed by people who most likely were not there and probably decades removed from the event, the accounts read more like summaries of second hand stories put together to make a theological point rather than an attempt at objective reporting.

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

Me too. This is a rather tedious exercise and other people think I should be mowing the grass or going to work. I’ll continue as time permits.

 

[miguel]

patg:

I am always amazed that it is so hard for some to believe that an author would use a fictional account to teach a truth or make a theological point, Do we argue whether Alice in Wonderland is literal truth or do we accept it as political satire? Is Pinocchio literal history or does it teach about the evil of lying? Does the mention of Jesus automatically imply history and cancel every author’s ability to write using customary literary forms?

Jesus taught with parables and other stories yet we deny the gospel authors the right to do the same.

It isn’t surprising that people who can’t tell the difference between parables and history also can’t tell the difference between Alice in Wonderland, Pinocchio and the Gospels.

 

[SFH]

patg:

I am always amazed that it is so hard for some to believe that an author would use a fictional account to teach a truth or make a theological point, Do we argue whether Alice in Wonderland is literal truth or do we accept it as political satire? Is Pinocchio literal history or does it teach about the evil of lying? Does the mention of Jesus automatically imply history and cancel every author’s ability to write using customary literary forms?

Jesus taught with parables and other stories yet we deny the gospel authors the right to do the same.

The difference is that Our Blessed Lord acknowledged that some of the things He said were parables whereas the Apostles claimed that what they wrote about Our Blessed Lord He actually did and said (e.g., “In my first account Theophilus …”).

I am always amazed at the historical-critical method’s inability to be self-critical. A historical-critical method theologian walks in the room and announces that some event recorded in the Bible is not historically true (e.g., the birth of Christ in Bethlehem or the visit of the Magi) and expects everyone to accept his ipso dixit.

Can anyone imagine a CFO handing an accountant the company’s books and telling him the company made $20 million last year and the accountant accepting it without an audit? Or a lawyer walking into court and telling the judge his client is innocent and the judge accepting it without a trial? I don’t see why the historical-critical method should get a free pass on professional skepticism when every other profession undergoes a similar scrutiny.

The fact that some scientist or scholar questions the historical accuracy of the Infancy narratives–even a scholar as highly esteemed as Raymond Brown–doesn’t show that the Infancy narratives or any other part of the Bible is historically inaccurate. When a scholar or even a group of scholars make such claims, it’s only fair to ask where they got their training, how thorough it was, where they did their research, what assumptions they made, why they made them, what did they consider and what didn’t they consider, etc. Many scientists and scholars have successfully shown that there is no inconsistency between a Gospel narrative once thought suspect and historical evidence available to us today.

The most that any historical-critical scholar can claim is that some historical evidence appears to be inconsistent with the Biblical narratives. Anything more than this is sheer hubris.

 

[patg]

SFH:

The difference is that Our Blessed Lord acknowledged that some of the things He said were parables whereas the Apostles claimed that what they wrote about Our Blessed Lord He actually did and said (e.g., “In my first account Theophilus …”).

Yes those claims exist and I understand that some actually believe the original apostles wrote down what they saw and heard with their own eyes and ears. Unfortunately, the decades of oral tradition, the myriad of corrections and editorial modifications, and the obvious rearrangement of events to suit a particular theiological pattern make it quite clear that we aren’t dealing with anything like firsthand accounts. Even if the original gospels were “eyewitness new accounts” written with the same concept of “news” as we have today, we don’t have anything like the originals documents. It seems that God may have inspired the authors to write but forgot to inspire anyone to save a copy for us…

I am always amazed at the historical-critical method’s inability to be self-critical. A historical-critical method theologian walks in the room and announces that some event recorded in the Bible is not historically true (e.g., the birth of Christ in Bethlehem or the visit of the Magi) and expects everyone to accept his ipso dixit.

I feel exactly the same way about the “literal history” proponents. They expect us to ignore everything we know about the literary forms, culture, styles, history, intent, and Jewish midrash common in first century writing. Believing it is all history because it mentions Jesus is ridiculous.

Can anyone imagine a CFO handing an accountant the company’s books and telling him the company made $20 million last year and the accountant accepting it without an audit? Or a lawyer walking into court and telling the judge his client is innocent and the judge accepting it without a trial? I don’t see why the historical-critical method should get a free pass on professional skepticism when every other profession undergoes a similar scrutiny.

Actually, I believe that the historical-critical scholars are the auditors who are finally catching up with the literal history view. It’s about time someone forced biblical scholarship to be subject to advanced scholarly standards and review instead of allowing it to hide behind untenable literalism.

The fact that some scientist or scholar questions the historical accuracy of the Infancy narratives–even a scholar as highly esteemed as Raymond Brown–doesn’t show that the Infancy narratives or any other part of the Bible is historically inaccurate.

And somehow simply denying it only on the basis that its in the bible guarantees its historicity?

When a scholar or even a group of scholars make such claims, it’s only fair to ask where they got their training, how thorough it was, where they did their research, what assumptions they made, why they made them, what did they consider and what didn’t they consider, etc.

I agree, I’m very careful who I listen to.

Many scientists and scholars have successfully shown that there is no inconsistency between a Gospel narrative once thought suspect and historical evidence available to us today.
The most that any historical-critical scholar can claim is that some historical evidence appears to be inconsistent with the Biblical narratives. Anything more than this is sheer hubris.

That’s not been my experience - I can suggest some further reading if you are interested, starting with *Dei Verbum - *the church’s official endorsement of the historical-critical methods.

 

[SFH]

the church’s official endorsement of the historical-critical methods.

Careful patg … that logic can lead to heresy.

“But first it must be clearly understood whom we have to oppose and contend against, and what are their tactics and their arms. In earlier times the contest was chiefly with those who, relying on private judgment and repudiating the divine traditions and teaching office of the Church, held the Scriptures to be the one source of revelation and the final appeal in matters of Farith. ***Now, we have to meet the Rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their turn to their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which had been handed down to them. ***They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men. They set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and lying stories: the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God’s power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths; and the apostolic Gospels and writings are not the work of the Apostles at all. These detestable errors, whereby they think they destroy the truth of the divine Books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a certain newly-invented “free science;” a science, however, which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and supplementing it.” – Providentissimus Deus

P.S. I seriously doubt that anyone participating in this discussion has failed to read Dei Verbum*. *I do wonder whether you have bothered to read it since you cite it generally without specific quotes and seem to be oblivious to the fact that Dei Verbum does not support your position on the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives. Dei Verbum and subsequent Vatican pronouncements have recognized the value of the historical-critical method, but they have also recognized its limits and its abuse by modern scholars.

 

[patg]

Careful patg … that logic can lead to heresy.

Logic is what I am searching for. If it is truly logical, I doubt that it can lead to heresy.

…These detestable errors, whereby they think they destroy the truth of the divine Books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a certain newly-invented “free science;” a science, however, which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and supplementing it." – Providentissimus Deus

I’m sure similar things were written concerning Copernicus and Gallileo. The church outgrew that ignorance and since the publication of Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum is *starting *to outgrow the simplistic literalism of past interpretations - including the one you have quoted…

P.S. I seriously doubt that anyone participating in this discussion has failed to read Dei Verbum*.*

You are probably correct but then there are only about 4 people participating. Based on my experience, the number of Catholics who are even aware of it is an insignificant number and the number who have read it is far less.

I do wonder whether you have bothered to read it since you cite it generally without specific quotes

If you were to look at numerous other threads of mine, you would see I quote it constantly, especially the section that supports everything I have said:

"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. (8)"

This is what clearly allows the infancy narratives to be understood as fiction. And no one can say fiction doesn’t teach truth. I understand you can quote other sections that say differennt things and that is one of the problems with *Dei Verbum - *it admits the reality but can’t quite let go of the authoritative past. I’m willing to wait and I have no doubt things will be further clarified in the future. If not, I at least have something I can believe in as opposed to what I had before I started down this path.

and seem to be oblivious to the fact that Dei Verbum does not support your position on the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives. Dei Verbum and subsequent Vatican pronouncements have recognized the value of the historical-critical method, but they have also recognized its limits and its abuse by modern scholars.

That’s not how I read the above quote.

 

[Cktdad]

I’ve just joined recently so I’ve been monitoring this for a little while but I decided to jump in.

patg:

Logic is what I am searching for. If it is truly logical, I doubt that it can lead to heresy.

Logic based on a false premise can very easily lead to heresy.
There is no doubt that heretics from Arius to Luther to Zwingli followed their arguments sincerely and logically.

"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. (8)"

This is what clearly allows the infancy narratives to be understood as fiction. And no one can say fiction doesn’t teach truth. I understand you can quote other sections that say differennt things and that is one of the problems with *Dei Verbum - *it admits the reality but can’t quite let go of the authoritative past. I’m willing to wait and I have no doubt things will be further clarified in the future. If not, I at least have something I can believe in as opposed to what I had before I started down this path.

The problem is not with “Dei Verbum”. The passage you cite here clearly refers to the entirety of the Scriptures while the following passage refers specifically to the four Gospels. “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.” Here the Church is telling us what the nature of the gospels is and that is historical. You want to do a bait and switch and take a passage about scriptue in general and apply it to the gospels specifically. You need to keep your apples and oranges in separate baskets.

You do know also that the Church has never said that the historical-critical method was to be used exclusively. In fact it was banned until Pope Pius XII said it could be examined albeit with much care.

 

[patg]

The problem is not with “Dei Verbum”. The passage you cite here clearly refers to the entirety of the Scriptures while the following passage refers specifically to the four Gospels. “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.” Here the Church is telling us what the nature of the gospels is and that is historical.

No, you are missing what the statement you just quoted says by ignoring the few critical words: “…for their eternal salvation”. I agree that the gospels are accurate in this area - and that is all Dei Verbum says. It says nothing about the gospels being historical in areas that are unrelated to their or our salvation. When the authors exalted Jesus as a great personage by writing birth narratives in the exact classical literary form of a fictional infancy narrative, Dei Verbum tells us we had better recognize it as such - that’s exactly what the statements about literary form and are talking about.

You want to do a bait and switch and take a passage about scripture in general and apply it to the gospels specifically. You need to keep your apples and oranges in separate baskets.

What? Lets see, Dei Verbum talks about scripture, the gospels are scipture - there ain’t nothin but apples here…

You do know also that the Church has never said that the historical-critical method was to be used exclusively. In fact it was banned until Pope Pius XII said it could be examined albeit with much care.

Thank God for that little bit of progress. I pray there will be more…

 

[miguel]

Cktdad:

…The problem is not with “Dei Verbum”. The passage you cite here clearly refers to the entirety of the Scriptures while the following passage refers specifically to the four Gospels. “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.” Here the Church is telling us what the nature of the gospels is and that is historical…

patg:

No, you are missing what the statement you just quoted says by ignoring the few critical words: “…for their eternal salvation”. I agree that the gospels are accurate in this area - and that is all Dei Verbum says. It says nothing about the gospels being historical in areas that are unrelated to their or our salvation…

And patg, you keep missing the few critical words before 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…” You are twisting Church teaching to say that unless a Gospel event is judged, under any liberal scholar’s subjective criteria, to have relevance to our salvation, it’s not historical. That’s not what it says. Liberals would like it to say that so they can whittle the Scriptures down to their liking. But as Jesus said in Mathew 4: “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

 

[patg]

miguel:

And patg, you keep missing the few critical words before 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…” You are twisting Church teaching to say that unless a Gospel event is judged, under any liberal scholar’s subjective criteria, to have relevance to our salvation, it’s not historical. That’s not what it says. Liberals would like it to say that so they can whittle the Scriptures down to their liking. But as Jesus said in Mathew 4: “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

Ok, lets parse the senetence:

"…the four Gospels just named,

I think we’re talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John here.
*

• whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts**
  I see the words “historical character”, don’t you? There is a tremendous difference between asserting that something has “historical character” and saying that it is innerrant literal history. I totally agree that they have historical character. The movie “Titanic” certainly had historical character and was true to history in the main events but it was not literal history.

, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught…"

Hey, you left off the “for their eternal salvation” - I think that’s pretty important, you can’t just pick and choose to make your point!

 

[buffalo]

miguel:

And patg, you keep missing the few critical words before 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…” You are twisting Church teaching to say that unless a Gospel event is judged, under any liberal scholar’s subjective criteria, to have relevance to our salvation, it’s not historical. That’s not what it says. Liberals would like it to say that so they can whittle the Scriptures down to their liking. But as Jesus said in Mathew 4: “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

patg is determined to look at the Gospels through a lens of suspicion and doubt. There seems to be no changing his mind at this time. The Markans are trying to hang on to their pet theory.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

patg is determined to look at the Gospels through a lens of suspicion and doubt. There seems to be no changing his mind at this time. The Markans are trying to hang on to their pet theory.

No, I’m determined to look beyond the assumption that its all literal history and follow the directions of the church’s documents to understand the author’s intent, culture, and literary forms. It is fortunate that there is room in this universal church for both paths to be followed. I use the scriptures as a lens to see God better and it is pretty much irrelevant whether they are history or not. I am here discussing it because I enjoy puzzling over the pieces and exploring the history and origins of it all. It is really hard to find a catholic group holding the “pet theory” that it is all literal history so I am glad to be here for a little lively discussion.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

No, I’m determined to look beyond the assumption that its all literal history and follow the directions of the church’s documents to understand the author’s intent, culture, and literary forms. It is fortunate that there is room in this universal church for both paths to be followed. I use the scriptures as a lens to see God better and it is pretty much irrelevant whether they are history or not. I am here discussing it because I enjoy puzzling over the pieces and exploring the history and origins of it all. It is really hard to find a catholic group holding the “pet theory” that it is all literal history so I am glad to be here for a little lively discussion.

You may claim that, but all your previous posts don’t add up to the claim.

If you are sincere then you will follow what the Catechism and Tradition say.

I don’t believe anyone here argued that every word is literal history as we understand that they are not. But, to argue that just about every historical fact that is wriiten is not historical is nonsense. And to parse every verse removing any history from them is not consistent with the Catechism or Tradition.

When a Gospel writer that was an eyewitness gives an event a specific time and place I believe it to be literal.

 

[buffalo]

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

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

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

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

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[buffalo]

The New Testament

124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church’s beginnings under the Spirit’s guidance.97

[125](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/125.htm’) The *Gospels *are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”.98

[126](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/126.htm’) We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels: 1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "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, until the day when he was taken up."99

1. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100
2. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101

[127](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/127.htm’) The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:

There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds.102 But above all it’s the gospels that occupy my mind when I’m at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I’m always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto.103

 

[Cktdad]

Originally posted by patg:

Hey, you left off the “for their eternal salvation” - I think that’s pretty important, you can’t just pick and choose to make your point!

I don’t see how this means that events didn’t happen. To me it says that the writers could have included much more, as the Gospel of John in fact states, but included only what they believed would lead their audiences to Christ and His Church. The historical character is explained that some accounts may be a synthesis of events but it does not say that the events didn’t happen.

The apples and oranges statement I stand by. If I use your logic then if I say that all the gospels are scriptures I should be able to reverse the statement and say all the scriptures are gospels. Since that is not a true statement then I have to conclude that when the council fathers went on to specifically talk about the interpretation of the gospels they did so to supercede the general statement about the interpretation of all scripture made earlier. The gospel writers did not need to write metaphorically since they had the Word in the flesh.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

You may claim that, but all your previous posts don’t add up to the claim.

If you are sincere then you will follow what the Catechism and Tradition say.

I don’t believe anyone here argued that every word is literal history as we understand that they are not.

Plenty of people have argued just that in dozens of other threads. (I presume your “we” refers to you and I).

But, to argue that just about every historical fact that is wriiten is not historical is nonsense.

I agree and I haven’t done that. I have, however, tried to study the research on as many events and words as possible. There is no reason not to debate the accuracy of any statement you are interested in. I have learned a great deal in researching the related customs and background of a great number of events.

And to parse every verse removing any history from them is not consistent with the Catechism or Tradition.

No, but that’s exactly what scipture scholars do and scripture scholars are the primary audience of *Dei Verbum. *

When a Gospel writer that was an eyewitness gives an event a specific time and place I believe it to be literal.

We have no way of knowing who the eyewitnesses were and we are almost certain none of them wrote the gospels. Even if they did, however, no one would ever believe that about any other situation in the real world - the shelves of every library are filled with historical fiction and every lawyer knows that eyewitnesses to the same event often tell totally different stories. Writer did not stop being writers because their subject was Jesus. If a truth is better taught with a little (or in some cases, a lot) of embellishment, why wouldn’t God inspire them to so? Or is inspiratoin somehow limited to literal history and thus God is incapable of inspiring beyond the literal?

 

[miguel]

patg:

Ok, lets parse the senetence:

I see the words “historical character”, don’t you?

Uh, yeah. I also see those words followed up by “what Jesus Christ…really did and taught”, lest there be any doubt as to what “historical character” means.

 

[Axion]

patg:

…the section that supports everything I have said:

"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. (8)"

This is what clearly allows the infancy narratives to be understood as fiction.

No it doesn’t. Let’s examine this.

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 passage talks about truth, not fiction, not “historical novels”. Yes, there can be many literary styles. The “Charge of the Light Brigade” can be effectively written as both prose and poetry. Because he wrote poetically, that **doesn’t ** mean that Tennyson made it up! And we understand that Revelation is prophetic by the way it is introduced as such - so we’re not expecting to see ten-headed, crown-wearing beasts on the six o’clock news.

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.

Again, does this mean we can legitimately say that the gospel authors are making things up? No. This is talking about contemporary literary forms. Narrative, historical report, epistle, poetry.

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,

This is pretty thin stuff to be basing a theory calling part of the gospels “fiction” upon! This is talking about style, not content. It is not part of any style of account that I know, to make things up and pass them off as truth.

And no one can say fiction doesn’t teach truth.

That’s not the point. Fiction presented as fiction - as in the parables - can teach truth. Fiction presented as a truthful account of real events is a lie. This makes the gospel-writers liars and deceivers who are not to be trusted!

I understand you can quote other sections that say differennt things and that is one of the problems with *Dei Verbum - *it admits the reality but can’t quite let go of the authoritative past. I’m willing to wait and I have no doubt things will be further clarified in the future. If not, I at least have something I can believe in as opposed to what I had before I started down this path.

We cannot reduced the gospel to those bits you currently feel able to believe in. Especially if the price is calling the Gospel-writers liars, and their work a patchwork of falsehood! If the infancy stories were invented. What about the Anunciation? Was Mary really visited by an angel - or is this just “poetic” too? And perhaps, if there was no Gabriel, then Jesus was an ordinary man, born in the normal fashion? Do you see where this leads?

Start calling part of the gospel “fiction”, and the whole thing becomes worthless. It is this sort of methodology that produces the Da Vinci Code.

 

[SFH]

patg:

We have no way of knowing who the eyewitnesses were and we are almost certain none of them wrote the gospels.

That’s not quite accurate. We have a good idea of who wrote the various Gospels from other ancient sources.

For example, Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, wrote in 130 A.D.:

“Mark, who was Peter’s interpreter, carefully wrote down all he could remember, without always respecting the order in which things were said or done by the Lord. In effect, it was not the Lord that he accompanied, but Peter, later on, as I said. He acted according to the requirements of his teaching and not as if he wanted to give the order of the Lord’s words. Therefore, one cannot reproach Mark for having put things in writing in the order in which he remembered them. His only desire was to omit nothing of what he had heard, without introducing any falsehood into it.”

And later on:

“Matthew therefore put in order the words [of the Lord], in the Hebrew language”

Hist. Eccl., III, 39, 15-16.

Clement of Alexandria wrote:

“The Gospels which comprise the geneologies were written first and the one according to Saint Mark was made in these circumstances: Peter having preached the doctrine publicly in Rome and having exposed the Gospel by the Spirit, his listeners, who were numerous, exhorted Mark, in as much as he had accompanied him a long time and he remembered his words, to transcribe what he had said; and he did it and transcribed the Gospel for those who had asked him. Peter, having learned about it, did nothing by his advice to hinder or rebuke him for it.”

Hist. Eccl., IV, 14, 5-7

These are the two earliest statements we have on the authorship of the Gospels–both by second-generation Christians. Note that the passages from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History admit that the evangelist may have got the order a bit mixed up but insist that the evangelist accurately recorded the Lord’s words and actions.

St. Luke’s Gospel has enough internal evidence to confirm that it was likely written by St. Luke. And St. John’s Gospel has enough internal evidence to confirm that it was likely written by an eye-witness and a Jew.