How scholars look at Gospel narratives?

[TheoloJer]

I remember watching this particular video where Christopher Hitchens was debating a presbyterian NT scholar on certain verses of the Bible, and he pointed out one verse in Matthew where it talks about the dead rising from the grave in the midst of the earthquake after Jesus’ died on the cross (before the Resurrection of course). And Hitchens was pinning down on the guy telling him that it says it in the Bible and why does history not talk about it.

The minister said that as a Christian, he has to trust that the event happened, from a non-historical account. Thus, this is a point where Hitchens takes issue with how he was interpreting the Gospel of Matthew.

While I’m not a fan of his views, I think Hitchens may have made a point about how we’ve been interpreting the narratives of Gospel-- deciding which should be taken as historical and which as symbolic. I really think scholars, in the NT department, should really continue the Quest for the Historical Jesus so we can learn more about each events.

Any thoughts?

BTW, here’s the link:
Hitchens and Mark Roberts

 

[steve53]

There are scholars and there are scholars.

Being a scholar doesn’t make one a historian.

 

[Gorgias]

I remember watching this particular video where Christopher Hitchens was debating a presbyterian NT scholar on certain verses of the Bible, and he pointed out one verse in Matthew where it talks about the dead rising from the grave in the midst of the earthquake after Jesus’ died on the cross (before the Resurrection of course).

Actually, that’s not what the verse says! Look at it again:

“And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (Mt 27:51-53, emphasis mine)

So, we’ve got a description of events that happened at least three days apart! The ‘resurrection’ of the saints happened after Jesus’ resurrection! We’re so used to hearing this narrative, that we seem to conflate the events as something that happened right there on Good Friday!

I was checking this passage out in the Greek a few weeks ago, and trying to construct a narrative that would make sense. I’m not claiming this as an authoritative interpretation, and I have no idea what the Church would say about it; but, just for the sake of discussion, let’s see how this sounds…

On Good Friday, when Jesus died, there was an earthquake. As a result of the earthquake, tombs were opened. Also as a result of the earthquake, the bodies of ‘the saints who had fallen asleep’ were exposed. (Remember – back in those days, they went back to the tomb a year after the person died, and collected the person’s bones, and put them in a smaller ossuary. So, chances are, they’re talking about bones in graves becomes exposed due to the earthquake.)

Some unspecified time after Jesus’ resurrection, these people were seen in the ‘holy city’, appearing to many.

So, what do we really have going on, here? Well, the ‘resurrections’ that we see aren’t on Good Friday, and are really just ‘after (Jesus’) resurrection’. Are they bodily resurrections? Well, perhaps – but if so, where did these bodies go to between Good Friday and some time after Easter Sunday? What if they’re not bodily resurrections? What if what’s been witnessed is simply the spirits – or apparitions – of the dead who have attained to heaven? Well, in that case, we have to ask why Matthew calls it ‘the holy city’ and not Jerusalem! So, perhaps we should separate the clauses: the bodies of the dead raised; after the resurrection, they entered the holy city; they appeared to many.

I think, perhaps, that it’s possible that Matthew is telling us that the bones of some dead were brought to the surface as a result of the earthquake. Later, after Jesus’ resurrection, some of the ‘saints’ (these would have had to have been Jewish saints, remember, since they died before the crucifixion!) who had been raised up to heaven were made visible (in apparitions?) to many. These may have been apparitions that were visible within Jerusalem, or maybe, they were apparitions of heaven, so that people saw these notable Jewish saints in visions of the ‘new Jerusalem’…

 

[Gorgias]

But the main problem is…we cannot trust the timing of what the gospel-writers recalled and wrote so many decades later, as evident in their discrepancies.
For example…as you know, two different gospels give two different dates–two days apart, --for the day Jesus was crucified.

Perhaps there is a discrepancy between the Synoptics and John (although some have provided ways to bring the two into agreement). However, you’re talking about lack of agreement between two different Gospels, and using that to support your argument about a single Gospel.

That’s like me telling you that your argument is invalid, based on the observation that there exists somebody else who disagrees with it.

 

[Gorgias]

Hmmm?
I’m actually not trying to debate or support anyone’s argument in my post

aah. you quoted my post, so I presumed you were responding to my comments…

…just commenting on the other poster’s timing thoughts…and how it is difficult for us to know for sure what date/time something may have happened 2000 years ago since the writers seem to be unsure themselves sometimes.

Yes, but my comment still holds, then, doesn’t it? You’re talking about whether Matthew and John agree on timing, and I’m saying that, in this context, we’re only talking about how Matthew puts things together: crucifixion, death, earthquake, and (no sooner than) 3 days later, appearance of ‘saints’. There’s no confusion there – in fact, Matthew is very clear that this happens following Jesus’ resurrection!

they are literate Greek-speaking writers attempting to put a biography together 40-60 years after Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

Yet, they’re not doing this from scratch – they’re putting together their accounts based on the already-existing oral histories that had been being repeated for 40-60 years!

 

[ConstantineTG]

I remember watching this particular video where Christopher Hitchens was debating a presbyterian NT scholar on certain verses of the Bible, and he pointed out one verse in Matthew where it talks about the dead rising from the grave in the midst of the earthquake after Jesus’ died on the cross (before the Resurrection of course). And Hitchens was pinning down on the guy telling him that it says it in the Bible and why does history not talk about it.

The minister said that as a Christian, he has to trust that the event happened, from a non-historical account. Thus, this is a point where Hitchens takes issue with how he was interpreting the Gospel of Matthew.

While I’m not a fan of his views, I think Hitchens may have made a point about how we’ve been interpreting the narratives of Gospel-- deciding which should be taken as historical and which as symbolic. I really think scholars, in the NT department, should really continue the Quest for the Historical Jesus so we can learn more about each events.

Any thoughts?

BTW, here’s the link:
Hitchens and Mark Roberts

We have to look at Scripture the way it was intended to be read. Remember that literature at the time this was written is much different than the scholastic, fact-driven literature we have today. Scripture is meant to convey a truth. But the way truth is conveyed isn’t in how we would today tell a factual story of an event. It just wasn’t the ancient style.

Do you think if this was an issue, the Fathers would have addressed it back then? They would have raised this issue back then? Apparently the Fathers of the Church were okay with this, they understood it better than we do today. So we must look back and see Scripture as they have seen it because they understood how to read it.

 

[Gorgias]

No…you’re not really grokking what I’m saying. I tried twice but maybe I am not describing it clearly enough. Perhaps someone else will chime in and say it in a different way–but if not…as they say Down Under: No worries and good on ya!

Hmm… I think I’m hearing you, but disagreeing. It seems to me that you’re asserting that, there are places where there’s the appearance of disagreement among many Gospels, with respect to timings of the Passion event. I agree – there do seem to be those dissonances.

However, you seem to be saying that, since those dissonances apparently exist between Gospels, then we must discount all time references within each individual Gospel.

This is what you’re claiming, right? But, that claim seems too aggressive. Even on its face, it doesn’t seem like we can use it here – after all, Matthew is the only one to provide this bit of detail; therefore, there’s no other Gospel that is providing conflicting data about the timing of this event! Now, if you want to claim that since Matthew is the only witness to this event, therefore it is less plausible a claim than those made in multiple Gospels, then you can make an argument to that effect (if memory serves, Crossen makes this sort of claim). However, claiming that other Gospels don’t agree with the timing doesn’t seem to hold up, since no other Gospel makes a competing claim!

Am I missing your point? Or am I just disagreeing with it?

 

[patrick457]

I remember watching this particular video where Christopher Hitchens was debating a presbyterian NT scholar on certain verses of the Bible, and he pointed out one verse in Matthew where it talks about the dead rising from the grave in the midst of the earthquake after Jesus’ died on the cross (before the Resurrection of course). And Hitchens was pinning down on the guy telling him that it says it in the Bible and why does history not talk about it.

The minister said that as a Christian, he has to trust that the event happened, from a non-historical account. Thus, this is a point where Hitchens takes issue with how he was interpreting the Gospel of Matthew.

While I’m not a fan of his views, I think Hitchens may have made a point about how we’ve been interpreting the narratives of Gospel-- deciding which should be taken as historical and which as symbolic. I really think scholars, in the NT department, should really continue the Quest for the Historical Jesus so we can learn more about each events.

Any thoughts?

BTW, here’s the link:
Hitchens and Mark Roberts

Trivia: we’re currently in the ‘Third Quest’ phase, although some would argue that the Third Quest is now a dead concept.

As for the titular question: you want me to give the shorter answer or the longer answer?