Inaccuracy of the gospels?

[TheoloJer]

I was reading through the comments on Roger Ebert’s blog post where I commented, and noticed someone claims that the gospels give a dishonest narrative of how the crucifixition was like and that it lacked other important details.

I had thought Markan priority had already been well established. Mat and Luke copy huge chunks of Mark. They diverge when they attempt to “improve” Mark or when they are using presumably different and incompatible traditions altogether (e.g. the nativity stories). As one goes from Mark to Mat to Luke the miracles improve (e.g. the cursing of the fig tree); Jesus’ divinity becomes more grandiose (e.g. the baptism); Jesus is more in control of events; etc. These gradients and the copying (and all of the other evidence) are consistent and make perfect sense if Mat and Luke used Mark; they make no sense whatsoever if the three wrote independently. I understand that those with the presupposition that the gospels are inerrant and divine reject attempts to treat them just as books and reject investigations of them (as one might investigate any and all other books). In that sense rejecting Markan priority is a matter of faith, accepting Markan priority is a matter of logic, evidence and demonstration. (They are tools we use everyday in innumerable contexts and in which we have great confidence–ever fly on an airplane, balance a checkbook, cross a street, or use the internet? We do understand some things; some people seem to think we haven’t learned anything in the past two thousand years.) The standard procedure is: one accepts the existence of the NT as evidence and disinterestedly examines it; one does not accept or reject its claims without analysis, without comparing it to what we know of that era, of the culture and religion, of the people, etc. And using common sense.

Similarly I thought Pauline priority was also established. Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to him in the NT before any of the gospels which are in the NT. Yes, Christians seem to believe that Paul read the gospels (or even knew the writers, etc.) and then created his theology by combining them with his experience on the road to Damascus and by generalizing them, by seeking deeper truths, etc.; but if anything, Mark, Mat and Luke read Paul and they constructed “biographies” of Jesus either to “flesh out” Paul’s ideas or to repudiate his ideas. Paul does not mention the specific details in the gospels. He does not mention e.g. Mat 27:52 “the saints came out of their graves” etc. because A) the oral traditions which led to the gospels did not yet exist when he wrote his letters, or B) the oral traditions which led to the gospels existed when he wrote his letters but he was unaware of them, or C) he knew of that oral tradition and rejected it and sought a different Jesus (e.g. one of the spirit), or D) he knew that specific story and accepted it but didn’t think saints coming out of their graves was important either historically or as a rhetorical rallying cry he might use in his teaching to convert the world (“Saints came out of their graves? Who cares? That has nothing to do with our hope of resurrection!”), or E) he ran out of ink or paper, or F) etc. etc. etc. But of course if saints really came out of their graves, would they not have written their own gospels; would they not have spoken to the people; would those saints not have been given conspicuous places of honor which e.g. Josephus, Mark, Luke and John would have mentioned; would not those saints (Gideon, Samson) have led an army against Pilate (to end the Roman occupation) and the king (to end the corrupt monarchy) and the high priest (to end the “corrupt” religion)? One may claim Mat simply made up the story–fine: what else did he make up?

The events in the gospels either lack consequences or contain extraordinary or abnormal consequences. Now of course, if one presupposes the gospels are true and accepts what they claim, one may then conclude an inscrutable god incarnate messiah can do whatever he pleases. That is not my point at all. My point is almost the exact converse. Elsewhere I have examined for my own purposes virtually all of the stories in the gospels using a strategy which is probably the exact opposite of what all believers and most scholars do: as best as I possibly can, I ignore Jesus as much as possible and I look at what the ordinary and normal people in the gospels supposedly said and did. Time and time again, these ordinary and normal people do extraordinary and abnormal things which are against their own self interests, their own knowledge and beliefs. These people are active participants in events which do not have the consequences they should have or which have extraordinary and abnormal consequences.

I’m not claiming that I believe in the accusations…but upon reading claims like this-- how would you respond?

I actually copied and pasted one part because it’s larger text…I’ll copy and paste the 2nd half.

 

[TheoloJer]

E.g. the throngs greet Jesus during his triumphal entrance at Passover. Great–except all the details of the event (the palm fronds, the hosannas, the entrance on a donkey, etc.) fit the feast of Tabernacles exactly and do not fit Passover at all. Obviously, as a god and a messiah, inscrutable, extraordinary and abnormal Jesus can triumphantly enter Jerusalem anytime he pleases and anyway he pleases, but why are all of those scrutable, ordinary and normal people celebrating Tabernacles six months early? It is one example of many demonstrating the gospel writers did not understand the Judaism of their time or even human nature. Something is horribly wrong with the gospels.

Similarly Christians and the gospel writers are ignorant of Jewish burial practices with consequences they cannot even conceive. The gospels omit reference to shomerim (continuously staying with a body before its burial) during the night after Jesus’ execution but have the women approach the tomb to be chevrah kaddisha (the people who do taharah, the preparation of the body for burial) the next morning, but someone legalistic enough to do one would have done both–the gospels cannot have them doing both because then there would have been witnesses inside the tomb to the resurrection and the entire story of the rock, seals and guards and empty tomb would collapse. If they women knew the brutal guards would prevent them being shomrim during the night, then they should have thought the same brutal guards would prevent them from being chevrah kaddisha in the morning; if they did not know of the brutal guards (and thus thought they could get to his body in the morning or thought the guards were very nice and helpful), then why weren’t they shomrim during the night inside the tomb? The Joseph of Arimathea story doesn’t address any of those issues but merely complicates them: in John 19 Joseph and Nicodemus prepare the body, so then why do the women think the body still needs to be prepared the next day? (Didn’t Joseph tell them, weren’t they paying attention to what he was doing with the body?) And why doesn’t Joseph stay the night as a shomer and be a witness to the resurrection? Oh, the brutal guards prevent him from staying with the body and honoring the body during the night? But then the same brutal guards would have prevented him from honoring the body with the taharah after the execution. The guards are whatever way they are–either brutal or very nice–whenever the gospels need them.

E.g. James Tabor states hilariously (I can only suppose unintentionally) in The Jesus Dynasty p.223: “The sun was beginning to set and the Passover meal would begin at nightfall. Something had to be done quickly with Jesus’ corpse, lest the family suffer the shame of having it left on the cross overnight.” “Shame”? Tabor is practicing Orwellian doublethink: that the brutal Romans went to all of the trouble to arrest Jesus, mock Jesus, torture Jesus, kill Jesus, but had no intention whatsoever of shaming Jesus with that arrest, mocking, torture and execution, and then had a change of heart and wanted to allow Jesus an honorable burial, fully in keeping with all Jewish tradition, even though the same brutal Romans repudiate )or do not care about) all Jewish tradition every chance they get. The entire point of crucifixion is to dishonor the one being crucified–does no one understand this? I do understand what the family might have wanted but they were not in charge; the brutal Romans, the same people who had just killed him were in charge of what would happen to his corpse; and the normal procedure was to leave the corpse on the cross until it was destroyed by wild animals and the weather and then to throw whatever was left of it days later into a garbage dump. If you allow him an honorable burial, an honorable taharah, an honorable tomb, you undo all of your hard work. Did Joseph, as good Jew, prepare the two thieves’ bodies and give them honorable burials too, or did he ignore them? etc. etc. There is something horribly wrong with the gospels.

This type of thing happens relentlessly in the gospels; they pervasively repudiate reality and ordinary and normal human nature and behavior. etc. etc.

 

[Lancer]

Nice guy…but …He is flat wrong. Scriptures say what God wants to say to mankind.

Pax Christi

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
**
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
**
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the** text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”**69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they **consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”**71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm** should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”**72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[Blacksword]

Someone with more scholarly education can provide more I’m sure, but initially I would say this person is frankly making more assumptions and unfounded leaps than do the accounts he’s critiquing! Jesus was clearly a locally famous and controversial person at the time of his death. The Romans wanted to stop civil unrest, and it seems a small capitulation to the occupied people’s cultural demands to turn the body over to them after death.

 

[Blacksword]

Nice guy…but …He is flat wrong. Scriptures say what God wants to say to mankind.

Pax Christi

Completely unhelpful. You’ve got to explain and conduct apologetics on such issues with logic and reason, not arguments from authority that an atheist or skeptic obviously won’t accept. Saying “the scriptures are true because the Catholic Church says they are” is useless unless the person already accepts the truth of the Catholic Church, in which case they’re not likely raising these critiques in the first place!

 

[TheoloJer]

Completely unhelpful. You’ve got to explain and conduct apologetics on such issues with logic and reason, not arguments from authority that an atheist or skeptic obviously won’t accept. Saying “the scriptures are true because the Catholic Church says they are” is useless unless the person already accepts the truth of the Catholic Church, in which case they’re not likely raising these critiques in the first place!

My thoughts exactly-- when I saw the reference, I obviously didn’t think it was very strong…

I really a strong argument is going to be needed for the sake of the Gospel. After all, Christianity has continued to grow and thrive under the influence of the Gospels. A stronger argument is going to be needed for the sake of their future as they continue to grow.

 

[Blacksword]

Some other points come to mind:

First, the gospels were written very early, and good historical evidence shows they came in written form likely by between 65 to 90 A.D. And they came from even earlier oral traditions that were wide spread and well attested. Many scholars today agree with this generally, and not only the craziest fundie or literalist leaning ones.

The Jews weren’t celebrating Tabernacles early, they were celebrating Passover at the time of Jesus’ entry. He makes this bizarre contention apparently on the basis of the manner of Jesus’ reception in Jerusalem. An unwarranted and baseless conclusion.

It’s also not the case that a neat progression in Jesus’ claims to divinity happens from Mark to Luke. Look at the Markan account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Only there among the three Synoptics does he answer flatly in response to the question “Are you the Messiah?” “I am”. In the other two he says a variant of “You say so”.

The Matthew account of saints coming forth from their tombs doesn’t say how many, it could have been a few dozen, hundreds, ten, who knows? If 50 families today in, say, Manila, were suddenly running around saying their grandparents had come back from the dead, few would believe them and CNN wouldn’t exactly be down there covering it. Jerusalem was a city in a backwater region of the great empire of the day, of little consequence in world events.

The birth events of Matthew and Luke have been endlessly debated. They can and have been harmonized consistently. The Magi didn’t arrive at his actual birth but later, for instance. Perceived conflict comes from a few Lukan phrases open really to considerable interpretation and to the authors’ brevity on some areas and profound differences in the way people from their time and culture related events and people from our time and culture might.

 

[COPLAND_3]

St. Augustine put together a complete harmony of the Gospels which dissects every so-called error of the Gospels. I have arranged them in the Aquinas Study Bible by each book, chapter and verse so it can be used easily, and I highly recommend people to book mark it so they can use it for apologetic purposes because its an amazing work! I added some additional comments from other great Catholic commentators to modify the work. Here is the link to the Aquinas Study Bible sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home

Here is the whole section of Augustine on the Crucifixion

The Crucifixion
(Matt 27:33-37 Mark 15:22-26 Luke 23:33-34 John 19:17-27)
OF THE CONSISTENCY OF MATTHEW’S VERSION WITH THAT OF MARK IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE POTION OFFERED HIM TO DRINK
Matthew then proceeds in these terms: “And they came unto a place called Golgotha; that is to say, a place of a skull.”(Mt 27:33) So far as the place is concerned, they are most unmistakeably at one. The same Matthew next adds, “and they gave Him wine to drink, mingled with gall; and when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink.”Mt 27:34 This is given by Mark as follows: “And they gave Him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; and He received it not.”(Mark 15:23) Here we may understand Matthew to have conveyed the same sense as Mark, when he speaks of the wine being “mingled with gall.” For the gall is mentioned with a view to express the bitterness of the potion. And wine mingled with myrrh is remarkable for its bitterness. The fact may also be that gall and myrrh together made the wine exceedingly bitter. Again, when Mc says that “He received it not,” we understand the phrase to denote that He did not receive it so as actually to drink it. He did taste it, however, as Matthew certifies. Thus Mark’s words, “He received it not,” convey the same meaning as Matthew’s version, “He would not drink.” The former, however, has said nothing about His tasting the potion. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.11)

OF THE CONCORD PRESERVED AMONG ALL THE FOUR EVANGELISTS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PARTING OF HIS RAIMENT
Matthew goes on thus: “And after they crucified Him, they parted His garments, casting lots: and sitting down, they watched Him.”(Mt 27:35-36) Mc reports the same incident, as follows: “And crucifying Him, they parted His garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.”(Mark 15:24) In like manner Lc says: “And they parted His raiment, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding.”(Luke 23:34-35) The occurrence is thus recorded briefly by the first three. But Jn gives us a more detailed narrative of the method in which the act was gone about. His version runs thus: “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments, and for my vesture they did cast lots.”(Jn 19:23-24)

OF THE HOUR OF THE LORD’S PASSION, AND OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MARK AND JOHN IN THE ARTICLE OF THE “THIRD” HOUR AND THE "SIXTH
Third or sixth hour? The ancient account divided the day into four parts, which were named from the hour from which they began: the first, third, sixth, and ninth hour. Our Lord was crucified a little before noon; before the third hour had quite expired; but when the sixth hour was near at hand. (Bishop Richard Challoner)

Jesus Derided on the Cross
(Matt 27:38-43 Mark 15:27-32 Luke 23:35-38)
Matthew goes on in the following strain: “And they that passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.”(Mt 27:39-40) Mark’s statement agrees with this almost to the letter. Then Matthew continues thus: “Likewise also the chief priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save: if he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now, if He will: for he said, I am the Son of God.”(Mt 27:41-43) Mc and Luke, although they report the words differently, nevertheless agree in conveying the same meaning, although the one passes without notice something which the other mentions.(Mark 15:29-32 Luke 23:35-37) For they are both really at one on the subject of the chief priests, giving us to understand that they insulted the Lord when He was crucified. The only difference is, that Mark does not specify the elders, while Luke, who has instanced the rulers, has not added the designation “of the priests,” and thus has rather comprehended the whole body of the leading men under the general designation; so that we may fairly take both the scribes and the elders to be included in his description. (St. Augustine harmony of the Gospels 3.15)

 

[COPLAND_3]

**The Two Thieves
(Matt 27:44 Mark 15:32 Luke 23:39-43)

OF THE HARMONY PRESERVED AMONG ALL THE EVANGELISTS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED ALONG WITH HIM**
Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: “Then were there two robbers crucified with Him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.”(Mt 27:38) Mc and Lc give it also in a similar form.(Mark 15:27 Luke 23:33) Neither does Jn raise any question of difficulty, although he has made no mention of those robbers. For he says, “And two other with Him, on either side one,and Jesus in the midst.”(Jn 19:18) But there would have been a contradiction if Jn had spoken of these others as innocent, while the former evangelists called them robbers). (St. Augustine harmony of the Gospels 3.14)

OF THE DERISION ASCRIBED TO THE ROBBERS
Matthew continues his narrative in these terms: “The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth.”(Mt 27:44) Mc is quite in harmony with Matthew here, giving the same statement in different words.(Mark 15:32) On the other hand, Lc may be thought to contradict this, unless we be careful not to forget a certain mode of speech which is sufficiently familiar. For Luke’s narrative runs thus: “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.”(Luke 23:39) And then the same writer proceeds to introduce into the same context the following recital: “But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day thou shall be with me in paradise.”(Luke 23:40-43) The question then is, how we can reconcile either Matthew’s report, “The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth,” or Mark’s, namely, “And they that were crucified with Him reviled Him,” with Luke’s testimony, which is to the effect that one of them reviled Christ, but that the other arrested him and believed on the Lord. The explanation will be, that Matthew and Mark, presenting a concise version of the passage under review, have employed the plural number instead of the singular; as is the case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we find the statement given in the plural form, that “they stopped the mouths of lions,”(Heb 11:33) while Daniel alone is understood to be referred to. Again, the plural number is adopted where it is said that they “were sawn asunder,”(Heb 11:37) while that manner of death is reported only of Isaiah. In the same way, when it is said in the Psalm, “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel together,” etc.,(Ps 2:2) the plural number is employed instead of the singular, according to the exposition given of the passage in the Ac of the Apostles. For those who have made use of the testimony of the said Psalm in that book take the kings to refer to Herod, and the princes to Pilate.(Acts 4:26-27) But further, inasmuch as the pagans are in the habit of bringing such slanderous charges against the Gospel, I would ask them to consider how their own writers have spoken of Phaedras and Medeas and Clytemnestras, when there really was but a single individual reputed trader each of these names. And what is more common, for example, than for a person to say, “The rustics also behave insolently to me,” even although it should only be one that acted rudely? In short, no real discrepancy would be created by the restriction of Luke’s report to one of the two robbers, unless the other evangelists had declared expressly that “both” the malefactors reviled the Lord; for in that case it would not be possible for us to suppose only one individual intended under the plural number. Seeing, however, that the phrase employed is “the robbers,” or “those who were crucified with Him,” and the term “both” is not added, the expression is one which might have been used if both these men had been engaged in the thing, but which might equally well be adopted if one of the two had been implicated in it,—that fact being then conveyed by the use of the plural number, according to a familiar method of speech. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.16)

 

[COPLAND_3]

**The Death of Jesus
(Matt 27:45-54 Mark 15:33-39 Luke 23:44-48 John 19:28-30)

OF THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS IN THEIR NOTICES OF THE DRAUGHT OF VINEGAR**
Matthew proceeds in the following terms: “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.”(Mt 27:45) The same fact is attested by two others of the evangelists.(Mark 15:33-36 Luke 23:44-45) Lc adds, however, a statement of the cause of the darkness, namely, that “the sun was darkened.” Again, Matthew continues thus: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani! that is to say, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? And some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.”(Mt 27:46-47) Mark’s agreement with this is almost complete, so far as regards the words, and not only almost, but altogether complete, so far as the sense is concerned. Matthew next makes this statement: “And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink.”(Mt 27:48) Mark presents it in a similar form: “And one ran, and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take Him down.”(Mark 15:36) Matthew, however, has represented these words about Elias to have been spoken, not by the person who offered the sponge with the vinegar, but by the rest. For his version runs thus: “But the rest said, Let be; let us see whether Elias will come to save Him;”(Mt 27:49) —from which, therefore, we infer that both the man specially referred to and the others who were there expressed themselves in these terms. Luke, again, has introduced this notice of the vinegar previous to his report of the robber’s insolence. He gives it thus: “And the soldiers also mocked Him, coming to Him, and offering Him vinegar, and saying, If thou be the King of the Jews, save thyself.”(Luke 23:36-37) It has been Luke’s purpose to embrace in one statement what was done and what was said by the soldiers. And we ought to feel no difficulty in the circumstance that he has not said explicitly that it was “one” of them who offered the vinegar. For, adopting a method of expression which we have discussed above, he has simply put the plural number for the singular.216 Moreover, Jn has also given us an account of the vinegar, where he says: “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to His mouth.”(Jn 19:28-29) But although the said Jn thus informs us that Jesus said “I thirst,” and also mentions that there was a vessel full of vinegar there, while the other evangelists leave these things unspecified, there is nothing to marvel at in this. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.17)
**
OF THE LORD’S SUCCESSIVE UTTERANCES WHEN HE WAS ABOUT TO DIE**
Matthew proceeds as follows: “And Jesus, crying again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”(Mt 27:50) In like manner, Mark says, “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.”(Mark 15:37) Luke, again, has told us what He said when that loud voice was uttered. For his version is thus: “And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit: and saying this, He gave up the ghost.”(Luke 23:46) John, on the other hand, as he has left unnoticed the first voice, which Matthew and Mc have reported—namely, “Eli, Eli”—has also passed over in silence the one which has been recited only by Luke, while the other two have referred to it under the designation of the “loud voice.” I allude to the cry, “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” Lc has also attested the fact that this exclamation was uttered with a loud voice; and hence we may understand this particular cry to be identified with the loud voice which Matthew and Mc have specified. But Jn has stated a fact which is noticed by none of the other three, namely, that He said “It is finished,” after He had received the vinegar. This cry we take to have been uttered previous to the loud voice referred to. For these are John’s words: “When Jesus, therefore, had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished; and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost.”(Jn 19:30) In the interval elapsing between this cry, “It is finished,” and what is referred to in the subsequent sentence, “and He bowed His head and gave up the ghost,” the voice was uttered which Jn himself has passed over without record, but which the other three have noticed. For the precise succession appears to be this, namely, that He said first “It is finished,” when what had been prophesied regarding Him was fulfilled in Him, and that thereafter—as if He had been waiting for this, like one, indeed, who died when He willed it to be so—He commended His spirit [to His Father], and resigned it. But, whatever the order may be in which a person may consider it likely that these words were spoken, he ought above all things to guard against entertaining the notion that any one of the evangelists is in antagonism with another, when one leaves unmentioned something which another has repeated, or particularizes something which another has passed by in silence. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.18)

 

[COPLAND_3]

OF THE RENDING OF THE VEIL OF THE TEMPLE
Matthew proceeds thus: “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.”(Mt 27:51) Mark’s version is also as follows: “And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.”(Mark 15:38) Lc likewise gives a statement in similar terms: “And the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.”(Luke 23:45) He does not introduce it, however, in the same order. For, with the intention of attaching miracle to miracle, he has told us first how “the sun was darkened,” and then has deemed it right to subjoin the said sentence in immediate succession, namely, “And the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.” Thus it would appear that he has introduced at an earlier point this incident, which really took place when the Lord expired, so as to give us there a summary description of the circumstances relating to the drinking of the vinegar, and the loud voice, and the death itself, which are understood to have taken place previous to the rending of the veil, and after the darkness had come in. For Matthew has inserted this sentence, “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent,” in immediate succession to the statement, “And Jesus, crying again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost;” and has thus given us clearly to understand that the time when the veil was rent was after Jesus had given up His spirit. If, however, he had not added the words, “And behold,” but had said simply, “And the veil of the temple was rent,” it would have been uncertain whether Mc and he had narrated the incident in the form of a recapitulation, while Lc had kept the exact order, or whether Lc had given the summary account of what these others had introduced in the correct historical succession. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.19)

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ASTONISHMENT FELT BY THE CENTURION AND THOSE WHO WERE WITH HIM.
Matthew proceeds thus: “And the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after the resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”(Mt 27:51-53) There is no reason to fear that these facts, which have been related only by Matthew, may appear to be inconsistent with the narratives presented by any one of the rest. The same evangelist then continues as follows: “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”(Mt 27:54) Mc offers this version: “And when the centurion which stood over against Him saw that He so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this was the Son of God.”(Mark 15:39) Luke’s report runs thus: “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.”(Luke 23:47) Here Matthew says that it was when they saw the earthquake that the centurion and those who were with him were thus astonished, whereas Luke represents the man’s amazement to have been drawn forth by the fact that Jesus uttered such a cry, and then gave up the ghost; thus making it clear how He had it in His own power to determine the time for His dying. But this involves no discrepancy. For as the said Matthew not only tells us how the centurion “saw the earthquake,” but also appends the words, “and those things that were done,” he has indicated that there was room enough for Lc to represent the Lord’s death as itself the thing which called forth the centurion’s wonder. For that event is also one of the things which were done in so marvellous a manner then. At the same time, even although Matthew had not added any such statement, it would still have been perfectly legitimate to suppose, that as many astonishing things did take place at that time, and as the centurion and those who were with him may well have looked upon them all with amazement, the historians were at liberty to select for narration any particular incident which they were severally disposed to instance as the subject of the man’s wonder. And it would not be fair to impeach them with inconsistency, simply because one of them may have specified one occurrence as the immediate cause of the centurion’s amazement, while another introduces a different incident. For all these events together had really been matters for the man’s astonishment. Again, the mere fact that one evangelist tells us that the centurion said, “Truly this was the Son of God,” while another informs us that the words were, “Truly this man was the Son of God,” will create no difficulty to any one who has retained some recollection of the numerous statements and discussions bearing upon similar cases, which have already been given above. For these different versions of the words both convey precisely the same sense and although one writer introduces the wore “man” while another does not, that implies no kind of contradiction. A greater appearance of discrepancy may be supposed to be created by the circumstance, that the words which Lc reports the centurion to have uttered are not “This was the Son of God,” but “This was a righteous man.” But we ought to suppose either that both things were actually said by the centurion, and that two of the evangelists have recorded the one expression, and the third the other; or else perhaps that it was Luke’s intention to bring out the exact idea which the centurion had in view when he said that Jesus was the Son of God. For it may be the case that the centurion did not really understand Him to be the Only-begotten, equal with the Father; but that he called Him the Son of God simply because he believed Him to be a righteous man, as many righteous men have been named sons of God.

 

[COPLAND_3]

continued…

Moreover, when Lc says, “Now when the centurion saw what was done,” he has really used terms which cover all the marvellous things which occurred on that occasion, commemorating a single deed of wonder, so to speak, of which all those miraculous incidents were, as we may say, members and parts. But, once more, as regards the circumstance that Matthew has also referred to those who were with the centurion, while the others have left these parties unnoticed, to whom will this not explain itself on the well-understood principle that there is no contradiction necessarily involved in the mere fact that one writer records what another passes by without mention? And, finally, as to Matthew’s having told us that “they feared greatly,” while Lc has said nothing about the man being afraid, but has informed us that “he glorified God,” who can fail to understand that he glorified [God] just by the fear which he exhibited? (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.20)

**
Witnesses of the Crucifixion
(Matt 27:55-56 Mark 15:40-41 Luke 23:49 John 19:25-27)**
Matthew proceeds thus: “And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee: among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.”(Mt 27:55-56) Mc gives it in this form: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome (who also, when He was in Galilee, followed Him, and ministered unto Him); and many other women which came up with Him unto Jerusalem.”(Mark 15:40-41) I see nothing which can be supposed to constitute a discrepancy between these writers here. For in what way can the truth be affected by the fact that some of these women are named in both lists, while others are referred to only in the one? Lc has likewise connected his narrations as follows: “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned. And all His acquaintance and the women that followed Him from Galilee stood afar off beholding these things.”(Luke 23:48-49) Here we perceive that he is quite in harmony with the former two as far as regards the presence of the women, although he does not mention any of them by name. On the subject of the multitude of people who were also present, and who, as they beheld the things which were done, smote their breasts and returned, he is in like manner at one with Matthew, although that evangelist has introduced into the context this distinct statement: “Now the centurion and they that were with him.” Thus it simply appears that Lc is the only one who has spoken expressly of His “acquaintance” who stood afar off. For Jn has also noticed the presence of the women before the Lord gave up the ghost. His narrative runs thus: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”(Jn 19:25-27) Now, as regards this statement, had not Matthew and Mc at the same time mentioned Mary Magdalene most explicitly by name, it might have been possible for us to say that there was one company of women afar off, and another near the cross. For none of these writers has mentioned the Lord’s mother here but Jn himself. The question, therefore, which rises now is this, How can we understand the same Mary Magdalene both to have stood afar off along with other women, as the accounts of Matthew and Mark bear, and to have been by the cross, as Jn tells us, unless it be the case that these women were at such a distance as made it quite legitimate to say at once that they were near, because they were at hand there in the sight of Him, and also afar off in comparison with the crowd of people who were standing round about in closer vicinity along with the centurion and the soldiers? It is open for us, then, to suppose that those women who were present at the scene along with the Lord’s mother, after He commended her to the disciple, began then to retire with the view of extricating themselves from the dense mass of people, and of looking on at what remained to be done from a greater distance. And in this way the rest of the evangelists, who have introduced their notices of these women only after the Lord’s death, have properly reported them to be standing by that time afar off. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.21)

 

[COPLAND_3]

The Burial of Jesus
(Matt 27:57-61 Mark 15:42-47 Luke 23:50-56 John 19:38-42)
OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVANGELISTS ARE ALL AT ONE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NARRATIVE REGARDING JOSEPH
Matthew proceeds as follows: “Now when the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: he went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.”(Mt 27:57-58) Mc presents it in this form: “And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable councillor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if He were already dead: and, calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether He had been any while dead. And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.”(Mark 15:42-45) Luke’s report runs in these terms: “And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a councillor; and he was a good man, and a just (the same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them): he was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.”(Luke 23:50-52) John, on the other hand, first narrates the breaking of the legs of those who had been crucified with the Lord, and the piercing of the Lord’s side with the lance (which whole passage has been recorded by him alone), and then subjoins a statement which is of the same tenor with what is given by the other evangelists. It proceeds in these terms: “And after this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.”(Jn 19:38) There is nothing here to give any one of them the appearance of being in antagonism with another. But some one may perhaps ask whether Jn is not inconsistent with himself, when he at once unites with the rest in telling us how Joseph begged the body of Jesus, and comes forward as the only one who states here that Joseph had been a disciple of Jesus secretly for fear of the Jews. For the question may reasonably be raised as to how it happened that the man who had been a disciple secretly for fear had the courage to beg His body—a thing which not one of those who were His open followers was bold enough to do. We must understand, however, that this man did so in the confidence which his dignified position gave him, the possession of which rendered it possible for him to make his way on familiar terms into Pilate’s presence. And we must suppose, further, that in the performance of that last service relating to the interment, he cared less for the Jews, however he tried in ordinary circumstances, when hearing the Lord, to avoid exposing himself to their enmity. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.22)

 

[COPLAND_3]

**
OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FIRST THREE EVANGELISTS ARE QUITE IN HARMONY WITH JOHN IN THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN OF HIS BURIAL**
Matthew proceeds thus: “And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.”(Mt 27:59-60) Mark’s version is as follows: “And he bought fine linen, and took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen, and laid Him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.”(Mark 15:46) Lc reports it in those terms: “And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.”(Luke 23:53) So far as these three narratives are concerned, no allegation of a want of harmony can possibly be raised. John, however, tells us that the burial of the Lord was attended to not only by Joseph, but also by Nicodemus. For he begins with Nicodemus in due connection with what precedes, and goes on with his narrative as follows: “And there came also Nicodemus (which at the first came to Jesus by night), and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.”(Jn 19:39) Then, introducing Joseph again at this point, he continues in these terms: “Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus, therefore, because of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.”(Jn 19:40-42) But there is really as little ground for supposing any discrepancy here as there was in the former case, if we take a correct view of the statement. For those evangelists who have left Nicodemus unnoticed have not affirmed that the Lord was buried by Joseph alone, although he is the only one introduced into their records. Neither does the fact, that these three are all at one in informing us how the Lord was wrapped in the linen cloth by Joseph, preclude us from entertaining the idea that other linen stuffs may have been brought by Nicodemus, and added to what was given by Joseph, so that Jn may be perfectly correct in his narrative, especially as what he tells us is that the Lord was wrapped not in a linen cloth, but in linen clothes. At the same time, when we take into account the handkerchief which was used for the head, and the bandages with which the whole body was swathed, and consider that all these were made of linen, we can see how, even although there was really but a single linen cloth [of the kind referred to by the first three evangelists] there, it could still have been stated with the most perfect truth that “they wound Him in linen clothes.” For the phrase, linen clothes, is one applied generally to all textures made of flax. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.23)

 

[Don_Jackson]

The Church is pretty liberal on this, which some people are going to find hard to believe.

See The Historical Truth of the Gospels issued by the Church in 1964.

Rome insists see the Gospels as historical in the sense that the four accounts of the ministry of Jesus took their origin in words that Jesus spoke and deeds he performed.

However, the Church acknowledges that those words and deeds underwent considerable adaptation from the time of Jesus’ ministry until the time when they were written.

There was a period of oral transmission of the Gospels, and the apostles preaching what Jesus said and did infused accounts of Jesus with a post-resurrection insight into his divinity - and insight they had not had when he was alive.

By the time the gospels were written, the narratives of the ministry were no always literal accounts of what Jesus said and did.

The Church say in the document, “The truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order and express his sayings not literally but differently while preserving their sense.”

It seems not many Catholics are aware of this Church stance on the Gospels.