My professor told us the Holy Innocents weren’t real?

[Erikaspirit16]

What, precisely, is the “essential truth” of the Bible?

If you are an astute Biblical scholar, you will realize that the Catholic Church has never published an “official” commentary on the Bible (and never will). Instead, there are various translations and commentaries that are “approved,” even though they may give different interpretations. This is because various interpretations are possible in many cases, and all of them can be valid simultaneously (see my “truths” about Star Wars above–there can be many “truths”). You can range from the historical-critical St. Jerome Commentary to the Opus Dei Navarre Bible. Both are approved by the Church, yet they contain different points of view. Both are valid.

The “essential truth” of the Bible? I suppose in the most basic form it’s simply that God exists, God loves us, God wants us to obey and worship him, and that God offers us eternal life in Heaven if we do. You could add to this, of course, but you couldn’t remove any of those things as “details that don’t matter.”

I’m not familiar with the Bultmann quotation. Of course it begs the question of how you could be certain that the bones were actually Jesus’s. But let’s assume we could somehow “prove” that. Would that matter? Yes, it would. Because an essential doctrine (or “truth” if you will) is that Jesus rose from the dead (physically) and ascended into Heaven, bodily. Therefore, no bones on earth. Those things are an intrinsic part of the “message.” Catholics are only required to believe in two miracles: The incarnation and the resurrection.

The threshold for deciding what is trivial detail vs. what is crucial to the message? I think that’s fairly easy: Ask yourself “If I change or delete this detail, does it affect the point of the story?” And yes, the story could have multiple “points.” But the points are not contradictory, they are complementary. For example, the point of a story could be both “Obey God” and “God is good.”

You read scripture with the community it lives in.

Exactly. We should always keep in mind that the Church existed for 20+ years without any of the New Testament we now have, and for 60+ years without the complete New Testament. The Church validates the New Testament, not the other way around (although of course there is a complementary element where the Church confirms something in the NT that confirms the Church). To get back to bobperk’s point–any interpretation of the Bible is subject to the approval of the Church. You could, of course, have some interpretation that is contrary to Church doctrine–and by definition that would be a “wrong” interpretation. By definition (as a Catholic) any interpretation has to agree with the Church’s teachings.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

How can you ever know what to take literally or not?

As I said, I think the criterion is “Can I remove or change this detail without changing the point of the story?” Beyond that, there are a host of things you take literally: Jesus was born in Judea; he preached; he had apostles and followers; he preached; etc. In other words, the general things. And there might be some specific things, too, although you have to be very careful about those because the “actual” fact might have been changed in the service of a higher truth–for example being born in Bethlehem. It fits a prophecy, so it may have well been put in there because it fulfilled the prophecy, not because Jesus was literally born in Bethlehem. We don’t know.

 

[BlackFriar]

Bob thankyou for confirming you are unable to discern between outstanding, respected Catholic Biblical Scholars from Protestant ones - let alone crackpots in any discipline.

Your only manner of discernment is to choose whoever reinforces the unreflected biases of your childhood Catechetical “formation”.

Good luck with that.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Here’s a question for HarryStotle and bobperk. Let’s take a random story from the New Testament–let’s say the story of the Centurion. It’s in Matthew and Luke, but not the others. Here it is in Luke, 7:2-10:

“And the servant of a certain centurion, who was dear to him, being sick, was ready to die. And when he had heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the ancients of the Jews, desiring him to come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying to him: He is worthy that thou shouldest do this for him. And Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent his friends to him, saying: Lord, trouble not thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. For which cause neither did I think myself worthy to come to thee; but say the word, and my servant shall be healed. Which Jesus hearing, marveled: and turning about to the multitude that followed him, he said: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith, not even in Israel. And they who were sent, being returned to the house, found the servant whole who had been sick.”

There’s a lot of detail in there. So you tell me: What’s the point of the story? What details matter? What details could be changed or omitted without affecting the point of the story?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There’s a lot of detail in there. So you tell me: What’s the point of the story? What details matter? What details could be changed or omitted without affecting the point of the story?

I think a better question is, why should everybody have to perform this kind of analysis on their Scripture reading?

It’s like some kind of misplaced English test essay question.

 

[LilyM]

ascetic:

A lot of things happen every day that aren’t written about,

I don’t really want to argue about things that Christians take as a matter of faith but . . .

Herod was hugely unpopular and such an event would have certainly been noticed - yet there are no sources beyond something in one Gospel.

Such an action by such a King and no mention in Jewish sources?

Henry VIII of England was also hugely unpopular - and had many misdeeds both noticed and recorded. I don’t think any historian would claim, given that he killed people by the hundreds if not.the thousands during his reign, and the somewhat fragile nature of documents and artifacts, that we have on record every single one of his many atrocities.

 

[HarryStotle]

Here’s a question for HarryStotle and bobperk. Let’s take a random story from the New Testament–let’s say the story of the Centurion. It’s in Matthew and Luke, but not the others. Here it is in Luke, 7:2-10:

“And the servant of a certain centurion, who was dear to him, being sick, was ready to die. And when he had heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the ancients of the Jews, desiring him to come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying to him: He is worthy that thou shouldest do this for him. And Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent his friends to him, saying: Lord, trouble not thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. For which cause neither did I think myself worthy to come to thee; but say the word, and my servant shall be healed. Which Jesus hearing, marveled: and turning about to the multitude that followed him, he said: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith, not even in Israel. And they who were sent, being returned to the house, found the servant whole who had been sick.”

There’s a lot of detail in there. So you tell me: What’s the point of the story? What details matter? What details could be changed or omitted without affecting the point of the story?

The point of the story is that it wasn’t merely a story, it was an event and all of the details matter. It was related in the Gospel by Luke to give readers insight into the significance of the life of Jesus and the Centurian’s authentic response to Jesus from which we can continue to glean new insights precisely because the entire story matters.

 

[Kei]

According to what my professor said, there are no records of this sensus, which is strange considering that the Romans kept accurate records of everything

Oh my golly. Did he give examples of the minutiae they kept records of that we have? The newsflash is this: much of the Roman records were lost…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The point of the story is that it wasn’t merely a story, it was an event and all of the details matter. It was related in the Gospel by Luke to give readers insight into the significance of the life of Jesus and the Centurian’s authentic response to Jesus from which we can continue to glean new insights precisely because the entire story matters.

Terrific. Well, if ALL of the details “matter,” let’s turn to the same story in Matthew 8:5-13:

“And when he had entered into Capharnaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grieviously tormented. And Jesus saith to him: I will come and heal him. And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel. And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said to the centurion: Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee. And the servant was healed at the same hour.”

So here we have a simple story told by only two Gospels, not three or four, and yet there are clear differences.

Luke: the servant is dying Matthew: the servant is “sick of the palsy.”
Luke: the Centurion sends the Jewish elders to ask Jesus to come
Matthew: the Centurion comes to Jesus himself
Luke: the Jewish elders vouch for the Centurion–“He is worthy”
Matthew: no Jewish elders, no vouching for the Centurion
Luke: the Centurion sends his friends to Jesus saying he’s not worthy
Matthew: the Centurion talks to Jesus himself
Luke: the Centurion says he’s not worthy to come to Jesus personally
Matthew: the Centurion does indeed come to Jesus personally
Luke and Matthew: Jesus praises the Centurion’s faith (in almost the same words in both Gospels)
Luke: the messengers the Centurion had sent to Jesus return and find the servant healed
Matthew: “the servant was healed at the same hour” (presumably at the time Jesus said “as you hath believed, so it be done to thee.”
Luke: No mention of any words Jesus said to cure the servant
Matthew: Two long passages not found in Luke, one about the Centurion having authority–presumably comparing his own authority to Jesus’s authority over sickess; the second long passage about people coming from the East and the West and sitting down with the prophets vs. “the children of the kingdom” being cast into darkness.

continued…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

So if you say “the entire story matters” you have some choices.

1. You see these as two separate stories
2. You start twisting yourself in knots trying to reconcile the stories (maybe the Centurion sent the Jewish elders, but then came out to meet Jesus when he got closer…but wait, we’ve got a problem–the Centurion explicitly says in Luke he wasn’t worthy to come to Jesus in person. So…hmmm…)
3. You can say the main point of the story was the same (God will reward faith) but that Matthew has an additional point (Gentiles will accept Jesus more readily than the Jews). And the details don’t matter.

Would it make a difference if instead of “Centurion” it was “Senior Centurion” or “Elitus” (both higher ranks)? Does it matter if the Centurion sent Jewish elders to Jesus or if he came himself? Does it matter if the servant were “dying” or if he had “palsy”? Does it matter whether the Jewish elders vouched for the Centurion or not? You can go on and on. If these things “matter” how do you reconcile the stories? If they DON’T matter, then there is no problem. Personally, I go with the “no problem” solution.

I think another question to ask is “Did these differences matter to the Church at the time? Did the Church try to reconcile these differences? Did the Church change one Gospel to match the other?” And of course the answer to all those questions is “No.” The Church accepted both stories as valid, despite their differences. And I’m sure people at the time were very much aware of the differences. But no one seems to have cared. Why would that be?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I think a better question is, why should everybody have to perform this kind of analysis on their Scripture reading?

It’s like some kind of misplaced English test essay question.

If you mean “I read the Bible but I never ask myself what the point of the stories is” then I think you have a problem.

If you mean you don’t sit down and “analyze” the stories in different Gospels line by line and consciously compare them, that’s fine. As long as you realize that they almost never agree in details, and that the details don’t matter.

 

[HarryStotle]

Several points:

1. Although there are differences between the two accounts, the differences do not rise to the level of being contradictory.
2. In ancient times a high ranking official sending someone in their stead was not seen in any way different from the official going themself. The agent was taken to be the literal representation of the person. In that sense, it didn’t matter to the way the event was understood by the ancients whether the Centurian went himself or sent an agent, although the two Gospel writers use both slightly differently to highlight the humility and faith of the Centurion.
3. There is no forced choice to be made between “the details don’t matter at all” and “every detail makes all the difference.” Highlighting or presenting different details to make different points is not an admission that details don’t matter at all nor does it imply that all or any details can be dispensed with altogether. It isn’t as if the accounts can be presented absent all details.
4. All the details do matter to the intended truth being conveyed by the Gospel writers, though some may matter more than others. If each Gospel writer intended to highlight a slightly different truth from any specific event, they may utilize slightly different details. Ergo, the details may matter to the writer, though perhaps not to you a reader who may not be familiar with the larger intention of the writer.

 

[HarryStotle]

Bob thankyou for confirming you are unable to discern between outstanding, respected Catholic Biblical Scholars from Protestant ones - let alone crackpots in any discipline.

Speaking of Raymond E. Brown…

“If we ever make Christian faith totally dependent on the latest scholarly interpretation of a text, it could change each week.”

• Raymond E. Brown in an article by Peter Steinfels, “Scholar Sees 4 Views of Jesus’ Death,” New York Times, March 27, 1994.
  http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/27/us/scholar-sees-4-views-of-jesus-in-accounts-of-death.html

Your only manner of discernment is to choose whoever reinforces the unreflected biases of your childhood Catechetical “formation”.

As opposed to choosing whoever reinforces the modernist biases of your adult Catechetical “formation?”

Look, if Catholic teaching is anything it has to be organic in nature (think mustard seed becoming mustard tree.) It may grow but it keeps its inherent nature. It cannot be subject to total revision or overhaul when we get tired of the old and decide on a whim to bring in the new. Pope Benedict called it the hermeneutic of continuity.

 

[bobperk]

Well, this post was originally posted in regards to the Massacre of the Holy Innocents.

And at this point it is evident that there are some seemingly irreconcilable differences between two groups here, one of which allows for and is comfortable with some made up stories to be intertwined with the truth in the Gospels, and another who accepts these passages as facts even though not corroborated in extra-Biblical histories. Seeing that the Church does NOT teach that the story of the Holy Innocents is just “made up,” and that we still mark a feast on the liturgical calendar on December 28, it seems most fitting to accept this story on faith despite the musings of skeptical academics.

Considering this passage and its historicity is not the same as discussing “differences” like the amount of angels at the empty tomb, the details of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, etc. Those differences should indeed be studied and discerned, and altogether, through faith and reason, work together to prove the veracity of the Evangelists’ accounts. True, it is a bit more difficult for this passage because it appears in only one Gospel and is not recorded outside the Bible. But it should not just be dismissed immediately because modern scholars have deemed it unhistorical or midrash. Some have commented that the episode smacks of St. Matthew’s attempt to relate OT prophecy to the birth of Jesus. Well, the OT as a whole points toward the Lord. Does one dismiss the account of Judas’s betrayal because it is similar to the story of Joseph’s brothers betraying him in Genesis?

Otherwise, what are we commemorating on that feast day if it did not happen? The “concept” of a massacre? Are we just marking the symbolic deaths of made-up babies? Just remembering a “myth?” If so, we might as well update it for modern sensibilities, perhaps by lamenting the younglings who met their untimely end in Star Wars, or for the unfortunate souls who perished in the Hunger Games!

Echoing the words of our Holy Father, Pope Francis, “Christmas is also accompanied, whether we like it or not, by tears. The Evangelists did not disguise reality to make it more credible or attractive. They did not indulge in words that were comforting but unrelated to reality. For them, Christmas was not a flight to fantasy, a way of hiding from the challenges and injustices of their day. On the contrary, they relate the birth of the Son of God as an event fraught with tragedy and grief. Quoting the prophet Jeremiah, Matthew presents it in the bluntest of terms: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children’ (2:18). It is the sobbing of mothers bewailing the death of their children in the face of Herod’s tyranny and unbridled thirst for power.”

 

[tweedlealice]

Blessings
The Bible wasn’t compiled till 300AD. The Hebrew scrolls were available. St. Paul had written his Epistles. Witnesses of Jesus were writing down HIS teachings.
WORD OF MOUTH is a valid historical tool. That’s all they had.
God bless

 

[joeybaggz]

You know, a question comes to mind. If Herod didn’t actually kill the innocent children, why did Mary and Joseph flee into Egypt at the urging of the angel? I would think something nefarious was afoot.
Or is that something that didn’t really occur and was written for the heck of it?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Although there are differences between the two accounts, the differences do not rise to the level of being contradictory.

OK, it’s clear I can’t possibly convince you I’m right, and there’s no way you can convince me you’re right. We’ve crossed paths before with the same result (no result at all…). So I’ll do my best to avoid commenting on your posts, although if I think it might enlighten a 3rd party, I’ll give it a shot.

Your point #2 makes sense, except here you have one Gospel explicitly saying that the Centurion didn’t think he was worthy to talk to Jesus directly and another Gospel saying he did talk to him directly. If that’s not a contradiction, I don’t know what is. But you’re certainly right when you say “it didn’t matter to the way the event was understood by the ancients [or us…] whether the Centurion went himself or sent an agent…” Exactly what I’ve been saying–the details don’t matter!

Point 3–if there is no “forced choice” between “details don’t matter” and “every detail makes all the difference” then it seems you are saying some details matter and some don’t. If you don’t like my criterion (Does omitting or changing the detail change the point of the story?) what criterion would you use? And no, the details can’t be just done away with–they make it a more interesting story. But that doesn’t mean they are relevant to the meaning.

And your point 4–I agree. It’s possible for one writer to emphasize one point of a story while another writer emphasizes another aspect of the same story. Fair enough. But that rarely happens. And it doesn’t happen here–the business about the Gentiles and the Jews is just tacked on at the end by Matthew. It’s not like Matthew made a bigger deal out of the Centurion being Roman and not a Jew; Luke and Matthew treated that portion of the story exactly the same.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

one of which allows for and is comfortable with some made up stories to be intertwined with the truth in the Gospels

Maybe I haven’t done a good enough job if that’s what you think. I’ll give it another try.

It’s not that “made up stories are intertwined with the truth.” Not at all. The question is this: What is “the truth”? Some people seem to believe that every little detail = “the truth” and that to deny the accuracy of one of these details somehow unravels the entire Bible. That’s a very literalist and evangelical way of looking at things. But certainly some of these “made up stories” (to use your term) are not literally true, but are an analogy? Or what if they lead you to some higher truth about salvation? If you believe that “the truth” is (as Dei Verbum and the Catechism both say) “…that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” then these stories are “true” in the sense that they have a valid point; but not that they are 100% accurate in terms of detail.

You don’t have to be telling a factually true, accurate story to make a point. Aesop’s fables all make excellent points. But did a hare and a tortoise actually run a race? Did a fox try to eat grapes that were out of reach? Of course not. Does that make Aesop’s fables a bunch of nonsense? Of course not again. They are fictitious stories told to make a point. The same with modern fiction or movies, and yes, that includes Star Wars. I suspect a lot of people were led to re-examine their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, after having seen Star Wars and all that talk about “the force.”

Could we have a holiday to celebrate a myth? Sure. Almost all our holidays do that. Same with the church. Remember the fuss 20+ years ago when the church “demoted” certain saints? St. George, for example? Did that mean that the church was somehow “wrong” for 1900+ years for venerating St. George? Of course not. Did St. George actually kill a dragon? No. That’s just silly. Did the dragon represent the devil or evil? Of course again. Did St. George fight evil? Yes. Or you could go to all sorts of secular myths from William Tell to Pocahontas to Robin Hood. Are these myths historically accurate in their details? No way. But do these stories make points that we should take seriously? Absolutely. And if we celebrate these myths, are we saying that we absolutely believe in their historical accuracy? Or are we saying that we agree with the points that the myths are communicating? So how is this different when we turn to the Bible?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Or is that something that didn’t really occur and was written for the heck of it?

It seems to me we agreed about something on another thread. But apparently not here!

The slaughter of the innocents and the sojourn in Egypt weren’t just “written for the heck of it.” The Gospel writers were all very keen to show that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament, and that Jesus was duplicating the events of the Old Testament. The Old Testament had pharaoh kill innocent babies in order to kill Moses; the New Testament has Herod kill innocent babies in order to kill Jesus. Joseph (hey look! it’s even the same name!!!) was sold into slavery in Egypt and eventually his descendants left Egypt to found Israel. Joseph (the “new” Joseph) also went to Egypt, and left…so that his son Jesus could found a “new” Israel. Parallel stories. Very common at that time. Should we take it all as literally true? It’s up to you, but there’s no doctrinal reason we need to.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The Bible wasn’t compiled till 300AD

Whaaaat???