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

[HarryStotle]

Given that he died without opprobrium or defrocking or censure and none of his 25 publications being indexed I suggest he is Kosher until proven otherwise. And therefore his views also.

Perhaps, but his good standing in general does not imply that every one of his views were necessarily correct.

It is not a very big step from “he is Kosher,” to “he thought X and y, therefore he must have believed z.” Before long we have a whole set of questionable theological ideas “based upon” Fr. Brown’s good standing in general.

You likely do know that part of the critique against Fr Brown is that he seemed to accept or at least defended some questionable ideas in his career that he later distanced himself from.

One little parlour trick that is sometimes used is to cite a theologian like Brown regarding some questionable ideas, making use of his reputation to support those ideas, while never explaining that Brown later in his career eschewed those ideas.

By the way, Ehrman often does something similar where is points at the historical evidence that supports his views but totally ignores all the evidence that would negate or debunk them.

So what other names have you got?

 

[HarryStotle]

As the name of Raymond Brown has been bandied about here the following article is interesting:
Library : Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown's Theories | Catholic Culture

By the way, the article stops just short of calling Fr. Brown’s theology modernist and heretical, and this citing several very prominent Catholic theologians.

So I am puzzled why you would cite the article in the first place since is doesn’t exactly revere or esteem Fr Brown’s work.

 

[BlackFriar]

Clearly you have me pre-boxed as a biased “liberal” so that “does not compute” for you.
In fact I am attempting to make an objective appraisal of the man.
I said the article was “interesting”.

I have no particular axe to grind other than that of common sense and openness.
Unlike some others here…and perhaps yourself for even making such an observation .

 

[tweedlealice]

IBlessings
I was wrong. I knew better. The Constantine organizing the books time was what I erroneously wrote. I apologize.
Oral traditions carried us till writings started. Jesus died 33 AD. St. Paul was converted 33-36AD. He died in 68 AD. Other Epistles were sent to first churches by other Apostles. I was told around 50 AD the letters were getting collected.The latest date, for completed books brought together, is 120AD.
Researching this is complicated. To summarize it, is difficult for me. Google specifics.
Constantine, allegedly,organized some books. Some others think not??! Something worked.
Some of my writings are done late. Was I half asleep 300AD???! Again, SORRY GUYS

 

[HarryStotle]

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!

Actually, you can’t conclude from my point that “the details,” as in all of them inclusively, “don’t matter.” In fact, how this little detail – i.e., the distinction between the Centurian going in person or by representation – is read, does matter. If it is read as a flat contradiction, as Ehrman does, or as the two meaning essentially the same thing, as the ancients did, that makes the very detail important.

Ehrman lost his faith based upon his reading of such details.

Now you may claim faith just ignores such details, but there are many in the same boat as Ehrman who will use their lack of historical or philosophical acumen to merely swallow everything people like Ehrman have to say. They don’t even bother exploring the so-called “contradictions” from perspectives other than Ehrman’s. There are plenty of good counter-perspectives. In fact, I think Ehrman has been a major catalyst to many delving far deeper into Scripture than they would otherwise have.

Anyone who accepts Ehrman’s position on the Gospels as fictional narratives will either come away from it with two convictions.

1. The Gospels and Christianity in general are not true because the stories don,t bear out historically, therefore the theology is largely invented.
2. Ehrman hasn’t done a very credible job with analyzing the historical context of the Gospels and the early Church because he lets a number of his own biases and metaphysical presumptions intrude on his research. There is far more to this both historically and theologically than Ehrman cares to admit.

Very few, I would propose, take your position that the Gospels are full if historical contradictions but the details don’t matter, so all is hunky dory theologically.

It doesn’t matter that George Washington didn’t chop down the cherry tree, it is the importance of honesty that the story conveys that is crucial, not the history. That describes your position. Ehrman just takes the next step and denies the need for God if the moral “truth” behind the stories is all we need.

I think the truth of the Gospels and Christianity is far richer than that precisely because the truth has been embodied in history in ways we couldn’t expect, which is why the intellectually complacent simply deny the historicity while gulping down the esoteric and largely generic “spiritual” truths which they don’t even need to deny so much as ignore.

 

[bobperk]

You make the mistake of equating the minor differences in details between two Gospel accounts of the same story, and also considering the Massacre of the Holy Innocents just another “detail” within the larger framework of Matthew’s infancy narrative. So your example of the Centurion is not a proper comparison to the Holy Innocents.

Now, if both Matthew and Luke recounted the story of the Holy Innocents, but put them in different locations, different times, and gave an actual number of children killed which differed by a large margin, then there would be major problems.

I never claimed that every single detail matters; in fact, when multiple Gospels tell the same story with different details, but those details help amplify the story and do not change the meaning or intent of the story, then those differing accounts actually add up to authenticate the story.

The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke are indeed challenging because they both offer many details that are not repeated in the other Gospels. But that does not mean that these stories should be dismissed out of hand because they do not appear elsewhere in Scripture and have not been proven by archaeology or corroborated in contemporary historical works.

One reason the OP’s professor probably casts doubt upon the Holy Innocents is that its depiction in art and description in commentary differs from the actual account in Matthew, which is quite brief. Paintings depict a dramatized slaughter, and legends put the number of children killed in the thousands. But Matthew does not give a number, and his account of the Massacre is just a couple of sentences. Same goes for the visit of the Wise Men, of which the account grew to be embellished by other legends, names of the men, etc. So in both cases, these accounts were amplified much beyond the actual text of Scripture to the point that the entire stories were dismissed. But there is a much more measured way to believe both of them. Black Friar stated that the Massacre of the Innocents may have been just a few children. Perhaps it was, and it probably was just a few; for the Gospel heading “Massacre of the Innocents” itself appears in many Bibles, but is not part of the actual text, nevertheless it has become a very common introductory phrase to the story in many Bibles. And the connotation of the word “massacre” invokes images of mass slaughter. But that is not Matthew’s fault.

 

[vsedriver]

We have lots of ancient records about unicorns and dragons.

There is no historical proof they never existed either.

Hopefully you are not gullible enough to believe in these.

But I suppose you can if you want to as it actually makes no difference to anything

do you have access to historical documents that refer to unicorns and dragons as being real? or do you put the Gospels in the same category as fables? Is Suetonius’s tale of Caesar just another fable?

 

[BlackFriar]

I do not pick up any text in paper and assume I am reading pure history.
Do you?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

In fact, how this little detail – i.e., the distinction between the Centurian going in person or by representation – is read, does matter. If it is read as a flat contradiction, as Ehrman does, or as the two meaning essentially the same thing, as the ancients did, that makes the very detail important.

Ehrman lost his faith based upon his reading of such details.

Ehrman had two reasons for becoming an atheist: 1) The problem of evil. I gave a reference above to an Amazon review of his book “God’s Problem” that I think pretty well tackled Ehrman’s issue. Ehrman believes in an “active” God, who is constantly inferfering with and tinkering with the universe. So Ehrman naturally sees every natural evil (sickness, earthquakes, etc.) as God swooping down and intentionally singling out Sally or Billy Bob and smiting them. I personally think that view of God is misguided and bizarre. 2) As you say, Ehrman looked at all the issues with the Bible and said, “If this is the inerrant Word of God, and every word is supposedly true, the whole thing is nonsense because of all the contradictions.”

But, going back to what you wrote, there is a middle way between Bart’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater and accepting every single detail as “essential to the story.” And of course the middle way is to say, “Yes, there are differences in the Bible stories. That’s natural since they were written by men. But what is “revelation” is the point of the stories, and as long as different details don’t change the point of the story, there is no problem.” And of course that’s my view.

[Conclusion from Ehrman’s point of view =] The Gospels and Christianity in general are not true because the stories don’t bear out historically, therefore the theology is largely invented.

We both agree that this is a problem. I think we both agree that people can read Ehrman and come to this conclusion; I also think that anyone reading the Bible with care will find the “contradictions” on their own, and for many it will be disconcerting.

Where I think we part company (?) is that you seem to be saying that you have to take each story as a whole; if you question one detail, the whole fabric unravels. And I am saying the essential part of each story is it’s moral lesson or point–and that the details are irrelevant.

Now if I were a person who was disconcerted by the problems I found in the Bible, and you came along and said, “Well, it’s all a whole. Take it or leave it.” I would leave it. I think my explanation is a much better counter argument.

Very few, I would propose, take your position that the Gospels are full if historical contradictions but the details don’t matter, so all is hunky dory theologically.

I don’t know. There is no poll on the subject that I’m aware of. However, Garry Wills shares my point of view, as does Ratzinger (see above, about the date of the Last Supper). I think it’s tough to toss Ratzinger’s opinion aside as that of some liberal secular theorist!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

It doesn’t matter that George Washington didn’t chop down the cherry tree, it is the importance of honesty that the story conveys that is crucial, not the history. That describes your position. Ehrman just takes the next step and denies the need for God if the moral “truth” behind the stories is all we need.

Exactly. I couldn’t have stated my position better, so thank you. But, to continue your analogy with Washington, Ehrman would come along and say “Well, if the story about the cherry tree was a lie, there must not have been a George Washington who was revered for his honesty.” That’s because for Ehrman it’s an all or nothing proposal. Either it’s all true, or none of it’s true. To me that’s just crazy, and illogical. And so I agree with your proposition #2, which was that he lets his own biases and presumptions intrude. (By the way, he is sometimes intellectually dishonest–in one book he had some quotation I thought was bizarre; I had never heard it. So I looked it up in my Oxford Parallel Bible–Greek text + about 6 different translations. Ehrman’s translation wasn’t there. So I pursued it further. Eventually I figured out what Ehrman had done–he had taken this particular translation from a single manuscript that virtually no one had accepted as the real text. If he had identified it as such, no problem. He presented it as the “standard” text.)

which is why the intellectually complacent simply deny the historicity while gulping down the esoteric and largely generic “spiritual” truths which they don’t even need to deny so much as ignore.

We were doing so well up till then…I certainly wouldn’t call myself “intellectually complacent” and what I keep calling “the point” of the Bible stories is certainly not “esoteric.” If you want to attack my position, it’s much more accurate to call my interpretation “simplistic,” not “esoteric” because I generally reduce all lthe stories to something like “Obey God” or “Love your neighbor.” On the other hand, Jesus did the same thing when asked, so I don’t feel too bad…

Ideally I would love to have both of us teach a high school religion class, as a team. We would read a Bible story, you would give your interpretation, and I would give mine. Then we would say, “And you know what? These are both acceptable ways of approaching the Bible in the Catholic Church.” Maybe you disagree, and that’s sad. But if you notice, I have never, ever said your position is “wrong.” I’ve always said it presents a lot of problems.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You make the mistake of equating the minor differences in details between two Gospel accounts of the same story, and also considering the Massacre of the Holy Innocents just another “detail” within the larger framework of Matthew’s infancy narrative. So your example of the Centurion is not a proper comparison to the Holy Innocents.

I agree with you. I wasn’t trying to equate the two stories. The only reason I brought in the story of the Centurion is that is was very short and gave me an example to analyze without writing a book. The Holy Innocents story is more complicated, although the same principles would apply in my opinion.

Now, if both Matthew and Luke recounted the story of the Holy Innocents, but put them in different locations, different times, and gave an actual number of children killed which differed by a large margin, then there would be major problems.

That’s where we disagree. I would just brush those issues aside as irrelevant to the point of the story.

when multiple Gospels tell the same story with different details, but those details help amplify the story and do not change the meaning or intent of the story, then those differing accounts actually add up to authenticate the story.

You’re actually almost quoting one of my earlier posts on this thread. I couldn’t agree more.

dismissed out of hand because they do not appear elsewhere in Scripture and have not been proven by archaeology or corroborated in contemporary historical works.

This has never been my position. I am not–and have ever been–looking for some 3rd party corroboration of a Biblical story. Others have expressed that view, not me. If you found some 3rd party confirmation of some facts that would be interesting, but even if a 3rd party contradicted the Bible story, that wouldn’t bother me. Again, I’m interested in the theological point of the story, not details.

Black Friar stated that the Massacre of the Innocents may have been just a few children. Perhaps it was, and it probably was just a few;

Or perhaps it was none at all. It doesn’t matter. The story is making a theological point, not an historical assertion.

And the fact that Western art has portrayed all sorts of Bible stories in a multitude of ways in fact confirms what I am saying–if you compared paintings (the Taschen series does this!) about the Annunciation, or the Massacre of the Innocents, or whatever, you don’t have identical paintings. You have different versions of the same event. But my point would be that any Christian can readily look at any of the hundred or thousands of paintings of the Annunciation and say “Oh, that’s the Annunciation.”

 

[HarryStotle]

But, to continue your analogy with Washington, Ehrman would come along and say “Well, if the story about the cherry tree was a lie, there must not have been a George Washington who was revered for his honesty.” That’s because for Ehrman it’s an all or nothing proposal.

Actually, you need to read more Ehrman because the example of George Washington is his, and he would not deny there was a George Washington just as he does not deny there was a Jesus Christ. What he does conclude is that the moral truths contained in the Gospels do not require the theological implications, those were added later (Ehrman wrongly claims). Ergo the moral truth in the George Washington story is irrelevant to the actual existence of George Washington, he just makes a convenient medium for its conveyance.

The actual existence of GW, however, is determined by other facts and evidence, just like the actual existence of Jesus Christ is in some sense, irrelevant to the moral truths contained in his purported teachings, but Ehrman claims the preponderance of other evidence is conclusive that Jesus existed. He just doesn’t accept the theological stuff, which he claims was added later.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

he would not deny there was a George Washington

I agree–but I said: “there must not have been a George Washington who was revered for his honesty.” I.e., there was a George Washington all right, but not one revered for honesty, which is a fictitious addition.

 

[bobperk]

Or perhaps it was none at all. It doesn’t matter. The story is making a theological point, not an historical assertion.

Well, I suppose a great number of passages in the Bible make a theological point! You say it does not make an historical assertion as if that were a foregone conclusion.

I’m not sure you see the depiction in art the same way I do. My point was that the artists’ renditions of the Holy Innocents is so dramatized, and the expansions of the passage beyond what Matthew actually wrote are so embellished, that modern skeptics have in mind a horde of Herod’s minions invading Bethlehem and surrounding towns, killing thousands upon thousands of children in a massive bloodbath. Again, this is not the description in Matthew at all. But it is understandable that someone skeptical of the story, if thinking it was as large scale as depicted in art and legend, would deny it based on lack of corroborating evidence. They don’t even seem to consider that it could have actually happened on a much smaller scale.

To use a better example of Washington, it would be like a modern skeptic doubting that Washington crossed the Delaware based on its depiction of the painting by the same name; what they would really be doubting was the dramatized version of the event, the powerful visual created by the artist. But the event still occurred. However, they would dismiss the historicity of the event entirely based on artistic interpretation and not actual history.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

he would not deny there was a George Washington

I agree–but I said: “there must not have been a George Washington who was revered for his honesty.” I.e., there was a George Washington all right, but not one revered for honesty, which is a fictitious addition.

Your logic here is not sustainable. The story of the cherry tree was likely accepted precisely because George was otherwise probably revered for his honesty. We cannot conclude the opposite merely because one story about him may not have been true in its details.

The fact that the story may not have happened as reported does NOT warrant any of the following conclusions:

1. The events reported in the story could not have happened in any shape or form. We don’t know that for certain. We can only conclude there is no solid evidence that it did happen as reported, but we cannot conclude it or something like it didn’t happen.
2. George Washington was an inveterate liar or people, at least, generally thought so. We have no reason to think that, unless other historical facts, independent of the story, provide rock solid evidence.
3. George Washingtion was not revered as an honest man. The story, even though fictionalized to some degree, actually supports a conclusion that his honesty was revered, especially if the story made its appearance within the lifetime of George or shortly after, when people existed who could and would likely dispute the implications of the story.
4. George Washington didn’t exist. Merely because the story is unfounded to some degree doesn’t mean no person named George Washington who did the things otherwise reported in credible sources did not exist. That is just poor logic.

 

[HarryStotle]

Or perhaps it was none at all. It doesn’t matter. The story is making a theological point, not an historical assertion.

I would argue that the whole point of the Gospels is that we are supposed to embody or incarnate those “theological points” in our own historical human existence. In fact, we will be judged based upon how well we do so. In other words, “Be not a hearer of the Word only, but a doer.”

Seems to me that the testimony of the Gospel writers is providing the details for how those “theological points” were embodied/incarnated in the particular life of Jesus in very specific and determined ways. As such, we are to read about those instances very carefully to take from them how those theological points need to be enacted purposefully in our lives. We cannot just be content with hearing the theological points as general principles completely detached from our individual life, because what we do or how doesn’t matter. Jesus enacted those principles in his everyday existence intentionally, which is why the details do matter, a lot.

 

[BlackFriar]

Where I think we part company (?) is that you seem to be saying that you have to take each story as a whole; if you question one detail, the whole fabric unravels. And I am saying the essential part of each story is it’s moral lesson or point–and that the details are irrelevant.

This is an important point.
Most scholars see the Infancy narratives in each Gospel as “stand alone” pre-existing units that have been somewhat bolted on. What might be decided re them really has little bearing on the remainder of the Gospel.

Likewise with the Passion Narratives which are also “bolt-ons”. They also reflect a well established pre-existing history of their own before being included in the Gospels.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The story of the cherry tree was likely accepted precisely because George was otherwise probably revered for his honesty.

I don’t want to get into a big debate about what I considered to be an illustrative example! I don’t remember Ehrman’s version, if I ever read it. I was trying to say that if ALL we knew about Washington’s honesty was the cherry tree story, which has now been debunked, then we might conclude that there was no evidence of his honesty. On the other hand, if we had two different stories by two different authors, and one said it was a cherry tree and one said it was an apple tree, I would conclude the story (true) was about his honesty, but that the type of tree didn’t matter. Fair enough?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I would argue that the whole point of the Gospels is that we are supposed to embody or incarnate those “theological points” in our own historical human existence.

Me too.

We cannot just be content with hearing the theological points as general principles completely detached from our individual life, because what we do or how doesn’t matter. Jesus enacted those principles in his everyday existence intentionally, which is why the details do matter, a lot.

Which is where we part company. Of course the principles can’t be detached from OUR lives! But we actually know very little about Jesus’s LIFE–the Gospels are filled with his stories and words, not details about what he ate for dinner, etc. And I think one of the great things about the Bible stories is that they are universal. They are not bound to a particular place or time. We not supposed to be nice to just Samaritans, but to our neighbor generally–any neighbor at any time. Contrast this with the Qur’an, where Muslims are constantly claiming that such and such a verse (for example crucifying people and cutting off alternate hands and feet…) is NOT meant to be universal, but applied only to a specific place and time. Totally different approach.

And, if you take a look at the Epistles of St. Paul, you’ll find that not only does he say almost nothing about Jesus’s life, he doesn’t say much about Jesus at all. Paul is all about the “points” of the stories to use my own word. If we just look at his Epistles (because we have no record of what his preaching was–except that once in a while he says “I told you such and such…”) I think even you have to admit Paul was not concerned with what I call “details.” He was concerned with the meaning.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

it would be like a modern skeptic doubting that Washington crossed the Delaware based on its depiction of the painting by the same name; what they would really be doubting was the dramatized version of the event, the powerful visual created by the artist. But the event still occurred. However, they would dismiss the historicity of the event entirely based on artistic interpretation and not actual history.

Well, it’s like the cherry tree story. IF the ONLY evidence we had of Washington crossing the Delaware was the famous picture, we might be skeptical about the event. It was painted 75 years after the event (yes, I looked it up!) by a German immigant…and since Washington was attacking German mercenaries, one MIGHT be skeptical of the painter’s motives. So if that were the only evidence we had, we might very well doubt the whole incident.

However, we know that the incident itself is historical based on other sources. But the painting is no doubt dramatized. Was Washington standing up in the prow of the boat or sitting in a seat in the middle? We don’t know. It doesn’t matter…

But, AGAIN, the stories about Washington are not similar to stories in the Bible, except in the sense that they try to portray Washington as a great man who should be admired and copied. The stories in the Bible (esp. NT) are going much further–they are making a moral or theological point.