K
KevinK
Guest
Your original point was that contradictions don’t matter in the resurrection narrative. Now you agree they do and change your point to “the details don’t matter”.
- Status
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Sorry, either I wasn’t clear or you’re misinterpreting what I wrote.
I’ll try again: Details (in general!!!) don’t matter in the Bible. They are irrelevant to the point the author is trying to make. The only contradictions in the resurrection narrative are the details. And yes, they don’t matter.
In what DOES matter in the resurrection story, all the Gospels are in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead, physically, and was seen by various people after his resurrection. So in the point of the story there is no contradiction.
Last edited:
K
KevinK
Guest
The Devil is in the details.
R
Richca
Guest
Yes, it is self evident that the sacred writers not only thought they were writing history but intended to write history in not a few of the books of the Old Testament especially concerning their own history, i.e, the Jewish or Israelite people. In fact, the majority of the Old Testament is a record of the history of the Israelite people. Of course, religion and theology is also essential in the books of the Old Testament and to the Israelite people. Indeed, God is the one who made them into a people and nation. The religion of the Israelites grew out of their history and God’s dealings and communication with them through deeds and words. Religion and history are intimately connected for the Israelites.
“The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously “by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other” and shed light on each another” (CCC#53).
If one thinks that human history has no connection with God or that God has no care of human affairs, such a one clearly has not understood the message of the Old Testament. The sacred writers did not write history for the sake of history but history in relation to God, religion, theology. History without theology is meaningless and purposeless. The sacred writers give a theological meaning to human history especially their own history guided as it is by God, the Lord of history( CCC#304).
So, firstly, I invite you to read and meditate on Chapter 2 – God Comes to Meet Man (CCC#50 - #73). CCC#62 reads “After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt…”
Secondly, CCC#1217 – 1222, Prefigurations of Baptism in the Old Covenant.
“In the liturgy of the Easter Vigil, during the blessing of the baptismal water, the Church solemnly commemorates the great events in salvation history that already prefigured the mystery of Baptism” (CCC#1217).
“But above all, the crossing of the Red Sea, literally the liberation of Israel from the slavery of Egypt, announces the liberation wrought by Baptism:
You freed the children of Abraham from the slavery of Pharaoh,
bringing them dry-shod through the waters of the Red Sea,
to be an image of the people set free in Baptism" (CCC#1221).
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Thirdly, The Universal Call To Prayer (beginning at CCC#2566).
“Prayer is bound up with human history, for it is the relationship with God in historical events” (#2568).
“Once the promise begins to be fulfilled (Passover, the Exodus, the gift of the Law, and the ratification of the covenant), …” (CCC#2574).
How the Church itself officially interprets the Bible will be found in its official teachings, catechisms such as the CCC, and especially in its liturgy which is a living expression of the catholic faith. Catholic commentaries on the Bible are not official Church teaching. They may or may not express official Church teaching and the Church’s faith or its liturgy. The commentator may, and often times does, express his personal opinion. I’m not saying that biblical scholarship is not an invaluable source for a better understanding of the Bible. However, since you stated “read any number of Catholic commentators on the Bible. Do you really think the authors thought they were writing a history book?” You may be surprised at what The New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1969) says concerning Genesis:
Genesis and History- Gn is presented by its author as a history, not simply as a collection of religious truths in narrative form. This is an important fact for us to bear in mind. We are not being faithful to the author’s intent when we ignore his historical purpose or attempt to allegorize Gn to extract from it transcendent religious teaching that no longer has a reference to historical fact. For the author of Gn history was the record of the deeds of God, the sphere in which he had revealed himself to man: the writing of history was, therefore, the only theology he knew. A recognition of the author’s historical purpose must be our first principle of the interpretation of Gn, a principle that applies, even though in different ways, to the history of origins in Gn 1-11 as well as to the Patriarchal History. It is no withdrawal from this principle, however, to remind ourselves that the concept of history is not a univocal one, whether in the abstract or in Gn itself.
We must, in the first place, judge the history of Gn by the historical standards that were recognized by its author rather than by our own. Likewise, we must bear in mind that not all the elements in the history of Gn as the author found them in his sources and as he intended to use them have an equal historical value.
From the same catholic commentary on the historicity of Exodus:
The theological speculations of the Pentateuchal sources are firmly anchored in two basic events which constitute the nucleus of all Israelite ancestral traditions: the presence of Israel in Egypt as forced laborers and the formation of the theocratic community at Sinai through the mediation of Moses. It is not necessary to embark on a lengthy discussion about the historical character of these events. If they are not historical the subsequent unfolding of Israel’s history would be inexplicable.
Thirdly, The Universal Call To Prayer (beginning at CCC#2566).
“Prayer is bound up with human history, for it is the relationship with God in historical events” (#2568).
“Once the promise begins to be fulfilled (Passover, the Exodus, the gift of the Law, and the ratification of the covenant), …” (CCC#2574).
How the Church itself officially interprets the Bible will be found in its official teachings, catechisms such as the CCC, and especially in its liturgy which is a living expression of the catholic faith. Catholic commentaries on the Bible are not official Church teaching. They may or may not express official Church teaching and the Church’s faith or its liturgy. The commentator may, and often times does, express his personal opinion. I’m not saying that biblical scholarship is not an invaluable source for a better understanding of the Bible. However, since you stated “read any number of Catholic commentators on the Bible. Do you really think the authors thought they were writing a history book?” You may be surprised at what The New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1969) says concerning Genesis:
Genesis and History- Gn is presented by its author as a history, not simply as a collection of religious truths in narrative form. This is an important fact for us to bear in mind. We are not being faithful to the author’s intent when we ignore his historical purpose or attempt to allegorize Gn to extract from it transcendent religious teaching that no longer has a reference to historical fact. For the author of Gn history was the record of the deeds of God, the sphere in which he had revealed himself to man: the writing of history was, therefore, the only theology he knew. A recognition of the author’s historical purpose must be our first principle of the interpretation of Gn, a principle that applies, even though in different ways, to the history of origins in Gn 1-11 as well as to the Patriarchal History. It is no withdrawal from this principle, however, to remind ourselves that the concept of history is not a univocal one, whether in the abstract or in Gn itself.
We must, in the first place, judge the history of Gn by the historical standards that were recognized by its author rather than by our own. Likewise, we must bear in mind that not all the elements in the history of Gn as the author found them in his sources and as he intended to use them have an equal historical value.
From the same catholic commentary on the historicity of Exodus:
The theological speculations of the Pentateuchal sources are firmly anchored in two basic events which constitute the nucleus of all Israelite ancestral traditions: the presence of Israel in Egypt as forced laborers and the formation of the theocratic community at Sinai through the mediation of Moses. It is not necessary to embark on a lengthy discussion about the historical character of these events. If they are not historical the subsequent unfolding of Israel’s history would be inexplicable.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
As I said before, “I’m not sure if we are agreeing and using different words, or if we have a fundamental disagreement.” There’s nothing you wrote that I would disagree with, although your emphasis might be slightly different than mine, and to some extent it depends on what you mean by “history.” For me, the Jewish idea of “history” in the OT is the story of their relationship to God, which of course extends to the relationship of Israel to God. But I would argue that our modern idea of “history” as a simple recreation of what happened in the past without reference to God would be foreign to the authors of the OT. Which is–I think–exactly what you said: “The sacred writers did not write history for the sake of history but history in relation to God.” I couldn’t have said it better!
And certainly I have no quarrel with the main historical outlines of the OT. If you use Genesis as an example, as a Catholic you have to accept that there was an original pair from whom we are all descended, that they sinned, that they and their descendants were punished, etc. Where I differ with some people (I don’t think it’s you) is that they seem to take it all literally (there was an actual snake, there was an actual fruit tree, the people involved had the actual names of “Adam,” “Eve,” “Cain,” and “Abel,” etc.
As for the subject under discussion, which you referred to in your last paragraph, I am perfectly willing to accept that the Jews lived in Egypt as forced laborers and that there was a “formation of the theocratic community at Sinai…” etc. Although again, the details are subject to debate: what was “Sinai”? The mountain we identify as Sinai today? Another mountain? An unknown place? A metaphorical place of wandering, wandering both physical and metaphorical? Etc.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Straight out of Bart Ehrman.Richca:
Well, this is a classic example. Here’s a quick summary of the LITERAL contradictions:
The point is that if you only look at the literal meanings, they are contradictory. You could twist your brain into a pretzel trying to make them agree with each other–for example, you could argue that “early dawn” = “while it was still dark” or Mark and Luke don’t mention the women meeting Jesus because…make up a reason.
- Who went to the tomb?
John: only Mary Magdalene
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other woman”
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome
Code:So how many went? 1? 2? 3? 4? They all give different numbers and names.- When did they go to the tomb?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree that it was “early dawn” or “very early”
John says early, while it was still dark- Did the woman / women enter the tomb?
Matthew: no
Mark & Luke: yes
John: Mary Magdalene “looked in”- When they reached the tomb, whom did they see?
Mark & Matthew: a young man; later identified as an angel
Luke: two men in dazzling clothes
John: two angels–but they only appear later- Did the women see or meet Jesus?
Mark & Luke: no
Matthew: yes
John: yes, but at first she thought Jesus was the gardener- What was the reaction of the disciples when the woman / women told them about the tomb?
Mark & Luke: they didn’t believe the women
Matthew: some doubted
John: Peter and “the other disciple” believed her- Did any of the disciples go to the tomb themselves?
Mark & Matthew: no
Luke: Peter; afterwards, other disciples went
John: “the other disciple” reached the tomb first, then Peter
But the point is that none of this matters. As Garry Wills so eloquently put it: “So what?” Exactly. The point of the story is that Jesus rose–physically–from the dead and was resurrected, not just in a spiritual or methaphorical sense, but in a real physical presence. That’s the point of the stories; all the other stuff is just fluff or filler.
These aren’t literal contradictions because where you report that Mark and Luke or Matthew literally say “No,” they don’t literally say no. They simply and literally don’t report what you claim they say “no” about. That isn’t a “no.” And your reading doesn’t amount to a literal reading of the text, i.e., what the text actually says, it is you reading what you want into the text and calling THAT a “plain” reading.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Hello again. Yup. I love Bart Ehrman! I’ve read a lot of his books.
You’re right: they simply don’t mention it. They don’t say “Neither of the women entered the tomb.” But of course the point isn’t that, it’s that some details one author thinks are important are ignored by another author. If the details were important, they should be identical in every Gospel.
And who went to the tomb? Each gospel has a different list. That’s literal, it’s not my spin. And of course I just gave this example; there are probably hundreds more. Ask Bart!
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And none of the Gospels literally say they are exhaustive or comprehensive lists. Once again reading your ideas into them.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I can pass on to you a recommendation I was given on another website a few weeks ago: The Miracles of Exodus by Colin Humphreys
A warning though, that Sir Colin’s book is not one to turn to for anyone allergic to natural explanations of miracles.
A warning though, that Sir Colin’s book is not one to turn to for anyone allergic to natural explanations of miracles.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And then they would be criticized for conspiring or colluding together to write the same account. There can be no winning as far as the critics of the Gospels are concerned.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I haven’t read his Moses book and I don’t supposeI ever will, since the history of the Exodus is not one of my prime areas of interest. However, I’m thinking of getting another book of his, The Mystery of the Last Supper,dealing with the events of Passion Week. Have you read it? Do you know anything about it?
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academi...inal-days-jesus?format=PB#8D7JxermbcGE1MhG.97
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Sure there is. Simply realize that you shouldn’t take every detail as literal truth.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So parting of the Red Sea should NOT be taken literally, but Jesus being raised from the dead SHOULD be?
Okay, so why is the second to be taken as a literal event while the first cannot or may not be?
What is your criteria for determining why one and not the other is literal? Clearly, both are miraculous interventions by God, but you say God wouldn’t in the first instance because, according to you, it is too ad hoc and shows a lack of foresight or planning on God’s part. I’m simply not clear how resurrecting a dead man is immune from the same criticism, which I think is profoundly weak to begin with.
Okay, so why is the second to be taken as a literal event while the first cannot or may not be?
What is your criteria for determining why one and not the other is literal? Clearly, both are miraculous interventions by God, but you say God wouldn’t in the first instance because, according to you, it is too ad hoc and shows a lack of foresight or planning on God’s part. I’m simply not clear how resurrecting a dead man is immune from the same criticism, which I think is profoundly weak to begin with.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I don’t, but I would say this. I think Sir Colin can be taken seriously enough when he discusses natural phenomena: he is a distinguished scientist. On the Gospel narratives, well, I’m not sure that he has any qualifications as a Bible scholar. But he’s obviously highly intelligent, so I don’t see why the book shouldn’t be worth a read.
- Status