Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves

[TMC]

As I understand it, the Church teaches that God inspired the various writers to write truthfully about those things God wished us to understand about Him and salvation. The rest is the work of the writer, and depends on his understanding of the world around him. There are rather glaring problems in some of the historical books that are I presume simply the lack of knowledge of the writer about who was King at a given time, etc.

Please don’t take this as a loaded question, but is this understanding basically the ‘working position’ of catholic scripture scholars, like the PBC, or has it been formally explained this way in some official magesterial document?

This (SpiritMeadow’s point in the first quote) is how I read Dei Verbum 11-13 and IMO is consonant with (but not necessarily compelled by) CCC 105-119.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s interesting, I want to read more about this.

Well, the best treatment I’ve read about it is from Joel Marcus’s Mark 1-8. This is from the Anchor Bible Series noted for some of the best exegesis around. Not all for sure, but some of the best. You can read about this generally on my blog. Do a search of Gospel of Mark…It would be near the beginning …I’m up to #13 now. Much of what I say about Mark admitted comes from him, but his notes are gigantic…In fact some criticize him for over thinking, over picking on every point. He’s very thorough. I’ll look it up and add an addendum with the direct link.

Yes, I’ve noticed that a lot of apologists have no problem leaving their Christian ethic of honesty at the door when going about their apologetics. I don’t see how dishonesty can be used to serve God. It is really quite embarassing, and insulting to the people who hear it.

But I also have a criticism of the scholarly views I read too… not that they lack honesty, but that, as objective scholars, they seem to lack the respect for certain ancient writers that a person of faith would normally have. As a person of faith, when investigating these things, I’ll give more weight to the testimony of a saint than to a regular person. But a historian wouldn’t be able to do that.

No I don’t believe scholars can do that. They do have ways of assigning those who they give more weight to, but that would be presumably because when they could find proof that particular writer was found to be accurate. I give more weight to saints surely on matters of theological interpretation, less on factual accuracy I guess.

So that’s why I think the truth might lie somewhere in the middle of the scholarly and the apologetic views.

It might well be, but one should remember that scholars are badly divided on many of these issues as well. That’s why there is always something new to read.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Neil,

This is the direct link to Mark and the authorship problem.

iowamusings.blogspot.com/2007/10/gospel-of-mark-pt1.html

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil,

This is the direct link to Mark and the authorship problem.

iowamusings.blogspot.com/2007/10/gospel-of-mark-pt1.html

Thanks, that was an interesting read.

Another example of the limitations of the scholarly approach is in the dating of the Gospel of Luke. In Luke’s gospel, Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem is even more accurate than the versions in Mark and Matthew. It’s so accurate, that either Jesus really could tell the future, or Luke wrote his gospel after the fall of Jerusalem, and his knowledge of events affected his recording of the prophecy.

Can a scholar even consider the possibility that Jesus could tell the future? Wouldn’t he have to conclude that the gospel was written later than 70AD?

On the other hand, as a believer, I’m at least opened to the possibility that it was written before 70AD. I’d like to use the other evidence to date it, because for me, either scenario is posible. But I’m left to choose between the apologetic viewpoint, which probably hasn’t honestly considered the evidence, and the scholarly viewpoint, which takes as a basic working assumption that people can’t tell the future. Neither is what I need. It’s frustrating.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks, that was an interesting read.

Another example of the limitations of the scholarly approach is in the dating of the Gospel of Luke. In Luke’s gospel, Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem is even more accurate than the versions in Mark and Matthew. It’s so accurate, that either Jesus really could tell the future, or Luke wrote his gospel after the fall of Jerusalem, and his knowledge of events affected his recording of the prophecy.

Can a scholar even consider the possibility that Jesus could tell the future? Wouldn’t he have to conclude that the gospel was written later than 70AD?

Not necessarily. Assume Jesus did in fact predict the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke knows of this prediction, but he does not write until some time after the distruction. Perhaps for him that inspired him to write in the first place, made him a believer! When he writers he attibutes Jesus with this miracle prophesy. Does he need to tell his readers the obvious? They know that Jerusalem was razed by Rome in 70. they have no need to be told. They need only be told that Jesus predicted it well before it happened. Any scholar I would assume would consider that plausible as stated. Now I make no further statement, because first of all most scholars also believe Mark was the first written. That may change your feelings, I don’t know. Once you take that stance, then you look at Matthew Luke more as to how they used Mark’s section on this.

On the other hand, as a believer, I’m at least opened to the possibility that it was written before 70AD. I’d like to use the other evidence to date it, because for me, either scenario is posible. But I’m left to choose between the apologetic viewpoint, which probably hasn’t honestly considered the evidence, and the scholarly viewpoint, which takes as a basic working assumption that people can’t tell the future. Neither is what I need. It’s frustrating.

Yeah, I hear you, just don’t worry about the miracle stuff. I don’t think it really matters here, given what I have said above. And don’t get me wrong, There is no clear dating decisions. Most place Luke Matthew in the 80’s, most place Mark in the 60-early 70’s. Marcus actually argues for a fairly late date for mark of aroudn 69-73 because he believe Mark was not in Rome but was outside Jerusalem and his “martyrdom is coming our way” preaching was in regards to the Jewish wars about to happen or had just started.

Don’t get me wrong, miracles are very important. I just don’t think they impinge on a discernment on this issue.

Marcus’s belief that Mark was outside Jerusalem and not being persecuted by Nero in Rome is fairly a new idea. I don’t know how its being treated in the academic community. I don’t have access to most Journals. It’s intriguing and he makes a good case, but I’m still undecided about it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

To refresh the thread.

Thanks