Questions concerning the Gospel of Matthew

[Erikaspirit16]

It says “without error”.

--part 2!

I see we have also crossed paths in another thread, “Lost Faith after Reading the OT.” And you gave similar responses. Again, I have no quarrel with what you said there, except that you feel this need to reconcile or support various details that simply don’t matter.

Bart Ehrman also thinks the details matter, which is why he now calls himself “an agnostic atheist.” As a Biblical scholar, he was so upset about the discrepancies and contradictions that–as you say–once he decided one detail was false, it all unravelled for him. That’s because he didn’t make a distinction between details that didn’t matter and religious doctrines that do matter.

But in “Did Jesus Exist?” Bart writes (pp. 72-73): "“Their authors were human authors…they wrote in human languages and in human contexts; their books are recognizable as human books, written according to the rhetorical conventions of their historical period. They are human and historical, whatever else you may think about them, and to treat them differently is to mistreat them and to misunderstand them.

These authors were anything but disinterested, and their biases need to be front and center in the critics’ minds when evaluating what they have to say. But at the same time, they were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation.”

Compare that to what the Catechism says on p. 32. The two passages are virtually indistinguishable. In fact, Bart the atheist has a very Catholic point of view. Which is why I can read his books and agree with 95+% of everything he says. The difference between us is that he thinks the details matter, and I don’t.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The Fox and the Grapes…

I’ve written this numerous times, but of course I can’t find my older copies, so I’ll do it over again.

Let’s look at Aesop’s story about the fox and the grapes. A fox passes by a vineyard and sees some grapes. He decides he wants to eat some. But he’s unable to reach them. He goes away thinking to himself, “The grapes were probably sour anyway.” Which is where we get the expression “sour grapes.”

A very simple story. What’s the point, or moral, of the story? You could offer a few possibilities: Maybe you shouldn’t try to set unobtainable goals. Maybe you should try harder. Maybe you shouldn’t excuse your failures by saying the goals weren’t really desirable after you fail to achieve them.

OK. Let’s re-tell the story, throwing in some details: Maynard the Fox was was walking to his lady friend Foxy’s den one day. It was a particularly warm and beautiful day, and it was mid-morning. Ten minutes after setting out, Maynard the Fox saw Farmer Brown’s vineyard on a hill overlooking the Rhone River. He thought, I’d like to eat some of those fine ripe grapes! So he trotted over to the vineyard… etc. etc.

Certainly the second story, that contains some detail, is more interesting and has more literary merit that the first, very basic, story. The author shows some knowledge of fox psychology, geographic and temporal awareness, etc. But what about the moral of the story? Does it change? No. It’s exactly the same. What if some of the details changed…maybe it was a rainy day and not sunny and warm? Does that matter to the moral of the story? Of course not. The details are simply fluff to pad out the story and make it more interesting. But they don’t matter.

In the same way, the authors of the Bible set out to tell a story with a specific point or moral in mind. In the course of telling the story, they added details they thought might make a more interesting story. Not only that, but several authors told the same or similar stories, each with different details. Do those details matter? No. If they don’t affect the moral of the story, they don’t matter. Should we spend our time trying to reconcile whether the fox’s name was Maynard or Renard? Or whether the day was sunny or rainy? Because of these discrepancies should we say “Aesop is a fool. His stories are worthless!” Or should we spend a little time reflecting on the times in our own lives when we tried to attain a goal but failed, and how we reacted to that failure?

 

[gzmac]

Thank you to everyone for your answers - they’ve all been immensely helpful!

 

[ericc]

Does it matter to your salvation if Pilate was or was not the gov. of Judea in 30-33 AD? Absolutely not.

Absolutely yes. It renders the Gospels non-inerrant. Without this inerrant foundation, all the other stuff you say about salvation does not stand on solid ground. If the Bible is not inerrant, why would anyone believe the Church? That is the simple point I’m trying to make. Which you seem to just brush it off without very much consideration of its implications.

I think I have said enough and I will bow out of this discussion with you.