- Status
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Which parts of John’s Gospel are not historical. Just curious
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Good article. No dount patg will rip it to shreds because modern biblical scholars know best
Oh and modern biblical scholarship is just so riveting :yawn:
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
John of Woking:
Put it this way: what would convince those Catholics who so dislike the scholarly methods of the last 150 years or so that such schilarship is not unCatholic, sceptical, and so forth ?
Or is better not even to try showing it is not as some think ?
I think a reasoned exchange of views and the readiness to listen to each other is essential, in this matter especially; it is not healthy for Catholics to swap insults and accusations, or to find fault with those who doing no more than the highest authorities in the Church explicitly allow.
An atmosphere of suspicion and accusation does not promote scholarship or mutual charity.
There has to be a way out of this impasse which does not involve throwing out the work of the last 150 years, and does not involve marginalising or unchurching Catholics
It would help if posts were not limited to a mere 4000 characters ##
Yes, it is riveting. And love of it does not involve belittling the interests of others.Good article. No dount patg will rip it to shreds because modern biblical scholars know best
Put it this way: what would convince those Catholics who so dislike the scholarly methods of the last 150 years or so that such schilarship is not unCatholic, sceptical, and so forth ?
Or is better not even to try showing it is not as some think ?
I think a reasoned exchange of views and the readiness to listen to each other is essential, in this matter especially; it is not healthy for Catholics to swap insults and accusations, or to find fault with those who doing no more than the highest authorities in the Church explicitly allow.
An atmosphere of suspicion and accusation does not promote scholarship or mutual charity.
There has to be a way out of this impasse which does not involve throwing out the work of the last 150 years, and does not involve marginalising or unchurching Catholics
It would help if posts were not limited to a mere 4000 characters ##
B
buffalo
Guest
The Tower of Babel and the Uniqueness of Man.
author: Bernhoft, Dr. Robin
Mainstream paleoanthropology tells us that modern homo sapiens has been around for at least one hundred thousand. This boggles my mind, but the fact remains, there is nothing in civilized human history older than about 4000 BC. This essay presents strong historical support from secular sources for the migration of people from the tower of Babel as recorded in Scripture.
author: Bernhoft, Dr. Robin
Mainstream paleoanthropology tells us that modern homo sapiens has been around for at least one hundred thousand. This boggles my mind, but the fact remains, there is nothing in civilized human history older than about 4000 BC. This essay presents strong historical support from secular sources for the migration of people from the tower of Babel as recorded in Scripture.
P
patg
Guest
I’ve read that before and it is a fairly reasonable explanation. If you look around you can find numerous other very convoluted explanations (things like there were 2 passover days that year, and other even stranger stuff).
What bothers me about it is that the text clearly states that the next day was passover. This is an obvious historical conflict so numerous people have gone to great lengths to write detailed explanations to smooth over it - and some of them may be right, I for one, don’t know.
Now we turn ot other areas of the text which many believe are clearly, in every manner, not history and yet we are branded as heretics when we propose any kind of reasoning which shows that they are not history.
T
twf
Guest
I’m not here at the moment to debate whether or not passage A or passage B is historical or figurative, but I would like to point out that those who say “The Bible is not a history book” have to be careful. Not all of Scripture is written as history…but those books/passages that the Sacred Writers intended to be history are indeed history…and trustworthy inspired history as well. This has been established by the Church. If it is intended to be history, than it must be taken as such:
*It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely to certain parts of the Holy Scriptures, or to grant that the sacred writer could have made a mistake. Nor may the opinion of those be tolerated, who, in order to get out of these difficulties, do not hesitate to suppose that Divine inspiration extends only to what touches faith and morals, on the false plea that the true meaning is sought for less in what God has said than in the motive for which He has said it. (Denz., 1950) * (Pope Leo XIII, *Providentissimus Deus *, at quoted at newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm.
Patg is incorrect. The Church has defined that the Gospels are of a historical character. The Church does allow that various parts of Scripture were not intended to be history, and thus must be interpreted accordingly…but the Gospels are. (For if they were not, then we would have almost nothing to base our Faith on!). Conservative scholarship…modern conservative scholarship has answered every charge brought against the historical character of the Gospels. The answers are out there for anyone who cares.
Keep in mind that the following quote comes from an ECUMENICAL council…the following quote is infallible, and must be held by everyone, everywhere, forever.
*Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhestitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1: 1-2). Indeed, after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their heareres what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed [32] after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. [33]. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writings, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. [34]. * (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation; from paragraph 19…as printed in the Catholic Answers Bible).
*32 John 2: 22; 12: 16; Cf. 14: 26, 16: 12-13; 7: 39.
*33 Cf. John 14: 26; 16: 13
*34 Cf. instruction *Holy Mother Church * edited by Pontifical Consilium for Promotion of Bible Studies: AAS 56 (1964) p. 715.
Yes, it does allow for ‘reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches…’ but still maintains that the Gospels record what Christ actually did and taught. (Which it states earlier).
For anyone else…I know that the Magisterium can not contradict itself, but how do we reconcile the Church’s modern view with the view of the first 1800 years of the Church? Generally speaking, Scripture was to be taken literally, if possible.
*It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely to certain parts of the Holy Scriptures, or to grant that the sacred writer could have made a mistake. Nor may the opinion of those be tolerated, who, in order to get out of these difficulties, do not hesitate to suppose that Divine inspiration extends only to what touches faith and morals, on the false plea that the true meaning is sought for less in what God has said than in the motive for which He has said it. (Denz., 1950) * (Pope Leo XIII, *Providentissimus Deus *, at quoted at newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm.
Patg is incorrect. The Church has defined that the Gospels are of a historical character. The Church does allow that various parts of Scripture were not intended to be history, and thus must be interpreted accordingly…but the Gospels are. (For if they were not, then we would have almost nothing to base our Faith on!). Conservative scholarship…modern conservative scholarship has answered every charge brought against the historical character of the Gospels. The answers are out there for anyone who cares.
Keep in mind that the following quote comes from an ECUMENICAL council…the following quote is infallible, and must be held by everyone, everywhere, forever.
*Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhestitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1: 1-2). Indeed, after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their heareres what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed [32] after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. [33]. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writings, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. [34]. * (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation; from paragraph 19…as printed in the Catholic Answers Bible).
*32 John 2: 22; 12: 16; Cf. 14: 26, 16: 12-13; 7: 39.
*33 Cf. John 14: 26; 16: 13
*34 Cf. instruction *Holy Mother Church * edited by Pontifical Consilium for Promotion of Bible Studies: AAS 56 (1964) p. 715.
Yes, it does allow for ‘reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches…’ but still maintains that the Gospels record what Christ actually did and taught. (Which it states earlier).
For anyone else…I know that the Magisterium can not contradict itself, but how do we reconcile the Church’s modern view with the view of the first 1800 years of the Church? Generally speaking, Scripture was to be taken literally, if possible.
P
patg
Guest
I think this last statement is what is most important here as it specifically allows for a tremendous amount of the gospel content to be fiction and still contain a perfect record of what Jesus did and taught.
For example, the snippet of the passion which speaks about Barabbas has nothing to do with what Jesus said or did. It is also pure fiction since there is no record of this practice anywhere in Jewish history. It also is “truth” in that it teaches of the rejection of God the father by the Jews.
Likewise in the arrest and trial - practically every detail of the synoptic account conflicts procedurally and substantively with Jewish law. No court hearing was legal at night, let alone on the feast of Passover, nor did the words attributed to Jesus amount to blasphemy.
The infancy narratives also have nothing to do with what Jesus said or did and once again are a clear example of a well known literary form in the ancient world which was never expected to be history.
I have read many of the convoluted arguments used by pious writers who, in their complete misunderstanding of what the literary form of a gospel is, try to explain away all the historical inconsistencies in writings that aren’t history.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Even if literary forms they are based on historical occurences. Facts not fiction
P
patg
Guest
John of Woking:
This is the way the birth stories of all important people in ancient times were formulated. They were all born, but the stories of their births contained almost no history.
This is true BUT the only fact upon which the infancy narratives were based is the fact the Jesus was born!Even if literary forms they are based on historical occurences. Facts not fiction
This is the way the birth stories of all important people in ancient times were formulated. They were all born, but the stories of their births contained almost no history.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Did the ‘Three Kings’ follow the star?
B
buffalo
Guest
Let’s do a little test.
Everyone who wishes, submit in their own literary style a one paragraph description of a sunset.
A poem, regular English, and slang are some examples.
Everyone who wishes, submit in their own literary style a one paragraph description of a sunset.
A poem, regular English, and slang are some examples.
O
oriel36
Guest
It is but the Earth rotating into its own orbital shadow that you see,the great stately motion of the Earth on its axis that turns day to night and back again at dawn when our location on Earth rotates out of its orbital shadow.When men capture this breathtaking experience,then and only then will the insight of Copernicus and Kepler become an experience rather than a fact and with this experience the acknowledgement of our joyous participation with the motion of the Earth on its axis,around the sun,around the galactic axis and whatever other motion there may be,we lovingly contemplate the life from Life which is a fundamental tenet of our Christian faith.
P
patg
Guest
John of Woking:
The occurence of unusual celestial events to herald the birth of a great person were included in most all ancient infancy narratives.
There is no historical record of an unusual stellar event nor is there any astronomical calculation that would produce anything like one.
Someone other than one gospel writer should have noticed and remembered such an event.
Nowhere do the gospels mention the number of kings/wise men.
The occurence of unusual celestial events to herald the birth of a great person were included in most all ancient infancy narratives.
There is no historical record of an unusual stellar event nor is there any astronomical calculation that would produce anything like one.
Someone other than one gospel writer should have noticed and remembered such an event.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Three is the number accorded to traditon and I put much trust in tradition : it is the democracy of the dead. As for being an empirically verifiable event , which would classify as ‘historical record’ maybe you are right BUT at Fatima the sun was said to dance about in the sky. Even the anti-clerical mob recognised it as such! Whether it is now historically recorded I don’t know but it sure as hell occured in time and space viz., historically.
P
patg
Guest
John of Woking:
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
John of Woking:
Matthew may well have been using the OT as a biography of Jesus, and constructing the facts of his infancy from what the OT said about the Messiah - about Him. Because He fulfilled the prophesies of the Messiah, those prohecies could be used as a sort of “history in advance”. ##
- Mat 2:9 When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was.
If this had happened, it is hard to see how the countryside for hundreds of miles around could have escaped being burned up.
- Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy;
- Mat 2:11 and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.
In view of passages such as Psalm 72 and Numbers 24.17, their royal and Messianic meaning, and the highly creative use of the OT and its themes which is found in this Gospel, I think this looks like a legendary composition; a theological “setting-forth” of Who Jesus is, in the form of a story.
If He was born in Bethlehem - which means “house of bread”, or seems to: perhaps a hint of Eucharistic meaning ? - it is at least surprising that He is always connected with Nazareth: not Bethlehem. Bethlehem is unmentioned in Luke 4 - yet that would have been an good place for Him to announce His mission, if it was his birth-place.- John 7:40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This is really the prophet.”
- John7:41 Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee?
- John 7:42 Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?"
Matthew may well have been using the OT as a biography of Jesus, and constructing the facts of his infancy from what the OT said about the Messiah - about Him. Because He fulfilled the prophesies of the Messiah, those prohecies could be used as a sort of “history in advance”. ##
B
buffalo
Guest
It could have been something other than a “celestial” event. Such as a divine light of some kind.
B
buffalo
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
Reducing it to a natural coincindence and then applying known principles doubts the miraculous capabilities of God. You leave no place for the supernatural.
Gottle,
Reducing it to a natural coincindence and then applying known principles doubts the miraculous capabilities of God. You leave no place for the supernatural.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I’m sure it looks that way, but I don’t see how it makes sense to invoke the supernatural in this present exchange of views.
I don’t see that anything other than the ordinary, “non-supernatural”, course of events is being described by the Evangelist.We might think of the passage as describing something supernatural - but did the Evangelist ? And: if he describes stars acting as they do not, without realising that he does so describe them - where does that leave the inerrancy of the Bible ? I think that inerrancy is less well protected by viewing the episode as historical, than by the view that this passage is not an account of historical fact.
And I have no problem believing there is a “supernatural”. There are plenty of problems with such a concept, so I try to take them seriously.
God is still in charge of His creation, star or no star. Christ is born, whatever the literary genre the passage may belong to ##
- Status