What is historical in the Gospels?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheBoss918
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheBoss918

Guest
Hey All,

I am looking for the Catholic response to the question: what is historical in the Gospels? I am not so much looking for a discussion on the “secular historical Jesus,” as those studies tend to happen under the idea that miracles are impossible. That seems flawed to me.

The reason I am asking is that I hear different accounts within the Church as to what is historical. Luckily the REALLY IMPORTANT part (the Death and Resurrection) is universally regarded as historical, but I have heard arguments that such things as the Nativity, the Transfiguration, and certain miracles never really took place. Since the Bible is God’s Word, those stories reflect the truth of God, but some in the Church argue that they are not historical.

What does the Catholic Church teach on this? Much thanks.🙂

God bless you.
 
TheBoss918 said:
Hey All,

I am looking for the Catholic response to the question: what is historical in the Gospels? I am not so much looking for a discussion on the “secular historical Jesus,” as those studies tend to happen under the idea that miracles are impossible. That seems flawed to me.

The reason I am asking is that I hear different accounts within the Church as to what is historical. Luckily the REALLY IMPORTANT part (the Death and Resurrection) is universally regarded as historical, but I have heard arguments that such things as the Nativity, the Transfiguration, and certain miracles never really took place. Since the Bible is God’s Word, those stories reflect the truth of God, but some in the Church argue that they are not historical.

What does the Catholic Church teach on this? Much thanks.🙂

God bless you.
Click to expand...
You can read dozens of threads arguing this topic by a simple search. Basically, the Church only requires belief in the literal historicity of a small handful of bibilical events, such as the resurrection and the Eucharist, to name two. The infancy narratives are, for the most part, not included in this list. In addition to the hundreds of posts here, you can read dozens of books on the subject, most written by the Church’s premier scripture scholars and with the stamp of Nihil Obstat and imprimatur. As usual, one’s personal level of fundamentalism and one’s interpretation of the Church’s Dogmatic statements on this subjects (Dei Verbum being one of the most recent) must be considered.

This topic is partly addressed in the Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as authorized and approved by Pope Paul VI). This document and a summary by the primary translator are available online by searching for the title.
 
Boss,
I have no authority to speak for the Church, but for me I pretty much hold a very high percentage of the Gospels to be historical fact, something like 95 %. I relegate to the remaining 5% all those nit-picky discrepancies people find between the Gospel accounts. For example, three different Gospels each ascribe three different “last words” to Jesus on the cross. Obviously they all can’t be his last words. There’s always going to be little things that don’t quite line up between the Gospel accounts due to how they were handed down. I don’t have a problem with miracles happening. I wish more would happen.

PeterK
 
You can also buy bibles with Comentary that include Historical content, I have one, but they are expensive so be ready to pitch out for one! It gives Authorship/ Dates/ Background/ purpose/ Content… NKJV I have in mind…
 
TheBoss918 said:
Hey All,

I am looking for the Catholic response to the question: what is historical in the Gospels? I am not so much looking for a discussion on the “secular historical Jesus,” as those studies tend to happen under the idea that miracles are impossible. That seems flawed to me.

The reason I am asking is that I hear different accounts within the Church as to what is historical. Luckily the REALLY IMPORTANT part (the Death and Resurrection) is universally regarded as historical, but I have heard arguments that such things as the Nativity, the Transfiguration, and certain miracles never really took place. Since the Bible is God’s Word, those stories reflect the truth of God, but some in the Church argue that they are not historical.

What does the Catholic Church teach on this? Much thanks.🙂

God bless you.
Click to expand...
All of the gospels and everything in them is absolutely historical.
 
TheBoss918 said:
Hey All,

I am looking for the Catholic response to the question: what is historical in the Gospels? I am not so much looking for a discussion on the “secular historical Jesus,” as those studies tend to happen under the idea that miracles are impossible. That seems flawed to me.

The reason I am asking is that I hear different accounts within the Church as to what is historical. Luckily the REALLY IMPORTANT part (the Death and Resurrection) is universally regarded as historical, but I have heard arguments that such things as the Nativity, the Transfiguration, and certain miracles never really took place. Since the Bible is God’s Word, those stories reflect the truth of God, but some in the Church argue that they are not historical.

What does the Catholic Church teach on this? Much thanks.🙂

God bless you.
Click to expand...
From the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/pbcgospels.htm
 
diggerdomer said:
Maybe.

See the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s teaching:

bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/pbcgospels.htm
Click to expand...
I read the whole document–thanks for the link!

I’m not sure what it said that might have thrown the historicity of the Gospels into doubt, though. Maybe “absolutely” historical is strong language–the document seemed to emphasize that the authors of the Gospels had different purposes in mind when they wrote, and that we ought to use the tools of modern scholarship (judiciously, and be careful of hidden agendas) and so on. How did you read it?
 
Moscati said:
I read the whole document–thanks for the link!

I’m not sure what it said that might have thrown the historicity of the Gospels into doubt, though. Maybe “absolutely” historical is strong language–the document seemed to emphasize that the authors of the Gospels had different purposes in mind when they wrote, and that we ought to use the tools of modern scholarship (judiciously, and be careful of hidden agendas) and so on. How did you read it?
Click to expand...
From Dei Verbum …a document from Vatican II
  1. 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 unhesitatingly 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). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, 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.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
 
Bookcat said:
From Dei Verbum …a document from Vatican II
  1. 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 unhesitatingly 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). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, 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.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
Click to expand...
Um, well, thanks. I personally am quite convinced of the historicity of the Gospels. :confused: I was asking diggerdomer for clarification.
 
Moscati said:
I read the whole document–thanks for the link!

I’m not sure what it said that might have thrown the historicity of the Gospels into doubt, though. Maybe “absolutely” historical is strong language–the document seemed to emphasize that the authors of the Gospels had different purposes in mind when they wrote, and that we ought to use the tools of modern scholarship (judiciously, and be careful of hidden agendas) and so on. How did you read it?
Click to expand...
I was reacting primarily to what i considered the same strong “absolutely” statement (which I may have misunderstood).

For instance…it is not required by the Catholic faith…to my knowledge…to believe that King Herod actually ordered the execution of all boys two years old and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. There’s zero historical evidence to support the idea that it actually happened. It may have, of course, but given how well-documented many of Herod’s acts are, many of which are atrocious, it is surprising to many that if this occurred we would not have some historical reference to it apart from the Gospel of Matthew (note it’s not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament either).

I’m just not comfortable with what may have been meant or implied by the unqualified use of “absolutely”
 
Moscati said:
Um, well, thanks. I personally am quite convinced of the historicity of the Gospels. :confused: I was asking diggerdomer for clarification.
Click to expand...
Right. I think “historical character” is a bit more nuanced than “absolutely historical.” And, note Dei Verbum talks about the historical character (not absolutely historical) of what Jesus did and taught. The opening chapters of Matthew and Luke (the “infancy narratives”) can be reasonably understood not to fall under this category (they do not recount what Jesus did and taught).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top