Are the Gospels Historical?

Standing on my Head blog ^ | 07/15/2012 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

[swampfox101]

1 John 4:1
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Daniel 5:27
“You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting;”

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Let us . . . ask first of all, whether any history can be written objectively. Is it possible for a historian to write a historical account without a bias of any kind? No. Every historian is limited by his philosophical and cultural assumptions. Every historian comes to his task with certain guiding principles that he thinks are true or valuable or helpful. These guiding principles cause him to interpret the history he records. He cannot help but make value judgements on the actions he records. Furthermore, those value judgements are in effect in every aspect of the historian’s work. How does he choose which period of history to work on? How does he choose which events are momentous? How does he choose how to prioritize the events he records? How does he select the important personages and events from the past? As soon as he selects something to write about or study he is giving it prominence and therefore expressing his bias. The only way history can be “objective” is if it is a list of events in chronological order. The historian who is so naive as to imagine that he is not biased is even more compromised because his bias is invisible to him and therefore all the more influential.

Given the fact that the study of history must be biased, it is much better therefore if the pretense of objectivity is dropped. Much clearer if we know ahead of time that a historical study is written from a particular point of view. We can then make allowances for the bias and read other works from other perspectives to achieve balance. If I know that a particular historian is a Marxist or a feminist or a post-modern atheist I will understand their bias on history and the more they are open about it, while still trying to be as objective as possible, the better will the exercise be.

Discussing the tendency toward bias is an excellent way to attempt objectivity. Indeed, I would argue that it is the only way to attempt objectivity, and that taking one’s own objectivity for granted is the very definition of its opposite, subjectivity.

If one reads the quoted text and substitutes the term “journalist” for “historian,” one sees that journalism as we have known it all our lives is utterly corrupt. For the wire services have no choice but to claim objectivity for themselves and for the faceless reporters in distant scenes of sensational events. Continuously maintaining a culture of presumed objectivity for a century and a half, from the middle of the Nineteenth Century foundation of the AP on, has one inevitable result - homogenization of perspective among journalists. Just as inevitably, that homogenized perspective of journalism is self-serving.

Who can control their own tongue? And who can do so, when they “buy ink by the carload” - and everyone else who does the same is careful not to point out your bias, because they share it? The inevitable result is that wire service journalism tends to slander anyone who does not go along and get along with it. And that wire service journalism tends to inflate the reputation of anyone who does toady up to wire service journalism. The observable result is that people who set talk and criticism above action - second guessers - are praised as “objective” if they work as journalists, and as “progressive” or “liberal” if they are politicians. Americans, who believe in liberty and progress, are attracted to ideas labeled “progressive” or “liberal” - and are put off by labels such as “conservative” or “right wing."

Journalism and Objectivity

[stuartcr]

The history of physical events can be written objectively, can’t it? I would imagine one could write about volcanoes, earthquakes, stuff like that, without being subjective. Sort of like a newscaster that reported about a landslide or such.

[mikeus_maximus]

Nicely done, but you might want to rethink this:

Witness one says the suspect wore a red hat. Witness two says it was a pink hat with a red band. The detail differs and because it does it feels right that both persons are probably eyewitnesses.

Different facts are emphasized in the 4 accounts at times, but that is different from direct conflict regarding the same facts that are discussed.

[mikeus_maximus]

Nicely done, but you might want to rethink this:

Witness one says the suspect wore a red hat. Witness two says it was a pink hat with a red band. The detail differs and because it does it feels right that both persons are probably eyewitnesses.

Different facts are emphasized in the 4 accounts at times, but that is different from direct conflict regarding the same facts that are discussed.

[Alex Murphy]

Instead of one single record–like a single biography–of the life of Christ we have not only four different versions (totally unheard of for any character in ancient history) but those four versions themselves are compilations of the accounts of many individuals who were present at the events. This multiplicity of sources adds an astounding level of veracity to the gospels since those many different sources check and balance and correct one another.

The community origin of the gospels makes them completely unique documents in human history. Nowhere else do we have four accounts of a character from ancient history written within sixty years of his death, compiled not by one person but compiled out of the community experience. These documents are not compiled by a single historian who is prone not only to bias, but to factual errors and misunderstandings. Because the gospels come out of this lived and shared experience they are far more likely to be accounts of what really happened. If something blatantly false were written the community would have corrected it.

While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said....

....The commission of biblical scholars, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met at the Vatican May 2-6 to continue discussions about #147;Inspiration and Truth in the Bible”....

....In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature, while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true. Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.
-- from the thread How to Read the Bible as a Catholic [How? Don't take indv. verses as "literally true", says Pope]

Yesterday saw...a forceful plea from a key papal advisor [Bishop Salvatore Fisichella, the rector of the Lateran University and President of the Pontifical Academy for Life] to reject the idea of Christianity as a “Religion of the Book”....
-- from the thread Synod: Christianity not a 'Religion of the Book'

"As we begin the work of this synodal assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, let us turn our gaze to Christ, the light of the world and our only teacher," Cardinal Levada encouraged. The prelate's point was further developed when Cardinal Marc Ouellet, archbishop of Quebec, took the floor to affirm that the Word is much more than the Bible. He clarified that Christianity is not a religion of the Book.
-- from the thread Cardinal Says Scripture Inseparably United to Tradition

...while fewer believers know much about the Bible, one-third of Americans continue to believe that it is literally true, something organizers of the Synod on the Word of God called a dangerous form of fundamentalism that is “winning more and more adherents…even among Catholics.” Such literalism, the synod’s preparatory document said, “demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research”....
-- from the thread A Literate Church: The state of Catholic Bible study today

[daniel1212]

To which can be added RC adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and relegating numerous historical accounts in the RC NAB approved notes to being fables or folk tales, among other denials. (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Remarks)

Not really what the conservative element wants to see, while the more literally a Catholics holds the Bible to be then the more conservative they are. American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

[Alex Murphy]

Not really what the conservative element wants to see, while the more literally a Catholics holds the Bible to be then the more conservative they are.

I'm not so sure that's true. I'll take the Pope's words over Fr. Dwight Longnecker's, over what a Catholic is supposed to believe regarding the Bible. The more a Catholic believes the Bible to be literally true, the more out of step they are with their Pope, with their Cardinals, and with their Bishops.

[Salvation]

Not true.

[Natural Law]

"The more a Catholic believes the Bible to be literally true, the more out of step they are with their Pope,..."

As the Pope once said; "It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free." The truth is not the vain construct of those driven by their envy and hatred of the Church nor the recitations brought forth from maleducation.

"Sacred Scripture isn't merely a text written in the past, but rather the word of God that has within it a personal message directed to each individual Christian....We should never forget that the word of God transcends time. Human opinions come and go; what is very modern today will be old tomorrow. But the word of God is the word of eternal life, it carries within itself eternity, which is always valuable. Carrying within ourselves the word of God, we also carry eternal life." - Pope Benedict XVI

[Salvation]

Good article.

[Salvation]

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[daniel1212]

And then you have the unTraditional Traditional RC seen on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2907866/posts

[daniel1212]

Sorry. I meant the “prophetic” publisher on this page of this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2907866/posts

[Gamecock]

We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.

So what's your point?

Just because the Papists kept Scripture for 1.5K years doesn't mean they have some special insight.

All we have to do is look at how the RC church changed between the Councils of Orange and Trent and we can see how much it jumped the track.

[Alex Murphy]

Just because the Papists kept Scripture for 1.5K years doesn't mean they have some special insight.

Just because they kept it doesn't mean they read it :).

After all, the Israelites kept it too, yet in King Josiah's day the Pentateuch had gone unread for countless generations (2 Kings 22:8-11) until the day King Josaih obeyed God (Deuteronomy 31:9-13) and read it aloud before all of Israel (2 Kings 23:1-3).

[Gamecock]

That too.

It's like saying just because some Martian shows up with a long lost copy of the Declaration of Independence we should make him President.

[Alex Murphy]

It's like saying just because some Martian shows up with a long lost copy of the Declaration of Independence we should make him President.

"You expect me to vote for who?"

[Hacksaw]

It's like saying just because some Martian shows up with a long lost copy of the Declaration of Independence we should make him President.

Maybe it's like someone like you saying that, but the similarity ends there. If you have to use Martians showing up as an argument, your point pretty much ends there.