Loading ...
Here’s a question I’ve been idly wondering about for some time. What is the proper Catholic explanation for inconsistencies between the Gospels and other books of the Bible? People who are heavily prejudiced against religion always love to use these as proof that the Bible must be nonsense. Christopher Hitchens, for example (who I actually find interesting sometimes, precisely because he is one person on the left who is completely honest about his burning hostility towards all things religious) loves to trot these out. The Bible is contradictory! Just look at the inconsistencies!
Usually I roll my eyes, because really, there aren’t many inconsistencies between the Gospels. This has never been a stumbling block for my faith. Still, if we think the Bible is inerrant, the problem does merit an answer, and I just don’t know what to say about it. Why, for example, does the story of the cleansing of the temple come early in the Gospel of John, but late in the Gospel of Matthew? Why does St. Luke have the good thief confessing guilt and asking Jesus to “remember me when you come into your Kingdom” while St. Matthew and St. Luke have them joining in with the crowds who mock Him? If you read the Easter accounts from the different Gospels, you will find some subtle differences here as well.
As an interesting note, the Old Testament also has some difficult passages. In the Book of Samuel (in my opinion, one of the best and most poignant stretches of the OT) there are two accounts of the way in which Saul meets David. In one story, Saul is subject to bouts of madness, during which music is the only thing that can calm him. David is apparently a skilled musician, and is hired to play the harp for Saul during these fits. But later on, in the famous David and Goliath story, Saul doesn’t seem to know David at all when he volunteers to fight the giant. I suppose the king could just have had a really bad memory, but it seems he’d probably know the boy who was his sole comfort in difficult times. It does really appear as though there were two competing legends about how they met, which both somehow made it into the record.
Again, I’ve never lost any sleep over this, but, for apologetic purposes, it would be nice to have something to say. Any ideas from our readers?
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
One thought on this from Ronald Knox, chapter entitled Spring Cleaning, from ‘The Layman & His Conscience’:
“Our Lord, you will remember, made a sort of spring cleaning of the temple at Jerusalem, when he drove out the traders and the money-changers who were carrying on business there. … St.John describes the cleansing in Jerusalem as if it had happened at the very beginning of our Lord’s ministry, whereas the other Evangelists describe it as if it happened just before the Passion. Learned people are apt to talk as if the gospels must have been rather inexact about their dating here; of course, the thing can’t have happened twice. I’m not so sure; it seems to me one only needs a very elementary knowledge of human nature to realize that it may have happened twice; that two years would be plenty of time for the same old abuses to have crept in again, and have to be dealt with a second time in the same way. That, at least, is what is always happening in these temples of ours, our immortal souls.”
That’s a nice tidbit, booklover. Thank you!
I don’t know about the passages from the Old Testament; and the Church does not claim historical inerrancy there. But with the Gospels, the Church does.
And I think that before a person could accuse the Gospels of being full of inconsistencies, they ought to read the defense of that consistency.
I always prefer to read Eusebius’ accounting of how the Gospel of John came to be. It is quite informative.
Peace!
-KJS
St. John is noted for rearranging the events of the Gospels to make his theological points. That is, in part, why his is not one of the so-called synoptic gospels. The Gospels are not what modern persons would think of as a biography of Jesus Christ. Persons in biblical times did not share our modern days obsession with chronological facts and exactness of description. I know the Romans were good at writing history, but the writers of Scripture were not Romans and they were not writing history. That is why we get into trouble when we try to read Scripture as an exact historical compilation. Modern readers seem to have lost the ability (or have never been taught) to take into consideration the times in which such books were written. Since the writers of Scripture were not modern men (praise be to God!) they had neither the same viewpoint, nor the same style of modern composition.
Which all sounds like a round about way of saying that, sure, there can be inconsistencies, because the Evangelists weren’t writing exact history.
First of all, St. Augustine doesn’t agree with you.
Second, the dogma of the Church doesn’t agree with you. Though I cringe to do it, I qoute here from the Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum (and the CCC at the same time!): “Ecclesia firmiter tenet quattuor Evangelia, “quorum historicitatem incunctanter affirmat, fideliter tradere quae Iesus Dei Filius, vitam inter homines degens, ad aeternam eorum salutem reapse fecit et docuit, usque in diem qua assumptus est’ ” (CCC 126).
I did not say the Gospels were not historical. I said that the events are not presented in the same manner modern man presents historical accounts. I learned in a master’s level scripture class from a devout professor that St. John’s presentation was constructed the way it is primarily to support his theological points. The other three Gospels are called the Synoptic Gospels because they line up so well with each other chronologically. St. John’s does not. The so-called inconsistancies are not of fact but of particular emphasis for theological purposes. I have read, and accept, all the Church teachings on Scripture.
Please do not make accusations when you do not know me. I said nothing to impugn the historicity of the Gospels. I was just trying to clear up some confusion. If this is the way you attack commentators, then I will refrain from participating in the future.
My apologies.
From your remarks, however, in which you spoke of the Gospels, and not of St. John’s in particular, I gathered that you did not think them to be compositions written with historical accuracy. You said: “That is why we get into trouble when we try to read Scripture as an exact historical compilation.”
Your point about St. John’s Gospel makes sense. But since you said that we shouldn’t read Scripture as “an exact historical compilation” - and I don’t know which parts can be read this way, expect the Gospels, I mistook your position. Again, my apologies.
Apology accepted.
My point overall is that modern readers tend to read Scripture from the modern expectation regarding historical writing, i.e. dates and exact descriptions with minutae of detail. From this perspective, the Gospels do not seem to meet the strict requirements of historical writing. Therefore, such readers feel they can dismiss the truth of Scripture because they have such difficulty reading it. They have not learned to read it as its own genre. I see it as one more failure of the modern perspective. Such people want to read the Bible as a modern composition—hence, the attempts at rendering it into modern language using dynamic equivalancy translation methods which have only added to their confusion.
It comes down to a person’s approach to Scripture. Such a wonderous work deserves a altogether different approach to its study. It is too much to ask that we approach the Word of God with the attitude that we should learn how to read it as such and not as just another work of literature or history? That means using orthodox commentaries, learning the vocabulary of Scripture, using as literal a translation as we can obtain (with orthodox footnotes), even learning what we can of the languages of Scripture. Above all, we should pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance before we commence to read. In other words, the work itself deserves some effort on our part.
“I don’t know about the passages from the Old Testament; and the Church does not claim historical inerrancy there. But with the Gospels, the Church does.”
I’m interested in this, Iosephe. What is your source for the Church not claiming historical inerrancy in the Old Testament?
As for the claim that the Romans wrote “history” in something more closely approximating the modern sense, let me say that Tacitus at least is a propagandist. He is slanted in the extreme — one of the best writers I’ve ever read, but slanted. When Sallust and Thucydides (a Greek) relate speeches for their characters, we can never be certain if the speech is modelled on what was actually said or the author, working from what he knew, fabricated what he thought would be most “fitting” thing for that person to say at that moment. So Theophile’s proposed model for understanding biblical “historical inaccuracy” does not conflict with history as written in the ancient world. (That does not mean that I subscribe to this view of Scripture.)
I’m sorry, I guess my statement could be read to say, “the Church does not claim historical inerrancy there; ergo, she claims that the Old Testament is not historically inerrant.”
What I wanted to say was that there is not a positive claim of inerrancy, so far as I know, about the Old Testament, while about the New, there is, even in Vatican II. I’m more than eager to hear about statements in this regard pertaining to the Old Testament.
This dogma, like many others, is rejected by many Catholics, including the recently emeritus Archbishop of Houston-Galveston, Joseph Fiorenza, and some bishop dude in California, I can’t remember which one.
I too am curious about the status of the Old Testament — I had never heard before that the Church does not declare it to be inerrant.
Theophile — I certainly agree that a person should investigate further before concluding on the basis of their own readings of the Gospels that they are contradictory. I assumed when I posted this that there were good solutions to these puzzles, but I haven’t succeeded in finding them, which is why I asked for help.
In general, I have been wary of books or commentaries that tell me how the Bible ought to be read, ever since I took scripture classes in college where they tried to teach me “modern Biblical exegesis.” That study, I found, was so deeply infected with modernist presumptions that no person of faith would ever want to trust its conclusions. The Church fathers can be trusted, of course, and I do read their commentaries in bits and pieces, but it’s somewhat hard to know how to navagate them if you’re just an ordinary person who doesn’t have enough time to make scripture study a full-time occupation. Accordingly, my feeling is that it’s better for most people to just pick up the Bible and read it, together with prayers for understanding, than for them to go to Borders and risk their faith on a randomly selected commentary. If they are simultaneously committed to (and reasonably familiar with) the doctrines of the Church, I don’t think unmediated reflection on Scripture can hold much evil tendency. But if you have suggestions for what a person might use to help them better understand the Bible — let’s say a person of reasonable intelligence who can devote about half an hour each day to its study — then I’d be quite interested to hear them.
Not “inerrant”, historically inerrant.
So this position would say that it is an infallible guide, in conjunction with the New Testament, to faith and morals, but that there might be the occasional slip about the number of soldiers at a particular battle. That kind of thing.
Whereas there are no such goofs in the Gospels. I take that to be the import of the word ‘historicity’ in “whose historicity the Church steadfastly affirms.”
If someone else knows otherwise about the Old Testament, do say so!
Why can’t you use the Church Fathers? They wrote continuous commentaries, just like you can find in Borders, though with some different content. I’ve been meaning to check St. Ambrose’s commentary on the Gospel of Luke; it’s often quoted in the Breviary and Ambrose’s Latin is serious stuff.
There is an English translation for sale here.
Or why not use the Catena Aurea? It too goes passage by passage, and there’s a book for each of the Gospels?
I know that covers, for the most part, only the Gospels - so why not use a Bible like Ambrosius’ which has a compilation of comments from the Fathers and other reputable folks at the bottom of each page?
The bible of mine to which Iosephus refers is the Haydock Bible. Its New Testament commentary is available online, I just discovered, here:
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/
Incidentally, its treatment of the earlier Johannine cleansings of the temple:
Commentary in John:
Ver. 15. He drove them all out of the temple. According to St. Chrysostom (hom. lxvii. in Matt.) this casting out was different from that which is there related, chap. xxi. ver. 12. (Witham) — How could the Son of the carpenter, Joseph, whose divinity was yet unknown to the people, succeed in expelling so great a multitude from the temple! There was undoubtedly something divine in his whole conduct and appearance, which deterred all from making resistance. The evangelist seems to insinuate this by putting these words: “The house of my Father,” into our Saviour’s mouth, which was making himself immediately the Son of God. This made Origen consider this miracle, in overcoming the unruly dispositions of so many, as a superior manifestation of power to what he had shewn in changing the nature of water at Cana. (Haydock) — Jesus Christ here shews the respect he requires should be shewn to the temple of God; and St. Paul, speaking of the profaners of God’s Church, saith: If any man defile the temple of God, he will God destroy. (1 Corinthians iii. 17.) Which in a spiritual sense may be understood of the soul of man, which is the living temple of the living God. (Haydock)
Okay, fair enough. That sounds like a good book to have. And I do consult the Catena Aurea sometimes. You know that I’m really a fan of going straight to the Fathers for Biblical commentary.
But still, it seemed as though Theophile might want us to be reading something more than that — analyses of the form and style of the Evangelists, and that sort of thing. That’s the sort of thing I needed for the “exegesis papers” that I was assigned to write as an undergrad theo major, and I never figured out how to find trustworthy ones.
And I do still think that, given proper supplementary instruction in the Catechism, it should be all right to just put a Bible in someone’s hands and let them read.
Clara,
You are right to be wary of modern commentaries. Even using the old ones (mid-20th century) is difficult and one has to read with great discrimination. If you can get your hands on an OLD Jerome’s Commentary, it is pretty good. The new one is dangerous. Actually, keep a look out for old commentaries (pre-Vatican II). They turn up at book fairs at Catholic schools and sometimes even libraries. It is interesting that some of the most modern thought is returning to what was traditionally taught, e.g. the dating of the gospels. Not too long ago it seemed to be everyone’s opinion that they were written later and in a different order than what the Church had historically taught. Politics, under Bismark and his kulturkampf, entered into the fray to push the so-called Marken primacy (Mark was written first). That supports a very Protestant reading of the Gospels. Now, at least in some Catholic circles, there is a movement (I don’t know how big) to reassert the primacy of Matthew.
The upshot is that there seems to be no really modern commentary that is well and truly orthodox. The Haydock commentary is a good one to start from. There are new ones being produced, but I don’t know how they are yet. There is one set in production that uses the Church Fathers, but the complaint I’ve heard is that the comments are too abbreviated. It is the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture — but it is a joint project between Catholics and protestants, so I don’t know how orthodox it will end up being.
I hope this helps.
Thank you, Theophile. That is indeed useful information to have.