| In the wake of the
movie The Passion of The Christ many have asked if the
Gospel accounts are reliable sources of information on
the death of Jesus, or on His life and teaching for that
matter. Some scholars and clergy, even Catholics, have
argued that the Gospels are statements of faith and not
history, that they were written well after the fact, even
as late as the second century, and that they therefore
represent the teachings of the developing Church not the
events as they actually occurred. This view,
unfortunately, has also found its way into parish
catechetics and homiletics, as evidenced by efforts to
explain away the miracles, healings and exorcisms of the
Lord.
These "theories", however, run counter to the witness
of the Gospels themselves, the testimony of the Fathers
and the constant and unanimous teaching of the Church.
Consider, for example, what St. Luke reports he was doing
in writing his Gospel.
Luke 1:1
1
Inasmuch as many have
undertaken to compile a narrative of the things
which have been accomplished among us,
2
just as they were delivered to us
by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses
and ministers of the word,
3
it seemed good to me also, having
followed all things closely for some time past, to
write an orderly account for you, most excellent
Theophilus, 4
that you may know the truth
concerning the things of which you have been
informed.
St. Luke also affirms, at the
beginning of his Acts of the Apostles,
Acts 1:1-2 1
In the first book, O
Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began
to do and teach, 2
until the day when
he was taken up, after he had given commandment
through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had
chosen.
Although the Gospel of John was
certainly written in the late 90s, as even the most
orthodox scholars admit, and probably edited into final
form by a disciple (as the words themselves suggest), it
clearly proclaims the eyewitness testimony of the apostle
himself.
John 21:21-24 21
When Peter saw him,
he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” [i.e.
St. John] 22
Jesus said to him, “If it
is my will that he remain until I come, what is that
to you? Follow me!” 23 The saying spread
abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not
to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not
to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until
I come, what is that to you?”
24 This is the
disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and
who has written these things; and we know that his
testimony is true.
While the Church does not, in fact,
guarantee the genuineness of the names associated with
the Gospels, only the divine inspiration of the texts,
the testimony of early witnesses firmly associates them
with the New Testament personages to whom they are
ascribed: the Apostle Matthew, Mark or John Mark,
associated first with St. Paul and then St. Peter, Luke,
the physician and companion of St. Paul, and the Apostle
and Beloved Disciple John. In the middle of the second
century St. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho,
writes
we find it recorded in the memoirs of His
apostles that He is the Son of God,
clearly indicating the ascription of the texts to
apostolic personages directly associated with Christ.
Eusebius of Caesaria, in his ecclesiastical history
written in the late 2nd century, says of Mark's Gospel,
And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine
the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not
satisfied with hearing once only, and were not
content with the unwritten teaching of the divine
Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they
besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one
whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a
written monument of the doctrine which had been
orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease
until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus
become the occasion of the written Gospel which
bears the name of Mark. And they say that Peter when
he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit,
of that which had been done, was pleased with the
zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the
sanction of his authority for the purpose of being
used in the churches. [Church History Bk. II,
Ch. XV, 1-2]
Further on, he explains the history of the Gospels in
greater depth,
6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the
Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples,
committed his Gospel to writing in his native
tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was
obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. 7.
And when Mark and Luke had already published their
Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all
his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally
proceeded to write for the following reason. The
three Gospels already mentioned having come into the
hands of all and into his own too, they say that he
accepted them and bore witness to their
truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an
account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning
of his ministry. 8. And this indeed is true. For it
is evident that the three evangelists recorded only
the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the
imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this
in the beginning of their account. 9. For Matthew,
after the forty days' fast and the temptation which
followed it, indicates the chronology of his work
when he says: "Now when he heard that John was
delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.''
10. Mark likewise says: "Now after that John was
delivered up Jesus came into Galilee." And Luke,
before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus,
similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod,
"adding to all the evil deeds which he had done,
shut up John in prison." 11. They say,
therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do
it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of
the period which had been omitted by the earlier
evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour
during that period; that is, of those which were
done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And
this is indicated by him, they say, in the following
words: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus " ...
12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the
deeds of Christ which were performed before the
Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three
evangelists mention the events which happened after
that time. 13. One who understands this can no
longer think that the Gospels are at variance with
one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to
John contains the first acts of Christ, while the
others give an account of the latter part of his
life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according
to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because
it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and
began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had,
as it were, been reserved for him, as their
superior, by the divine Spirit. 14. These things may
suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel of
John. The cause which led to the composition of the
Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us. 15.
But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he
states that since many others had more
rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the
events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge,
he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from
their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own
Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard
to which he had learned the full truth, being aided
by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his
acquaintance with the rest of the apostles. [Church
History Bk. III, Ch. XXIV, 6-15]
The number of Patristic quotes
could be multiplied to show that all the Fathers took the
Gospels as historical accounts upon which they could
reliably base the elucidation of doctrine from the words
and deeds of Christ Himself. For good reason, therefore,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes
this history, expressing the Church's constant faith in
the truth of the Gospels,
126 We can distinguish three stages in the
formation of the Gospels:
1. The life and teaching
of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four
Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly
affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of
God, while he lived among men, really did and taught
for their eternal salvation, until the day when he
was taken up." [Second Vatican Council, Dei
Verbum 19; Acts 1:1-2]
2. The oral tradition.
"For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles
handed on to their hearers what he had said and
done, but with that fuller understanding which they,
instructed by the glorious events of Christ and
enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed." [DV
19]
3. The written Gospels.
"The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels,
selected certain of the many elements which had been
handed on, either orally or already in written form;
others they synthesized or explained with an eye to
the situation of the churches, the while sustaining
the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion
that they have told us the honest truth about
Jesus." [DV 19]
Finally, the Catechism gives special mention to
the circumstances of Jesus' death, since the Passion,
Death and Resurrection are the foundation of the
Christian faith. To deny the veracity of the accounts is
tantamount to denying the faith, placing it on the sands
of human opinion, or retroactive wishful thinking by the
early Church, rather than history.
573 Faith can therefore try to examine the
circumstances of Jesus' death, faithfully handed on
by the Gospels and illuminated by other historical
sources, the better to understand the meaning of the
Redemption.
|
