A happy Easter to you all
April 24, 2011 by joyfulpapist
Posted in The church year | Tagged Easter Sunday, He has risen, the resurrection | 14 Comments
14 Responses
Leave a reply to Seeker Cancel reply
Patron Saint for 2013
Essential resources
Catholic news
Catholics talking
Interesting blogs
Recent comments
Jerry on Gone AWOL toadspittle on Gone AWOL toadspittle on Gone AWOL toadspittle on Gone AWOL Kerberos on Gone AWOL -
Recent posts
- Gone AWOL
- “Come and have breakfast”
- Seeing is believing
- Rise up and walk!
- Reformation, like charity, begins at home
- To the city and the world
- He is risen!
- God has died, and hell trembles
- Holy Saturday – Today there is a Great Silence over the world
- I thirst! Jesus asks for the fourth cup of the Passover
-
Join 69 other subscribers
Archives
Proud to be an amateur Catholic B-team member
Interestingly, according to the Bible Jesus wasn’t the only one to emerge from the grave that first Easter Sunday!
A whole bunch of people got raised from the dead on Good Friday, waited patiently till Sunday than went for a wander round Jerusalem. That must have been front page news in the local Gazette! I wonder why Josephus makes no mention of such an obvious act of God? It must have been rather unnerving though. No wonder the apostles were hiding in an upstairs room with all these dead people popping up! I would be too!
“I wonder why Josephus makes no mention of such an obvious act of God?” Perhaps mentioning it didn’t suit his job as Vespasian’s press officer? Or perhaps Matthew was talking about a theological event that was obvious only to those who already believed?
Or perhaps the ‘many people’ mentioned were all convinced and became disciples, and therefore the story had no currency among those who didn’t become disciples?
Of course, Josephus wasn’t born for around another seven years, so that may have had something to do with it.
Or perhaps it just never happened? I still find it amazing the amount of cognitive dissonance that goes on around here. Different levels of evidence required for different events.
KA
KA may well be correct.
Daniel Harrington SJ in his Sacra Pagina commentary on Matthew describes Mat 27:52 as
This looks more like apocalyptic writing than an historical account.
Daneil Harrington’s view seems to dovetail with the Holy Father’s recent TV response interpreting the significance of the Harrowing of Hell more in the sense of a way of describing the reality that Christ’s resurrection and its saving power is not limited in time.
The Church doesn’t claim this passage is necessarily historical.
God Bless
Well done Chris! There are quite a number of passages and instances in the gospels that have been inserted to tie into the Old Testament but which most likely did not happen. The census in Bethlehem, the slaughter of the Holy Innocents and the Flight to Egypt are three other instances that scholars widely agree are ‘not strictly historical’ – ie they are a later devotional addition that has no basis in actual events. There are many more if one cares to look.
Yes, I was unclear. What Seeker and Chris say is what I had in mind in talking about a theological event. I should not have said ‘event’. Rather, a theological explanation or even a theological ‘gloss’.
I just put the other stuff in there because – well – why not? After all, I wasn’t there. And if Matthew was not a witness, and certainly was not unbiased, neither (on both counts) was Josephus.
Difference being that Josephus didn’t invent a “theological event” and pass it off as something that actually happened whereas the author of Matthew did. 😀
Not theological explanations, no. Josephus appears to have invented a few other things though. There is plenty of reason to question his account of what actually happened at Masada, for a start.
And here’s what he says about Joseph: “According to Josephus, baby Moses was brought before the Pharaoh, and the Pharaoh (for whatever reason) put his crown on Moses’ head! But the smart, young, baby Moses threw it down to the ground, and stepped on it! (2 Ant. 9:7). That tantrum provoked the unnamed “sacred scribe” from before to try to kill baby Moses, exclaiming, “This, O king! this child is he of whom God foretold, that if we kill him we shall be in no danger; he himself affords an attestation to the prediction of the same thing, by his trampling upon thy government, and treading upon thy diadem.” But the Pharaoh doesn’t seem to care, and everything is forgiven. Moses is later “educated with great care” by the Pharaoh’s daughter.” Though to be fair, he was probably just repeating stories he picked up from another source.
Which makes the bible look more and more like the work of fiction that it clearly is.
Here’s an interesting video on evidence from Bart Ehrman, a well known biblical scholar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCdJT8avbpo&feature=player_embedded
KA
Apart from the niggle that it isn’t a work, but a collection of works in various genres, so what? Actually, that isn’t a niggle but a serious objection. ‘The work of fiction’ implies that a single author sat down to write something to deceive or entertain. Even the most obstinate of chronological snobs would have trouble believing that.
I detect the biblical literalist in your past, KA.
It’s only in recent times that biblical literalism has fallen out favor – not coincidentally it’s run in parallel with modern biblical scholarship identifying so many issues with that approach. Most of the Catholic chuch’s teaching owes a lot to biblical literalism so best not sneer at it!
I don’t agree, Seeker. Certainly, people took literally in earlier times parts of the Bible that we don’t take literally today, but that doesn’t mean they were biblical literalists in the sense that the term is generally used today.
It is a fundamental principle of biblical teaching in the Catholic Church that the Scriptures need to be interpreted. That has been taught since the beginning of the Church, and is itself in Scripture. Moreover, the Jewish intelligensia were engaged on interpretation before the beginning of the Church .
If biblical literalism was the Catholic way, this constant caution about interpretation would not exist.
The patristic fathers were remarkably non-literalistic in their interpretations, frequently resorting to allegory and spiritual interpretations. Ditto the ancient Jewish midrash a millenia before them. A non-literalistic interpretation is nothing new. Modern literalistic reading owes more to US based protestant fundamentalism.
The literal reading is what the sacred author intended, which was often not the first thought that enters the mind of the 21st Century Western literalistic reader more versed in science and journalistic literature than sacred scripture.
God Bless
KA,
The Gospel accounts are not works of fiction (although some books of the OT like Jonah and Tobit may be).
They are theological compositions based on different strands of tradition interpreted by the various authors in the light of the concerns of their own communities (local churches).
The fact that there are slightly different recollections is quite normal for human beings writing 35-60 years after the events. The differences argue for authenticity. If they all said exactly the same thing then that would be evidence for fabrication. The differences also argue for multiple witnesses(one witness remembered one detail other remembered others).
It looks like the passover was officially Friday but Jesus, in full accord with the power of any rabbi, chose to celebrate a day early, for good reasons. The Torah explicitly allowed this and Jews today do too.
Writing decades after the events, if one strand of tradition remembered Jesus dying about noon and another in early afternoon, that isn’t really a serious objection. Try asking your relatives if, just relying on memory, they know the exact hour of your birth.
That one strand of tradition remembers 1 angel and another 2 is not really a serious objection to authenticity. And neither are any of the other issues Ehrman raises.
If one takes from Ehrman that not every minor detail in the gospels needs to be read as exact historical event, then such a view is entirely consistent with how the Catholic Church reads the gospels.
God Bless