ARTICLES

It's Just the Gospels

Bishop McGrath on the Historicity of Scripture

BY STEPHEN FRANKINI

Patrick McGrath, bishop of the diocese of San Jose, wrote an article titled, "It's a Movie, Not History," appearing on the San Jose Mercury News website on February 19, 2004 -- almost one week prior to the release of Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ.

The bishop stated at the outset of his article that at the time of his writing, he had not seen Gibson's movie but wanted to address concerns that the movie will provoke anti-Semitism. In order to allay these fears the bishop stated: "While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four Gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief."

By saying they are not historical, was the bishop saying that the four Gospels may not necessarily be faithful accounts of the events they record? If so, how does that knowledge affect our method of interpreting Scripture -- or Mel Gibson's movie, for that matter?

The article went on to say that not for several generations after the writing of the Gospels did the "Jewish Christians" cease to consider themselves Jews. Bishop McGrath then stated, "we, however, have a responsibility to history as well as to the present to bring a different understanding [from the Jewish writers of scripture] to our relations with one another." So, according to Bishop McGrath, our understanding of the events 2000 years ago must be different than that of the inspired authors? And "responsibility to history" requires this? It is unclear from his last statement if the facts stated in scripture regarding the life of Christ are at issue, or the conclusions one draws from scripture.

The bishop then stated the main thesis of his article, that the Church renounces all forms of anti-Semitism, quoting Vatican II's Nostra Ætate: "Humanity forms but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock that God created.... The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this follows from holy scripture. Indeed the Church reproves every form of persecution against whomsoever it may be directed.... it deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews."

Bishop McGrath closed the article by hoping the movie wouldn't jeopardize the mutual respect between Catholics and Jews. "It's just a movie," he said, and then asked us to renew "the ties that bind us to our Jewish brothers and sisters, the first of God's Chosen People."

Bishop McGrath's statements on the historical nature of the Gospels seem to indicate that the scriptures are in themselves anti-Semitic. Why else question their historical accuracy? And how can he reconcile his views with those of Vatican II, which states in Dei Verbum: "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute certainty maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among us, really did and taught for their salvation until the day when he was taken up." Ironically, while Gibson disputes the authority of Vatican II, his film stands in accord with Dei Verbum.

I sent an email and phoned the diocese, asking how Bishop McGrath reconciles his views with Vatican II but received no response.

So I asked scripture scholar, Dr. Stephen Militec, dean of faculty at Franciscan University in Steubenville, to give his take on McGrath's article. He explained that "The Passion has raised the question in some minds as to whether or not the Gospels are anti-Semitic -- that in the Gospels the Jews manipulated the Romans. I have the impression that Bishop McGrath is addressing this basic point. There have been anti-Semitic actions throughout history. These unfortunate events are not rooted in the Gospels. The Gospels are rooted in history -- the life of Jesus and the Apostles. They are theological reflections about things that really happened in history. So, they are historical, but not just history. Rather, they contain and proclaim theological and spiritual understanding of what actually happened in history, all contained within an historical memory."

Militec explained that in the Gospels "we have two versions of the Our Father. Different versions of the words of institution. Four different accounts of Jesus' death. They agree in essence but are quite diverse in the range of material they present. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John developed an understanding of these events. For these authors, the primary meaning in Jesus' death, while effected through a political process, was essentially the work of something of a higher order, a divine plan for salvation. In this sense, the death of Jesus was not strictly speaking a political process. The Gospel writers understood that God intended this [Christ's death] from all eternity. It is in the above sense that the Gospels are historical and theological reflections of historical events. Each Gospel has its own point that it wants to get across. Strictly speaking, it's not correct to say they are not historical."

I asked Militec how he might view the differences between, say, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49), which seem to be the same historical event, containing contradictory details.

"Sometimes scholars treat theories as absolutes," said Militec. "We might be able to give lines or arguments with supporting evidence for this or that view, but we do not necessarily always arrive at moral certainty about any given theory. An account of the differences between the two Gospels could be found in the overall intent of each writer; or, Jesus could have given the presentation many times (as He no doubt did with the Our Father), or other possibilities of explanation could be developed (and have been over the past 300 years)."

"Clearly there is core material that is being transmitted. These two Gospels are addressing two different audiences with very different interests and needs. Take Mark's Gospel as an illustration of how he shaped his materials to suit his listeners. It looks like Mark seems to be communicating with people who don't appear to understand Judaism. There are many places where he explains Jewish rituals to his readers. The analogy would be as if someone today were to explain why on Ash Wednesday Catholics put ashes on the forehead. The listener is an important force in shaping any presentation."

As for the charge of anti-Semitism, Militec said, "the Gospels do not contain anti-Semitic tendencies and should not be understood as generating them in the individual mind. Anti-Semitism is, like any other serious and devastating sin, something that starts in the broken, confused, and fearful soul, which the Gospel's proclamation of freedom should address as such."

TOP