Well I have to disagree with you and go with the Church Fathers that the Gospel were written by Matthew, Mark (indirectly from Peter), Luke and John themselves. While I agree with you that they were not written like in the Chosen and were written many years later, I cannot agree that they were written by theologians who never witnessed the events. I actually side with St Augustine and St Jerome who believe Matthew was written first and in fact like the whole Church believed for the first 1500 years. We can't always agree ... keep up the good work.
I think the show is actually showcasing a hypothesis that tries to blend the early testimony of Matthew writing first and the more modern critical and popular Markan priority hypothesis; it probably showcases Matthew keeping notes that are not identical to the Gospel.
Absolutely Not written by the apostles themselves and definitely not without error in translation but still very good and obviously vital. Good rule of thumb to read the Bible metaphorically.
@@stevenking6129 Only two Gospels bear the names of Apostles, Matthew (the tax collector) and John. Every single copy ever found of any of the canonical gospels carry the names of their authors. The idea of "anonymous gospels" has no documentary support and no small logical problems in figuring how every single copy spread throughout everywhere would have the right names. Despite colorful imaginations, there is no real reason to think the gospels were written by others outside of those names given them. 2 aren't even apostles and 1 was a tax collector (who were not liked even moreso back then than even now). There are different genres in Scripture. Metaphorical genres should be understood metaphorically, but literal genres literally. However, being holy writ, there are many layers. Literal truths can be full of metaphorical meaning.
Statements that the gospels were, "written much later by people who never witnessed Jesus themselves.... to preserve the oral traditions of the eyewitnesses" that the gospels were "poetically and artfully crafted works of literature" "expressing the reflections of faith communities" and gospel stories that seem "completely unbelievable" - are statements that do not reflect the magisterium of the Church. The Church believes that what we call the "new testament" is the Word of God - and is true - and not just in an allegorical / poetical / symbolic sense. The Lord of the Rings is true in an allegorical / poetical / symbolic sense and it is a poetically and artfully crafted work of literature - but it is not the Word of God. Sure, I agree that it is highly unlikely that Matthew and John kept written notes. On the other hand it is highly likely that Luke spoke to various eyewitnesses including Mary as his gospel specifically reflects her memories. In the same way Mark includes the memory of a young man who fled naked down the street when his clothes were torn off - someone that is almost certainly Mark himself. John recalls leaning on the breast of Jesus and asking "Who is it?" - plus also his direction from Jesus to care for Mary - both almost certainly a memories of that eyewitness. Matthew also includes vignettes of his calling as a tax collector - again an eyewitness inserting himself into the overall narrative. The truth is that scholars are all over the map. There are scholars who believe the gospels were written several hundred years after the time of Christ and are a complete fiction. But there are also scholars who believe the gospels were written by eyewitnesses in the middle to late first century. As to the differences among the gospels - it is well known that eyewitnesses will emphasize different things - police detectives encounter these differences every day and the are not contradictions, but different points of view. I would urge you not to flatly accept the comments of "scholars". Instead, study the matter for yourself. Take a look at an early church document know as the Muratorian Canon - a document dated to around 170 AD which lists the accepted books of the new testament and includes some comments on them. Take a look also at the book of church history by Eusebius of Caesarea. He was a Bishop of a large church and an attendee of the Nicean Council. Within his book of history he has an extensive discussion of the gospels and the accepted books of the New Testament. He had access to a library full of books which no longer exist and he had a view of the gospels as early and accurate descriptions of eyewitnesses.
While it is true that they were written after Jesus lived on Earth, the people who wrote the Gospels had one thing going for them that isn't common for writers. The Holy Spirit to inspire their writing and ensure that no error made it into it. Is some information secondhand? Yes. But it's also true and the Holy Spirit ensured that.
And its not necessary - as is implied in the video towards the end - to have a low view of scripture in order to have a high view of church tradition and teaching.
When you fall for the blunders of skeptical scholarship in new testament criticism (which presupposes secular views) you get videos like these. We know with certainty who wrote the gospels according to actual early teaching, sacred tradition, and biblical manuscripts. Skeptical dating uses erroneous outlines for what they consider a plausible explanation for how things can be written. Such as any predictions in the text ASSUMING these predictions could never take place a skeptic will date it much later than it actually was. Don't fall for smoke and mirrors. A strong case can be made for early dating of the New Testament and its authorship. God bless
@@florian8599 Let me add clarity to the post. Some of the *only* evidence secular scholars have to date the writing of the Gospels is prophecy. For instance, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Since non-religious don't believe in prophecy, they say that the Gospel writers *must* have written their Gospel after the destruction of the temple. That's literally the only evidence they have to date the Gospel. Yes, I have a degree in Religious Studies from secular Biblical scholars, which is how I know this to be true.
Bruh...you're going to sit there and say the church got it wrong about who the authors were? And then you're even going to insinuate that Matthew, a tax collector, couldn't read and write? And theology vs history is a false dichotomy.
Yeah somenof what he isbsaying isnt making any sense. Especially that bit about if this an historically factual record it becomes nothing more than something to be replicated. Makes no sense at all. It is quite clear this is meant to be an account of factual happenings, and that the Bible is the innerant word. But even that aside Jesus and others speak in parables and similitudes, it is quite obvious we are to glean lessons from those and not take them as historical fact, but that the story was told is historical fact. And there are no biblical errors.
The Church teaches that scripture is inspired by God and inerrant, so no Catholic should make an issue about the fact that the gospels were written decades later, or doubt that the gospels are historically accurate. And it is a tradition of the Church that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the gospels, in that order. No said otherwise until modern times.
“Hmm today I’m going to lie and name my gospel after Luke the physician and not an apostle, so that people will read it.” -Somebody after AD 70 apparently.
Yeah excellent point @Anthony this priest is going down a path that is off the mark. Sadly, he's gained quite a following and influential in many young adults, who will have a skewed understanding of scripture. Thank you Lord, for providing us FR. Mike Schmitz and FR. Mark Goring are able to balance out this misinformed Christian.
We can’t make an argument for something like this purely based on what tradition has said for many years. Being Catholic means we must have both tradition and reason. Would our entire faith fall apart for example if we found reliable evidence that one of the gospels was written by someone else? Also, Fr Casey never said the gospels aren’t inspired or inerrant.
@@Davis_Carlton So if the earthquake and raising of dead bodies from tombs doesn’t come down to eyewitness testimony its an error? Surely it’s not “modernist” to view these details as primarily theological in order to convey a truth within the historical resurrection to a specific audience.
I think that Father needs to read Ratzinger's works. The Apostolic Fathers taught that Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John WROTE the Gospels, not the community. He seems to be a bit of a modernist.
The thing is: Ratzinger is a _fundamental_ theologian -- a very different field from those academic theologians dealing with the Old and New Testament. The problem is, from the standpoint of a historian, that the idea portrayed in The Chosen, that the Gospels were basically written down "in real time", and that the followers of Jesus took meticulous notes, stems from a _modern conception_ of histiography and biography. *Applying this modern concept of histiography and biography on pre-modern times is ahistorical.* What is most likely, is that the Apostles may have compiled sayings of Jesus as well as his most impressive signs. Surely, Jesus may have said his most important sayings several times and the Apostles basically learned them by heart. And the most impressive signs... You get the picture. Just because the evangelists -- those who ultimately wrote and compiled the Gospels -- were perhaps not first-generation, doesn't mean that they didn't have reliable sources. But the idea, that the evangelists (as well as the authors of the epistles of John, Peter, James, Jude, or the Apocalypse of John) and the apostles, who happened to have the same name, where the same person, is... It follows certain traditions, but doesn't necessarily need to be historically accurate. Historiography and biography until the late Middle Ages left room for artistic license. The Benedictus, Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis in the Gospel of Luke, as well as several speeches in the Acts of the Apostles where probably artistic license by "Luke", imitating Greco-Roman histiography and biography, which also used artistic license when it came to grand speeches. To wit, even medieval histiographers and biographers basically composed the big speeches as their own commentary to what happened. In conclusion, it is actually _modernist_ to assume that modern concepts of biography and histiography apply to pre-modern times. But just because the author of Matthew is likely _not_ Matthew the tax collector, and the author of the John is likely _not_ the "disciple whom Jesus loved dearly", or the John of the second and third epistle, or the Apocalypse-John, doesn't mean, that there wouldn't have been reliable sources compiled by the apostles about Jesus' saying, Jesus' passion and Jesus' signs for the authors of the gospels to use -- just look at the three "synoptic" Gospels.
Father not going to lie, but I am quite bothered by the statement that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. John's gospel makes it pretty clear when he says "we saw His glory" (John 1:16) as if implying that he was an eyewitness to these events. I'm not denying the fact that the gospels were written later than the time of christ's public ministry, but to say that they weren't by eyewitnesses, much less the two apostles which are attributed authorship, then we have a major problem here.
I don't know if that was what he meant to imply, but there's no shred of evidence that the authors assigned the gospels were ever anonymous. According to the scholar Brant Pitre, every single copy we have ever found of the canonical gospels have their author assigned to them.
I agree. Also, one of the main reasons they have been dated so late by secular scholarship is because in them Jesus foretells the destruction of the Jewish Temple, but the possibility of real prophecy is rejected by default, so they *must* have been written after 70 AD. For Christians, however, there’s no reason to reject prophecy as a later addition.
I suggest a reading of Dr. Brant Pitre's book, "The Case for Jesus". He makes a very sound arguments that the Gospels were not anonymous and were written by those apostles or disciples whose names have been ascribed to the Gospels; They were ancient bibliographies which tells us that events described did truly happened; there is compelling argument that the Gospels were written earlier and thus much closer to the actual events than many believe.
Agreed. I think we can all agree that yes, they weren't writing the Gospels as we know them today as the miracles were happening. But I think the 'imagination' that the apostles possibly carried around notebooks to remember things isn't so far fetched. As in 'we saw His glory'. They were eyewitnesses--as the Bible, whether Catholic or Protestant, teaches.
As a Protestant, I can say that the "sola scriptura" principle isn't really upheld by most Protestant groups either. What I mean is that each denomination has its own teachings that it puts forward, and if the Bible were the only thing, then no denomination could add to it, right? For example, Methodists (a Protestant group) traditionally completely abstained from alcohol. This practice isn't necessarily a bad idea, but on the other hand, Jesus turned water into wine so can it really be considered biblical? So before we complain about Catholics having teachings that aren't directly based on the Bible, we should examine our own denominations (or individual church for people in a non-denominational church).
I think you might be looking at “Sola Scriptura” in the wrong way a little bit. “Sola Scriptura” does not mean that all of its adherents, aka most Protestants, will follow the exact same things. It just means they use the Bible as the only guidepost. Humans are flawed, though. It can stand to reason that their conclusions/interpretations can be, too (like in your mentioning of alcohol). A Protestant of any denomination can interpret something incorrectly, and others can say he or she is looking at the text incorrectly. In this way, you can say there is some subjectivity in the claim. One side is objectively correct, but it might be harder to discern which side that is. If a Catholic goes against an important tenet of the faith, though, you can have a more objective claim against them via the Church’s authority/traditions. In this way, all Catholics know which side is correct and which one is not.
You're mixing up SOLA scriptura with SOLO scriptura. Sola scriptura is the Bible is the Only INFALLIBLE rule of faith thus ultimate standard. It Is not the only rule of faith. Church Tradition plays a big part but it acknowledges it is fallible. The original reformers did not reject Church tradition as modern Protestants do they just put it as secondary not primary. modern Protestants just chuck out Church tradition and creeds as not important and try to start from scratch that's the problem with all these denominations. No reformer (Luther Calvin and so on) would reject the Apostles Creed or the athanasius and so on. You be considered heretic if you did even by them.
@@manonthestars Exactly, the reformers are actually pretty catholic. Today’s evangelicals are trying to come up with their own thing claiming that church authority and hierarchy doesn’t matter while they follow whatever the pastor says. What a total contradiction…
@@RGTomoenage11 yes they would come across quite Catholic now because there was so much things that they agreed with because the church in history had a lot of things they agreed on. The argument with the reformers were, how is one saved justified and what is the ultimate authority for the church. Namely justified by faith in Christ and scripture as final infallible authority.
It was traditional knowledge that the gospels were written in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no reason to doubt it. The claim that the gospel of Mark was written first was first made by Lutheran scholars in the late 19th century. The claim about another John who wrote the gospel of John is also a claim of modern scholars.
@Omar Savory tradition in and of itself is not bad. Human tradition differs from the tradition given to us by the early Apostles and Church fathers though. It is God's tradition. It basically just follows that if you believe in Christianity, we must be Catholic. If you don't believe in Christianity, sure. You have Islam you have Judaism etc practicing ancient traditions
“Traditional knowledge” maybe, but we have no evidence that any of the Fathers who made the claim had direct knowledge of how the gospels were written. They may have reported stories, but that’s not direct evidence. Further, just because something is a modem or Lutheran claim, does not refute it. The reason why Mark is held to be written first in contemporary scholarship is two: 1) the Greek between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is so similar that literary relationship is likely. There are multiple ways of phrasing sentences in Greek, especially when it comes to word order. Given that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic, almost all of His words in Scripture are a translation. If there’s multiple ways of translating a single Aramaic sentence into Greek, then we would expect these three gospels to be more different then they are. 2) When we accept a literary connection, the next question is the order of that connection. Matthew and Luke both seem to be aware of Mark’s gospel, as both of those gospels have almost the entirety of Mark within them. But we don’t see the same relationship between the two of them. That suggests that they’re both aware of Mark’s gospel at the time of writing, but are unaware of each other’s. There’s more to it than that, such as Matthew and Luke presenting miracles that are also in Mark in a slightly different way, but the main point is that the weight of the textual evidence is on the side of the priority of Mark, and that traditional knowledge isn’t a strong enough counter, given how easy it for such knowledge to be mistaken.
I agree. I don't think the Lord cares about the medium the Gospel is told through or if there are creative liberties to try to connect the people of today to the people in the Gospels, including Jesus, Himself. If it draws people to Him, it is doing its job.
So by your own description you religion (in your own view) it doesn't matter if the gospel and message is told accuracy or honestly, as long as it convinces people? So Jesus or God doesn't care about honesty, accuracy, and integrity, just results? You might want to reconsider your priorities and your views a bit if that's the case.
Father's dating of Scriptural testimony on Jesus buys into theories which are not settled even by scholars. The idea that the literate members of the Apostolic group were not likely to write down what Jesus said is pure supposition. Plenty of writers in the ancient world were taking notes as they travelled around from Herodotus to Pliny the Younger. The theory of very late Gospel composition is an a priori assumption based on the concept of a multiple Community hermeneutic. This has its roots in the Modernist project that denies, for instance, that Christ could have predicted the Roman destruction of Jerusalem because he would not have had prescience as a human "person." The divinity of Christ is subtly set aside here. Our modern Catholic priesthood has been infected with all sorts of ideas which are not consonant with the Divine origins of Revelatiion. With all due respect to this fine young man who, I believe, needs to reexamine some of his training. He might benefit by starting with Pope Benedict's exegetical work, 'Jesus of Nazareth.'
You say plenty of writers as if they were common. The writers you mentioned were born into fairly influential families; The former being closely related to a famous poet, and the other the Grandson of a Senator and received some of the highest forms education in the Roman Empire. I have my doubts that even a tax collector like Matthew who may have been literate could have afford to write during his ministry with Jesus, much less in koine greek. Papyrus and parchment were expensive. Paul's longest letter, addressed to the Romans has been estimated to have cost the modern day equivalent of ~$2,000 for Papyrus. That being said, I agree with you on everything else. I disagree with the modernist approach that Jesus couldn't have predicted the fall of the Second Temple and therefore written after. I simply think that the Apostles Matthew and John gave an oral account while their more educated disciples wrote for them. This form of writing and record keeping was fairly common in ancient antiquity. Most authors didn't write their works alone and individually, they usually had 2-3 other people scribe and edit for them. With respect to Fr. Casey, I think he nearly committed Anathema by saying that the Gospels held contradictions. For Catholics it's not even disputed that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
@@Cklert if you have read the Bible you have read the contradictory accounts. The fact you are afraid to acknowledge them is neither surprising or unusual but rather typical.
@@stevenking6129 the fact that the accounts are contradictory leads to the validation, not detracts from them. This proves they were written by the individuals concerned, and not by groups long afterwards, as if they were written by groups long afterwards, they would surely make an effort to get all their facts straight and to agree with each other. The fact that the Gospel writers have a different take on some things that happened and even contradict each other show the Gospels have not been altered "after the fact" and only serves to prove their authenticity.
I think that you could argue that with the interpretation of Matthew, his previous employment as a taxman lends him to being of the type to keep notes. And with John, his writing of the events is sporadic, to the point I only remember him writing down the healing of the man at the Bethesda Pool. And technically, the show not only implies but directly tells you that what is being written down are not the gospels. There is a flash-forward to 44 AD where John is only just starting to write his Gospel and Matthew says that his Gospel "Will be accurate". As in it was not yet made. So I do not think it was intentional by them to say that the Gospels were written as witness to things as they happened. The show is not Gospel, it is Interpretation.
It's just a bit weird maybe that they are suggesting Matthew's gospel to be very accurate and John's not. John's gospel is just entirely different in the sense that it already shows Jesus as the powerful risen Christ throughout the whole Gospel, hence things like the "I am" words that would not yet make much sense for the historical Jesus to say before his death and resurrection. It's just much more theology in John.
We noted on your point, Brother. Maybe, Father Casey should've mentioned/acknowledged atleast, those insights you've mentioned above along with his review. That would make his review more Charitable than it 'already is'.
@@kynesilagan2676 I do not hold it against him as it is something easily overlooked. I myself never thought to interpret the show this way until I heard Father Casey discuss this. That is why such spreading of ideas are good for they make you think thoughts you might never have otherwise.
I would respectfully disagree with your first point Friar Casey. I’d first say that the evidence is largely in favor of an early dating of the gospels, rather than the AD 70+ dating most secular scholars give it. There’s great evidence that at least some of the gospels were written as early as the 50’s or even the 40’s. Even so, the sayings of Jesus are probably much earlier given that some of Paul’s early letters written in the early 50’s contain sayings of Jesus as well as a creeds in 1 Corinthians 15 that some scholars date even as far back as the 30’s. There’s many reasons to believe in early dating of gospels as well as the fact that they are written by their traditional authors, much more so than a later dating, but that would take too much time to get into in one TH-cam comment. My main point is I don’t think it’s wrong for the show whatsoever to portray some of the disciples taking notes of things that occur during Jesus’ ministry, as it would seem that something like this likely happened due to the early dating of the Gospels being much more likely than the later dates you present. Much love and respect to you.
Try to "convert" to Protestantism and write a book on it, while you're converting. Try to replicate, in your life, that theory you just laid out. This write-while-you-see is inspired in the romantic novels of the 1800, NOT in actual history.
@@SuperOnomatopea actually it is in history that people took notes. They were not even writing the actual Gospels, just taking down rough notes. They must have known what was happening was extra-ordinary, even if they did not know what it was exactly, so the literate ones would be inclined to take notes, as anyone would when they sensed something very powerful was going on
So while he may be wrong about the dating, he is correct in the error of the apostles writing along the way, this is evident in the writings of the gospels themselves as well as the traditions of the Fathers. The gospels and epistles were written when the Church grew to the point where oral communication became impossible for the apostles
@@deiniolbythynnwr926 indeed he was. All I'm saying is hindsight is 20/20 and it's unrealistic for us to make these kind of presumptions in regards to the witnesses of Christ's miracles.
Having watched both seasons I took the writings by John and Matthew as symbolic; pointing to the Gospels that would eventually be written bearing their names. If it’s meant to be literal that John and Matthew were writing during Jesus’s earthly ministry, they’re going to need a whole lot of scrolls and tablets by the last season.
From a hidden comment, way below, Fr Casey says “…How do you reconcile Jesus saying three different things on the cross? Or two different lists of Apostles? Or Jesus visiting Jerusalem three times throughout his life or him visiting it one climactic time in his life? The major sermon is said to be on a plain in Luke and a mountain in Matthew. I could go on and on. There are tons of contradictions. But that's okay if you read the Bible like Catholics do, not treating it like literal facts at every moment. If you do, you have to do many mental gymnastics to make it work”. ---No mental gymnastics, Father. With all due respect, there is a simple explanation to all your points: the authors were honest and did not embellish anything. For example, Jesus was reported to say different things on the cross because different people were listening to him at different times, and they did not lie or embellish when writing about it. Also, Jesus most likely visited Jerusalem every single year, for Eastern, as it was tradition for any Jewish family, and authors wrote about only those they knew, without embellishing. Also, the major sermon is reported to occur on a plain or a mountain simply because it happen on both. Jesus made the same speech more than one time for sure, and people remembered it in different locations. Thus, the "contradictions" you are concerned about are actually evidence that the Gospels are truthful and did not embellish anything.
I agree. The men who wrote these accounts weren’t just ordinary men reporting what happened either, they were also holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit.
@@88mphDrBrown before accusing people of dishonesty perhaps it would be better to explain clearly what you are saying. What you wrote is unclear at best.
@@raid2533 I'll rephrase my comment if it was that unclear. In the synoptic gospels Jesus is crucified on a different day than in John, if there are no embellishments or real contradictions how is this possible? This is one of the many contradictions that require extraordinary mental gymnastics to be anything other than differing accounts.
@@raid2533 saying "contradictions are actually evidence that the gospels are truthful and did not embellish anything" is blatant dishonesty. It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. They cannot all be "truthful" literally. Did Jesus carry his cross himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry it? I suppose you'll respond that "Jesus carried it for a lap then Simon carried it when he is unable".
@@88mphDrBrown and from where or what do you conclude that in the synoptic Gospel Jesus is cruicified on a different day than in John's? I don't see it at all. Again, your accusations lack any useful detail. Provide details and then we can talk otherwise you are just a troll.
What I love about the Chosen is that they are open about the fact that it is a production - transparent - in their youtube channel, the discussions about how they made decisions about character portrayals, and other discussions, even Behind the Scenes continuously keep the audience aware of the fact that it is a work of fiction, and something that people of certain faiths have created.
Exactly I find this Catholic priests review of the show as pretty nitpicking considering they did admit that this was not an exact or fully accurate depiction of the Gospel. People have to understand there are some creative, artistic components that are utilized in order to help tell the story or stories. They never said it was an exact depiction, so I find it very unfair that this Catholic priest is trying to preach that this show did something wrong or is misleading in someway that is not meeting the standards of the Catholic Church. I hate to say it, but there are a lot more important things that the Catholic Church needs to pay more attention to within their own faith than worrying about the accuracy of a television show.
@@JudeMalachi my family is Catholic. I am not, but I have to ask you. How can you say that Catholicism was inspired by God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit when the traditions of the religion its self prevented people from speaking directly to God? This is not a gotcha question I truly want to know your thought process, I personally am non-denominational because I believe that all religion is the work of the devil given the fact that the only thing that we all argue about is the politics of the religion when we should be focused on God.
@@BSUSwim4Goldthis is good constructive criticism though. It is not an attack to disregard this beautiful amazing series about the life of Jesus. Even the Vatican or the Roman Catholic Church is grateful to how these series was well written storytelling that depicts the story of the Jewish people before, Jesus mission, and the Apostles encounter to Jesus. The Catholic Church has all the right to say anything when it comes to such as these movie series about Jesus because it was Jesus in the first place founded this church, the Catholic. It was St. Ignatius of Antioch the disciple of Peter, Apostle of Jesus who put the name Catholic which means Universal- One Faith and One God. All the disciples of the Apostles who became the leaders of the church then after the Apostles died became the Bishop of every place they were assigned to. This happened when Emperor Constantine, emperor of the Roman Empire embraced Christianity. These started the beginning of the structural and governmental development of the church. And as you can see right now there is a Pope, Bishop, Priest, Nun, and Sister. There is already a structure. And then it started seminary schools for future leaders of the church both in the diocesan or religious men congregations or in the diocesan or religious women congregation. It is also the Catholic who arranged all the old testament books and New Testament books into one book which we now called the Bible or Sacred Scriptures. The original manuscript of Scriptures which written in Hebrew and Greek with a little of Aramaic were in the Vatican. There is so much to learn in our faith both in history, culturally, and spiritually. All documental evidences that it was Jesus who founded the Catholic were present as of this moment in the Vatican. You can research it if you want. The church has all the right to say because when it comes to historical evidences, cultural evidences, catechitecal and theological evidences on the life of Jesus and the Apostles were accurately present in the Catholic. Outside of Catholic they were all false but Catholic respect them and loved them. Catholic bible is the most closest translation to the original manuscript than any other bible out there. That's why the church have all the right to give feedback.
Sadly this rejection of the teaching of Vatican II is pretty common in my experience. “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)” I respect you and love your videos, Father; but the Gospels were written by theIr name sakes
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." - St. Irenaeus
The Catholic leadership have never liked the Bible, because they had no intention of living by it. To them, it gets in the way of money, power and stuff. Pharasees will Pharasees.
I have a big problem with the notion that, contrary to Catholic tradition, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. If Peter was not behind Mark’s Gospel and Matthew And John’s Gospels were written by other theologians, the big question is: why? Why would some theologian, not of authority to write such works, even risk his life in doing so? To be beheaded or crucified?? No, since Levi, aka Matthew, was literate, it only makes sense that he took notes. Was his Gospel first or was Mark’s? More people are in favor of Mark’s coming first lately. But just like John outran Peter to the tomb but didn’t enter, it only makes sense that Matthew would have also acquiesced to Peter, the head apostle, to have his version of the biography told first, through John Mark. To think that a literate Matthew would not have documented anything along the way is more far fetched.
It is not necessary that they were written by eyewitnesses to be true accounts. Notes may have been written later, for sure, serving as source material. The friar is objecting to the depiction of someone taking contemporaneous notes like a reporter. The deposit of faith is in the church guided by the Holy Spirit, and God's word continues to be spoken, even after the last word in the last book of the bible was written. The story is not over yet.
@@richardauten7179 I don't see them taking notes as reporters but as students. Specially considering that they were being exposed to new teachings not contained in the Scriptures that they had studied until then.
It's interesting that you say that, because even among conservative New Testament scholars, they admit that the traditional authorship of Matthew is the most problematic of the synoptic Gospels.
I am a Catholic who just returned to the faith 5 years ago, and at the same time my wife of 32 years converted to Catholicism. I am not a theologian or scholar, so my knowledge surrounding the history of how the Gospel was written is very limited. During my return to the faith I have noticed many changes. I tend to disagree with a lot of the changes. My disagreement is based on my spiritual “gut” feeling so it obviously carries no weight (No pun intended). One thing that sticks out to me is something that Father said a couple of times that I have trouble with. He stated that the Apostles had no idea of the importance of their pilgrimage with Jesus. I find this hard to believe as they were witnessing the healing of some of the most devastating of diseases of that period. In addition, the healing of the lame and blind, and finally Jesus’ raising of the dead and himself, not to mention the transgression. I relatively sure that some or all of the apostles would have recognized the importance of this time and understood the importance of remembering it by documentation. Again, this is an unqualified position I take, and is my opinion only. Much love and joy to all!
gotta remember everyone that this isn't pushed towards Catholics in particular, it has to cover everything generally enough that people of all denominations will not be turned away and can hear some gospel from this, we must remember that this is a series meant to draw in everyone to a deeper faith, not just the religious, not just the non-religious, but everyone and to draw them in and encourage them to stick with the series and bring the warmth of Jesus Christ to everyone
That's an interesting perspective filled with good intentions but I have to agree with Fr Casey's conclusion. As he says, it is fairly well known and established by theologians of many christian faith traditions and not just Catholics that the NT writings emanated much later through the faith experience of the early church who wanted to put in writing for future generations what God had revealed through Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Artistic licence with many character's back stories, which we know nothing about is one thing, but actually falsifying what is generally held to be true about the birth of the New Testament writings is not this otherwise amazing cinematic creation's best attribute!.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 So are you ok with the show portraying this incorrectly? Why? Because it bolsters the Protestant heresy of Sola Scriptura? Forget whether his is Catholic or not. What is the truth?
@@remmanuel985 From Google: There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.
This criticism suffers three major problems. First, it seems a straw man fallacy, as the show doesn't simply imply the disciples had the foresight to see themselves as fully-fledged gospel-writers, but portrays some jotting down of events and words, with Jesus explicit encouragement. Second, the dating of the gospels is disputed among highly competent NT scholars, as is the question of how much they are eyewitness accounts (cf. Bauckham, Keener). This criticism simply assumes as fact an unverified and probably unverifiable opinion. Third, even if the gospels in the form we have were then composed and collated late in the first century, this would not preclude previously circulating collections of written records of speeches and actions of the Lord. It would be impossible to prove or disprove their original provenance among the Apostles. To deny this is to privilege speculation over knowledge. This is perfectly reasonable to an extent in a dramatic adaptation that is confessedly part fiction, like the Chosen. It is not in a purportedly informed theological or historical critique.
There are exceptions in every field, but Father Casey is simply promulgating the majority opinion. Keener is a great scholar, I'm not saying otherwise, but it needs to be acknowledged how conservative his views are. There are some arguments which date Luke Acts to being after 100! And based partly on Josephus - also by competent scholars. But since it's not a majority view, Father Casey didn't mention it.
@@Gumbi1012 Calling it, correctly, a majority opinion only proves my point. Opinion is not verified fact, and this is inescapably the case in biblical studies, where having opinions vary and change is the norm and certainty is seldom attainable. Therefore, the level of certitude clearly expressed in Fr Casey's critique is unjustified. He has, in truth, no way of knowing someone like St Matthew didn't jot some things down along the way, nor that our Lord didn't quietly encourage it.
@@trcnmk42 "a majority opinion only proves my point. Opinion is not verified fact," but a minority opinion is? This sort of argument is fairly silly. "You don't know it for sure! It's just the majority view!" hence your minority and unlikely but not impossible view should be held? We don't know all sorts of things and very few things with 100% certainty. Casey's critique is in line with the vast majority of evidence and research. Could there be new evidence that suggests something different, sure, though the reasonable thing is to hold to the most likely view until an if evidence ever is found. Scholars who aren't attached to an inerrancy view of the Bible (including Christians who don't hold to that) place what Casey said to a very high degree of likelihood. Did unicorns and dragons exist? You can't say confidently they didn't. All the evidence and lack of evidence suggests it's extremely unlikely but you can't say for sure. I'm not sure you want to start applying such a loose standard of accepting things that are unlikely but possible. Otherwise the unlikely but possible argument Jesus never existed at all has to fall onto that too.
I disagree on the Gospel dating. I reckon the Synoptics were written before the Temple fell. Why? Well Luke wrote his sequel, Acts, without talking about Paul and Peter's deaths. So he provided a tale to a point. This preceded the temple fall. Matthew written first from tradition, as Dr Alan Nlack posits, Mark then reports the preaching of Peter following Paul's requested stamp of approval for Luke's account.
YES! As the very liberal Anglican theologian J.A.T Robinson wrote in his ignored but never actually refuted 1976 book _Redating the New Testament_ NO book of the NT definitely, in the past tense, speaks about the Destruction of the Temple. Hebrews, usually dated to circa 80-85, speaks of Temple sacrifices as still ongoing. It begs credulity that no NT author, writing after the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, wouldn't have felt compelled to write something like "Jesus was vindicated, see what Rome did to Jerusalem".
Wow, father!!! It feels like I’m listening to Rudolph Bultmann (who wasn’t Catholic…) I humbly suggest you update your biblical studies, especially to deepen your knowledge of Church Fathers. The Living Tradition of the Church has never taught that the Four Gospels were written by theologians, but by two of the Lord’s Apostles (Matthew and John) and by two apostolic men (Mark and Luke). Have you ever read Papias of Hierapolis or St. Iraeneus of Lyons?
@@florian8599 In fact, the time gap is super small compared to other historical works. Papias either knew John or a disciple of John. Not really consistent with development of legends.
I went to catholic school. The church teaches exactly what Fr. Kasey said. The Gospels were written up to 400 years after the events of the gospels. It was kept alive for centuries through oral tradition and symbolism.
I really appreciate your perspective on most things, but I think your going a bit too far on two accounts. First, (from all that I’ve seen) the idea that the gospels were written later comes from 19th century high criticism that has the underlying assumption that Jesus wasn’t God and couldn’t have predicted the future. Second, there’s no reason to believe the apostles wouldn’t write stuff down. They most definitely didn’t know the big picture (as stated blatantly in the gospels), but they would’ve marveled at some of His sayings. I’m not saying that the chosen is historically accurate, but I do think it’s historically possible. Believing that they recorded certain sayings and extremely special events doesn’t mean that they didn’t weave the events into theological marvels. We see events that are unique to certain gospels and the timing of things that are different from the gospels. I think the goal of the show is to portray a possible historical reality that the gospel writers rearranged and reordered (with the Holy Spirit’s guidance and inspiration) in order to tell a narrative with specific and complex implications. I apologize for the long comment, and I can’t wait for more videos. God bless Father!
Younger, not older. The allusions to the destruction of the temple is what is called a terminus post quem. The Gospels must have been written after the destruction of the temple. That dating is not based on the idea that prophecy is impossible, but even if you believe that Jesus foretold that event, it would probably only make sense to write that down after it was fulfilled. Otherwise it would have been meaningless to the readers at the time. They already read it understanding what it meant, just as we do today because the temple was already destroyed at the time.
@@kadda1212 It made perfect sense to right about the prophecy beforehand, so that it will be confirmed when it happens. The prophets in the Old Testament didn’t wait till their prophecies were fulfilled to write them down, nor did the apostles wait until other prophecies of Christ were fulfilled to write them down. The entire New Testament was finished by 70 AD.
"Second, there’s no reason to believe the apostles wouldn’t write stuff down." The problem there is every single reason. Literacy at that time and place was amazingly rare and the ability to write even rarer. Some estimates put it at less than a percent of the population could write at that time. Almost exclusively reserved by high education clerics and some aristocracy. The poor followers of Jesus certainly wouldn't have been able to write.
Fr. Casey, the one thing I appreciate most about your approach to these pop culture discussions is your courage and honesty. You aren't hiding behind any "because I said so" sort of arguments. That courage and strength obviously comes from honesty. Only someone who is completely honest can be that forthright. I hope I don't overstep when I say that I think that would be a fantastic way forward for a church that has always had an amazing message, but has had a few recent problems with some of the messengers. God Bless you.
The following are excerpts from the Introduction to the Gospel of John found in the NABRE, the Bible approved for use by the USCCB for the Catholic Church in the United States: "Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person." And: "Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style." And: "The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels...These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." You can read the complete introduction at the USCCB website.
The part John was writing things down was much later after Jesus was ascended if you see the way it was portrayed in the movie. Pls do check it again. For Mathew, it was his personality putting things down not necessarily writing the gospel in its present form. Maybe much later, he arranged everything into the form we have it. But most importantly it is still a possibility he jotted things down.
Maybe And maybe he was an illiterate peasant who couldn’t read let alone write. But most probably a literally device to tell a story. If you read Mark is it in a series of repeating patterns (to reinforce points) and is a retelling of the story of Jacob from the Hebrew Bible. It is also highly refined Greek and one of the grandest piece of literature in Western history. It had problems though. One of the reasons the long ending was tasted on much latter.
@@chukwuemekamusic663 that's a very modern way of seeing how ancient peoples retold stories. Papyrus wasn't even readily available for everyone and costly enough for the majority to stick to oral traditions (memorization)! Which is exactly what Fr. Casey's point is.
How would you jot things down in the first century? The idea of jotting was not part of their vocabulary. Writing materials were not portable, and writing was a deliberate and professional activity. Most people were not literate.
@@Anon.5216 thats silly. A rabbi was a cleric aka scribe. They had to know how to read and write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to be disciples. That is why I always laugh at those who think the Historical Critical Method is superior to all other hermeneutic principles. I use the Historical Contextual Method and that brings greater understanding. It says assuming the Bible was true how do we replicate its lessons in our life today.
I love the show Chosen. It's not perfect. But its the best to relate to I have ever experienced. Like the Bible. .. We read it with the heart but it is not in scroll form. It's the way this show has given us a gift to finally relate to who Jesus was .
Actually, In Italy, where I live, a mini-series (2 episodes) called "Chiara e Francesco" was produced in 2007 and then broadcasted for the first time on 7th and 8th October of the same year on the first channel of national TV (Rai 1).. It also has a beautiful and heartwarming soundtrack composed by Marco Frisina (He is one of the main church music composer here in Italy, his music really get you closer to the Divine).. Hope my information was somehow useful.. I wish all the Best! God Bless!
This view on the Gospels will lead to apostasy because if what you said is true (which it is most certainly not) then there is really no reason to even believe in the stories in the first place if they are just reflections of communities with no actual eye witness testimony. Trent horn did an excellent rebuttal of Father Casey so check that out on the Counsel of Trent podcast
Why is your faith dependent on stories? Surely our faith is deeper than that. It is a moment by moment living out - really not dependent on stories at all.
@@butterflybeatles These stories that you are saying I'm so dependent on (which you would be correct to state) are the Word of God. It is very important that they are based in history/reality and not some amalgam of ideas from the Christian communities a 100+ years later. If it is just a story with no actual eye witness testimony then how can you really know Jesus died and was resurrected with certainty. Faith without evidence is blind faith which I reject. I believe in God and the Catholic Church because I find it to be the most compelling option. My faith goes far deeper than just intellectualizing everything though, I follow reason and evidence as far as it can go and follow to where it points me which is when I have faith. It is faith with evidence not just believing to believe that is based in reason and reason and logic are part of the Natural Law. So when you say I need stories for my faith you are right in a sense that I need a factual historical account of the Gospels that tell that Jesus is the second person, was incarnated and became man, and died for our sins. If all of that is just hearsay or an epic story like the Odyssey then why in the world do you believe it? It seems unreasonable to me that you have faith in something with no concrete historical evidence. Honestly, if that's your standard then why not take the claims and stories of Joseph Smith more seriously?
@@michaelhodges2391 The fact is that there is no historical evidence and there were no eyewitnesses. There is no proof that Jesus existed except in the faith of the adherents. And that's okay because the Church is the Body of Christ based on faith - not historical accounts. The Word is a Person - not ink on paper.
@@butterflybeatles this is the dumbest thought ever. Absence of proof doesnt deprive the existence of being in the first place. Not to mentiom that there were so many remain UNDISCOVERED. So on what basis can we say "there is no proof?" Our faith DOES RELY ON WRITINGS STORIES ON IT AND IT IS A HISTORICAL ACCOINT IN ONE SENSE. Thats the ONLY DIFFERENCE between TRUE FAITH and MYTH. How on earth a person like u BELIEVE IN SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT, WHEN, HOW, IS IT? On what do u place tour faith on? Your whole argument is SILLY.
@@butterflybeatles and here is funny thing. U said "the WORD IS ON PERSON NOT ON INK", When u directly, and all the fathers QUOTED it DIRECTLY from the writing u yourself put aside. Where is the logic??????
Please address the criticisms in the comments lest you lead sheep astray. Your silence except towards those who praise and agree with you is not a good look.
@CJ P. His first sentence here uses the word reflection, but does he ever watch Atheist-Channels and really challenge his own Religion with real Logic? Without narrative-manipulation and without excuses? Cause i know barely anyone does. Atheist-Channels have valid questions to ask and valid things to speak, so duh.
I always felt like the part in John 19:35 "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled" gives a pretty good hint at the fact that at the very least John's gospel was such a strong oral tradition that even if he personally did not write it down, the person who did, wrote it in his name. Obviously this is interpretation, but that always brought it home to me that the apostles definitely wrote something down, even if they were not the ones who assembled the whole thing as an actual gospel. And even if it was oral tradition, do you really think people came to hear the deciples speak and never took notes? Or that the deciples who were aware that they were speaking to the messiah would not want to keep track - at the very least for themselves - of how he explained scripture? Especially Matthew, since we know for sure he was used to writing things down. So while I had the same initial reaction of confusion when I first saw how much they keep taking notes, and while i do share your worry that this is definitely going in a direction where it could lead people into thinking the gospels should be taken as absolute fact, I don't think it takes away from the validity of the series for even a catholic audience.
I actually like the parts where they show the disciples taking notes. It does not necessarily mean that the notes are the gospel per se, but that they serve as reminders to the writers, (or reference for the writers, if you believe that it wasn't the same people who wrote the gospels). I mean, imagine recounting all that has been said and done for the past few years in detail, word for word. Wouldn't it make more sense that they kept journals?
That is my thoughts exactly. These sporadic note taking will then be complied into the gospels we know today. Matthew and John are the only disciples doing this since they are the only two gospels associated with 2 of the 12 disciples of Jesus. Mark and Luke come along later and write their own gospels.
That's what I take it to mean, some people watch and take things too literally. They definitely are taking quick notes to build the overall writing from.
@NKWTI this isn't the story they should be taking liberties with. Do you think God wouldn't care? Love of the money they're.making by rewriting Scripture...
Of all of them, it would even make sense for Matthew to write somethings down. Not because he had Autism, there's no confirmed report of this... but because he was a tax collector prior to following Jesus. I bet even during the time of the Roman Empire when Jesus appeared it was rather common for a tax collector, a learned man, to write things down as notes.
Matthew being a tax collector may have taken note and the disciples were amazed and afraid as we learned last weekend. Those miracles weren't so insignificant father.
If he had recorded everything that was going on for three years, He would have written volumes. The evangelists actually wrote what they remembered and in order to explain it to a particular audience. Gob bless you.
@@sissybrooks8588 There is no doubt about that. The only one hing that doesn't make sense is to record history on the making as a journalist would. Had they ( the apostles) known what was going to happen they wouldn't have abandoned Christ at Calvary and would not have hidden away from fear. Jesus never instructed them to take notes, he instructed them to preach the Good news.
@@englishlearningcenter1470 I believe coming back then, things were recorded through oral history. So they would have told others in stories. I think it was different from today. That's why you see the songs keep the story of the Red Sea crossing and things like that. Eventually, someone wrote that oral tradition down. I'm pretty sure it was much the same thing with the Gospels. I assume the difference would be that the Holy Spirit was with these early disciples. I think it was much stronger than now. Especially now. I think we are generally insipid, and sick, and olympic. Otherwise we would be working wonders of the early Christians did. By the way, there seems to be plenty of that going on in the Orthodox church right now. Makes one wonder.
There are no contradictions in the gospel accounts, because the Church teaches that scripture is entirely without error. Pope Leo XIII: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).
Definitely agree about Evangelical theology seeping into the show at times - there's a part where (I think) Philip says something like "I don't think Jesus cares for the religious very much" which definitely struck me as the whole "relationship not religion" Evangelical shenanigans you've discussed before.
Who do you imagine was the target audience and folk they hope to advertise to. And really; an historical theological tale would’ve kinda short and boring television. Most folk don’t even care or know that there are many version of the Bible. The Protestants even think their KJV is The Bible. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t expect Hebrews as an Epistle of St Paul, and only the Ethiopian orthodox include Enoch
Same here. It's an amazing series. So well done and such a blessing. But I had questions. Why are they not showing Jesus's baptism? How are they planning to show the Transfiguration? Turns out they aren't. And for a sketchy reason. I'm still going to watch, but with a more wide-awake brain and heart.
I'm glad to hear your opinion on this. I have been simultaneously watching this and holding it at arms length at the same time, scrutinizing everything in fear that something will ruin it for Catholics. Very curious to see how they handle the last supper and bread of life discourse.
The guy who plays Jesus has said that his Catholic faith ("With the Eucharist, cloud of witnesses, and all that being a part of it"...guy went all out on his FB page earlier this week) really weighs heavily into how he plays the part. I'm really curious too. Not least because I wonder if he's going to end up seriously butting heads with the director.
QUESTION: if the gospels aren't historically true, did the crucifixion really happen? What about the resurrection? Did that happen? How do you know what is actual history in the gospels?
Indeed, if the gospels can't be viewed historically because they weren't written by eyewitnesses or at the word of eyewitnesses, then the entire Catholic thing falls apart since it's in the the Gospels that Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. How do we even know this conversation took place and wasn't just some story. If the gospels can't be viewed historically, all of Catholicism and Christianity falls apart.
@@Thomas-dw1nb Ultimately it’s impossible to know for certain that they were. Obviously historicity is important, but our religion can’t purely be built on eyewitness accounts. Hypothetically, if it was proven that they weren’t merely written in the way you describe, would your entire Christian faith fall apart?
Let’s not forget that this is a show. The point I believe they are making is that, eventually, Matthew and John do write about what they experienced and Mark and Luke about what they were told by eyewitnesses. This show is opening up hearts to read God’s Word and to relate to our Lord Jesus… this world can certainly use more of that!
Fr. Casey, I'm a student in Biblical Studies and I think you make too much of the "consensus" of biblical scholars on the issues of authorship, dating, eye witness reports, etc. Really it is entirely plausible that the gospels are eye witness accounts that came into their final form within a decade or two of the resurrection and composed by the traditional authors. I would look at some of Dr. Brant Pitre's work and recommend reading Dr. William Farmer's the Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem for more on this. Much of what you take as a matter of fact are contested issues in Biblical Studies.
I’d additionally recommend some more reading if anyone’s curious about the “written by the eye witnesses” claim Vatican 2, Papias of Hierapolis, and Saint Iraeneus of Lyons all make the claim of traditional authorship. So the church has, does, and will maintain the tradition
He didnt debunk anything, just a lot of speculations and uneducated guesses. If the diciples did write the accounts, why were there contradictions in the account? For example the nativity stories in matthew and luke? If they wrote the gospels themselves, what is the proove within the gospel? Why were the diciples always written in third person? Why it never says something like "i saw, or heard, jesus did so or so?"
@@JeanRausis there are literally so many contradictions in the gospels that the vast majority of Christian scholars agree are there, it has even been written about by them repeatedly. Honestly why do people delude themselves into pretending this isn't the case? The gospels were written 30+ years after Jesus by people who never met him (we know Mark and Luke never met him, and Matthew copies Mark so if he had met him why copy? And John uses all 3), so of course there are contradictions Horn is simply not academically educated and thus has never seriously engaged in biblical scholarship, he doesn't know what even Catholics like JP Meier have written about
@@connor9700 Lol just take the L. There's no contradictions, at least no formal ones. Only the kind of contradictions you'd expect from actual eye witnesses. And your claims about the writers of the gospels was debunked and is wrong.
@@connor9700 After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn earned master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics. He serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, where he specializes in teaching Catholics to graciously and persuasively engage those who disagree with them
@Jon Evan "Scripture is God's Word and He, by His Spirit, moved men to write didn't He" I agree. "as we see Jesus instructing Matthew to write in the Chosen" That's a tv show, not Scripture. You didn't answer my question. Where in Scripture does it say which books are official Scripture? Where is it said to add the New Testament to the already established Old Testament?
@Jon Evan You still didn't answer the question. Where does it say so? How would one verify, through the Bible since it is the only source we should use, which books should be included and which should be excluded? "move men to gather those writings." So you are saying teachings can come from outside the Bible, up to and including forming the Bible itself?
You will see that we Catholics try to correct one another, so that if one fails, the others keep them on the straight path home. The process can be sometimes amusing, sometimes frustrating. Like all good families.
The late dating of the Gospels comes (partly) from the atheistic belief that prophecy isn't real. Atheists don't believe that Jesus could have predicted the destruction of the temple, so they say the Gospels must have been written after the destruction of the temple. Don't fall for secular "scholarship".
I don't understand Fr. Casey's logic here. First he claims that the Bible shouldn't be taken as literal or accurate events, but then quotes Matthew 16:18 and John 20:21-23 as evidence of something Jesus actually said. How do you know Jesus actually said those things, Fr. Casey? This is contradictory.
You seem to be misunderstanding what I've said. I never said the text wasn't true. I never said the text wasn't authoritative. The whole point of the video is to break people away from the idea that *every single* word of the Gospels is the *literal* fact of how things happened. It's not a history like we would read a newspaper article, it's history like people read history prior to the Enlightenment. The problem people are having here is that they're reading the sources like modern people read them, looking for facts and historicity, whereas I'm suggesting that that is not how ancient people wrote. They included symbolism, exaggerated elements, and references to other stories. Much of what is written in the Gospel did happen as it is written, but not all of it. I repeat. I never said that the Gospels weren't true or that the events didn't happen. I never said that.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Ok, but how do you know what Jesus actually said and didn't say? How do you as a priest know when something is an accurate saying of Jesus and what isn't? Why trust any of it when some of it, as you say, didn't happen?
@@spector1591 You understand things can be literally true without being literal fact. That's the whole point of the parables of Jesus. They are literal truth. Their messages are literal. But the story is not fact. It's literally true that we are the seeds, but not literal fact that one day a sower sewed us as literal seeds.
@@Bashcutter Everyone knows that parables are not literal, I am concerned about if Jesus even SAID most of the parables or any other saying attributed to him. Also, did Jesus really DO any of the things that were written down? Did he really walk on water? Did he really feed the 5,000? Did he really raise Lazarus from the dead? If the authors were just trying to make “theological points” and not historical ones, why even put faith in it?
@@spector1591 Oh, well Casey did just make bad arguments too. The authors did make historical points and theological points both together. Like a real historical event with a miracle. It's historical and theological. Look up Trent Horn from Council of Trent, he already made a response to this video pointing out the flaws.
Hello, I am a catholic Bible scholar (in training getting a masters rn) and i say this with all the love in the world that you are completely wrong! I would point you to Brant Pitre’s, Richard Bauckham’s and Joseph Ratzinger’s works on this subject. It seems like u are reading too much German liberal Protestant form critics. This is one of the things the chosen gets right. That the disciples were there taking down the prototypes of the gospels is very historical.
Fr Casey this is unrelated to this video but I just wanted to express how much of a joy it’s been to watch your channel. People at my high school have discovered it and we even watched your video on answering Gods call at a school assembly today. My sister and I especially love your channel and we hope that your channel continues to grow and be a blessing in the lives of Catholics around the world!
I had a big argument with my sister about this. And she kept going back to this argument. "but they could have done it. It doesn't say they couldn't have" I tried explaining that's not the culture or the way things are taught. You don't take notes while your rabbi is teaching and demonstrating. But it just went round and round back to - "but they could have... " finally like Scott hahn says the new testament was a sacrament long before it was a document. The document was supposed to preserve the life around the sacrament. When you divorce scripture from the liturgy... You get this kind if circular argumentation.
@@njtom105 this is the best things family could argue about....just sayin it made me smile at the thought of family at least discussing things that matter instead of arguing who the best tik toc'er is❤
@@marcokite um, you do know that the evangelists wrote the gospels long after Jesus ascended to heaven right? Casey explains in the video that the early Christians had the gospels written both in a historical and theological context, courtesy of Church tradition.
@@marcokite ok well I'm definitely not the most read individual, but I think it would be a bit biased to say that team scholars x would say that the gospels were written later because of lack of faith. Casey seemed to be explaining that the gospels were completed in the 80s-120s of that time period, although this in itself is just a guess. The acts not including Paul's arrest and being written a bit later is fine. I don't disagree and see the possibility that certain books of the New testament were written early, and other were written towards the end of the 1st century AD. I'm not a toxic fellow. I just like Plants vs. Zombies.
Totally agree it is the best series worthy of watching but, it is still fiction with great biblical text woven in, and yes I do tend to read the Bible more to make sure I know what is truth and what is fiction. Bravo father and thank you for your insights.
I don't know if I would call the Scriptures "reflections" as if they are not inspired. Isn't that like calling the Eucharist a symbol? There was more than just what you noticed that is off the wall in the Chosen such as the portrayal of Mary. That being said it is leading people to Jesus through the portrayal of Jonathan Rumie.
Whoa, whoa, Father: Yes, there are some scholars who insist on the gospels not having been written until 80-90 AD. But, of those scholars, most draw that conclusion by denying supernaturalism of any kind; and thus, the possibility that Jesus successfully prophesied any event. So they consider Jesus' words that "within a generation" the Temple would be destroyed as "evidence" the text was invented after Temple WAS destroyed; i.e., that those words were not original to Jesus but were put into His mouth by the authors. The argument is: "Real predictive prophecy doesn't exist; ergo, Jesus didn't predict...but, this looks like a true prophecy; ergo, it must have been invented after the actual event, which puts its earliest possible date as 70 AD." So when you say "some want to argue the gospels are much older than the evidence suggests," THAT is usually the "evidence" which is under consideration. And the sole reason it counts as evidence for post-70s authorship is a denial of supernaturalism. Not to put too fine a point on it: If you, Father, hold that view, you're in the wrong line of work. You're correct, of course, that it's silly to depict Jesus having been surrounded by guys jotting down quotes, as if John's gospel was composed prior to the crucifixion. (Dumb move by the series-makers.) And it's true the gospels are stylized retellings, not court-reporter notes. The literary genius of John's gospel, structurally and thematically, makes it a literary Antikythera Mechanism, a work of great genius and artistry. Basic shoeleather reportin', it ain't. But there are reasonable, rational arguments for certain gospels (on one telling, Luke) being composed in the 50's. And, sure, if you have other reasons -- reasons that don't deny important truths proposed to us by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium -- for dating a gospel as late as 80 or 90 AD, that's fine, too. I myself go back and forth on late vs. early dates for John's composition; but on balance, late has the edge. But it's important to not rely on a "scholarly consensus" which, itself, premises its conclusions on the faith being false. If you confine yourself to only querying scholars who DON'T philosophically presuppose a denial of supernaturalism, the lopsided scholarly consensus favoring late authorship vanishes. You get, instead, a wide range of arguments for possible gospel dates in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. One other thing: Why characterize a composition in the 90's as a "long time" afterwards, as if it were centuries? Why characterize a composition in the 50's as "much older?" Word selection matters; and we ought to characterize such things relative to other ancient works. Our earliest testimonies to Homer are several centuries (!) after the presumed date of composition. Proportionately, aren't ALL of the proposed dates for gospel authorship rather "early?" Anyhow, I think you should have mentioned that wider date range, Father...and done so without sounding like you were pooh-poohing it.
That pretty much sums up what one needs to know about dating the gospels late. We just presuppose Humean scepticism with regard to miracles and thus it must have been written post 70 AD.
This is the very first time I disagree with Fr. Casey! ;) Yes, the Gospels were written long after the resurrection of Christ. And no, I am not convinced that they were written by others than tradition tells us. (Hey! It's TRADITION! Quite an important thing in catholic Church!) The scene with John an Mary shows the exiled Apostle writing things down because he understood that Jesus might not come back tomorrow (and I absolutely love the idea that it's Mary who says with a smile what later will be the very last sentence of John's Gospel). So John is depicted as someone seeing the necessity of writing the Gospel long after Resurrection. Then, I have absolutely no problems with disciples taking notes. Almost all Jewish men were literate (quite a point for Jewish religion as opposed to heathens). This may also have been quite a private thing - "I have to keep that in mind, I have to write it down or I might think I dreamed"). They may have kept notes for themselves a long time, before it became evident that a written Gospel was needed. Whoever learns to write also learns that writing is a great help to memorize things. And then of course they (or others - though I don't think so) wrote it down later in a more artful and theological way. Then, the different versions may be easily explained. Think of a police report. If four witnesses tell exactly the same course of action, would any police officer in the world believe them? Rather not. It would very much sound like an agreement. But if four witnesses tell the same story with a concordance in the most important points but different focusses, and in little, with different courses, they may be credible.
"Cold Case Christianity" Nd the four witnesses... sounds like you have heard J. Warner Wallace's book and part in God's Not Dead 2. I appreciate your thoughts.
"This may also have been quite a private thing - 'I have to keep that in mind, I have to write it down or I might think I dreamed'). They may have kept notes for themselves a long time, before it became evident that a written Gospel was needed. Whoever learns to write also learns that writing is a great help to memorize things." Exactly. I have a very good friend, who is in no way an aspiring writer, who nonetheless is a compulsive note-taker simply as an aid to his own memory. I respectfully think Fr. is making way too much of this, as well as being a bit too credulous of what is by now a barely credible "late-date theory" for the Gospels' composition. Others have suggested it: Read Brant Pitre.
Respectfully Fr. Casey, I think you missed the ball here. One doesn’t need to accept ‘sola scriptura’ in order to agree that the gospels are written as histories. Sola scriptura asside, at 2:51 you state that “the gospels were written by people who never witnessed Jesus themselves” This is contradictory to scripture, John 21:24 states “John 21:24 -This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things” This is an eyewitness account, not simply a “tapestry of theology” 5:46 “Insistence on assuring us modern people that the stories are exactly as they appear” This is Literally what Luke takes the time to insist to his Patron theophilus when writing his gospel; Luke 1:3-4 [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 have certainty concerning the things* you have been taught.” Now I’m not saying that the gospels, specifically Matthew & John’s were written as they happened entirely, neither do I think the show is. Rather, they’re exploring the quite plausible probability that some of Jesus’s students, would have taken a few notes here & there of Jesus’s sermons & feats. This is not uncommon at all as Rabbinic students often did take notes, and Matthew being a tax collector and literate in multiple languages would be a good candidate to do so. I’m a protestant myself who accepts sola scriptura , but I’ll refer you to a Catholic Theologian and professor Dr. Brant from Notre Dame seminary who would completely disagree with you stance. Matthew & John are eyewitness accounts written by Jesus’s students and Mark & Luke record testimonies from eyewitness, they’re meant to be taken as history. In your attempt to take a dig at “sola scriptura” you’re arguing against the historical reliability of the gospels and disagreeing with all the Early Church fathers (for which i’m sure you’re a fan of) who unanimously attribute authorship to Matthew & John.
CCC 126: ...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."...
@@BreakingInTheHabit Thank you for your reply Father. I really liked your point about authority and that we must not give in to the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura! At 5:06 you say (as related to the writing of the Gospels), "Not every story needs to fit neatly together in some large narrative. Some things may have happened exactly as they are written, but some things may be the work of the evangelist after the fact. Making connections that weren't explicit at the time. Fashioning stories together in a particular way to present the truth of the good news in the way their particular readers needed to hear it. What the evangelists created were beautiful tapestries. We mustn't get lost in the individual threads." By your statement, "Some things may have happened exactly as they are written, but some things may be the work of the evangelist after the fact," you seem to at least imply that scripture is not entirely fact based. In my hearing, throughout your video, you imply that the writers of the Gospels took license to report events that never truly happened. This seems to contradict CCC 126, "...whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms..." I realize my interpretation of your words may not be perfect and I am not professionally trained in scripture. Your words just seemed off to me from everything I have been taught about scripture (please feel free to respond with your understanding/intent of these words, I am just stating how I perceived your words). Thank you for your ministry and for devoting your life to God as his priest! I will pray for you, please pray for me and my family. May God greatly bless you and your work!
@@BreakingInTheHabit Quick follow up, I just realized I a missed a couple words in my longer quote. That was unintentional (it is hard to comment full quotes correctly on mobile).
Honestly (being catholic) I know I‘ll have to take the show with a grain of salt. The notetaking doesn’t bother me as much as you. Jews have a long tradition of recording events -> Old Testament. So why wouldn’t you take notes in order to remember better when you sit down 50 years later - and start writing in proper inspired by the Holy Spirit? The show is fictional but it does help me reconnect to Jesus in a very impactful way. You did a very good job on respectfully making your points without collateral damage.
Well said! I’m publishing a weekly TH-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you
A better approach would be where we fast forward and see the disciples sharing their accounts to other people, who themselves are writing it down, or just listening eagerly. A bit like how the movie Titanic is played out.
I didn't get the sense that they were writing the Gospels in those moments... simply taking notes. There is, to my knowledge, a big flaw in believing the disciples likely did take notes, even if only for themselves, as a way of journaling to understand for themselves. Just a thought.
As a disciple, I spend a lot of time studying the Bible, looking up reference materials and journaling. I have no call or intention of writing a gospel, a book or even a Bible study guide, but I am a notetaker by nature. I even have a collection of meticulous notes from sermons that I keep in my Bible. I imagine that a few of the disciples may well have taken down some notes as they listened to Jesus’ teachings, describing His miracles and jotting down a few anecdotal accounts. Rather than being put off, seeing a couple of the disciples taking notes is something that I relate to, and actually makes a great deal of sense to me. I don’t see them trying to make an argument for the apostles writing the gospels “in real time,” rather depicting a couple of the more analytical followers doing what came naturally to them. Might they have referred to what they’d written years later, when they actually did write the Gospels? If they had notes, they certainly did. I think you’re overthinking this.
I have watched the chosen since its beginning. I thoroughly enjoy this series and it does help to make Jesus real to me. I love the scenes where they’re sitting around joking with each other. It makes the apostles relationship with Jesus so human which we know it had to have been. But I enjoyed your pros and cons series about the chosen. Very well done and with such charity. Thank you!
We know this series is taking creative license . It’s sad it even has to be brought up at all . The pint is to help us understand the literal humanity of the disciples. The Bible itself contradicts. Why did men of the past opt to drop 66 or so books from the original? Could it be agenda? Im a cradle Catholic and was fortunate in high school to take “theology “. We were encouraged to be open minded and to “ seek “. I did too . I live amongst Hindus, several other practices from around the world , indigenous people and mostly Protestants. Very few Catholic people live here . I have Muslim friends . To include my own faith , ask me who represents what Jesus taught ? This series has been a uniting thought provoking work . It shows where we fail as “ Christians”. I’m 66. I’ve studied the ways of others since I was 11. What I’ve learned is to see the common denominator of all spiritual practices. The idea that the work and works of humans along with faith ( and away from ego ) . I’ve seen first hand the “ Beatitudes “ practiced in a way many churches fail completely at . The arguments I’ve seen on the site itself have been incredibly exposing. Every one seems to believe their personal view and doctrine is the only absolute. Spiritually we should evolve . God hasn’t stopped inspiring people bc the book was already written. I think it’s good we re-evaluate many things in context .
I really like The Chosen’s “humanity”, because sometimes reading scripture “feelings” are hard to interpret. What I don’t have liked is when they show Jesus rehearsing his speeches. That to me shows a “flawed” Jesus, as if he isn’t Divine enough to say the right words at the right moment without any “practiced speech”. Like when the show shows Jesus practicing the sermon on the mount or when Matthew suggests to Jesus that the intro to the speech will take the listeners of guard, or something. It just doesn’t “fit” that Jesus, being God, can say what we need to hear “impromptu”. God bless!!
I agree with you. I didn't like any of the sermon on the mount scenes. Rehearsing it with Matthew, passing out flyers, having a backdrop, and deciding what to wear, none of it seemed plausible. From reading Matthew's Gospel, Jesus went all around Galilee teaching and healing and his fame spread so much that large crowds began following him. So, he went up to the mountain, sat down, and started teaching them.
Personally, I don't think something being prepared or impromptu doesn't make it more spirit-filled or divinely inspired. If Jesus should have just been able to do stuff impromptu or automatically. because of his divinity, why was he taken out by the Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days? Why did he spend SOOO much time in prayer and by himself, especially when a big decision or moment happened directly afterwards or before? Why does scripture say things like "Jesus was made perfect through his suffering". OR that "Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Luke 2:52. I think a lot of people think Jesus divinity was proven through his power and ability. I don't think it was. I think that had a lot more to do with his innocence more than anything else. A theology that says that Jesus had some sort of superhuman mental capacity and didn't need to rehearse, learn or rehearse things BECAUSE of his divinity actually gets into some pretty shaky ground when you come to understand a theology of Jesus as fully God and fully human. You get to a point where you're like "Yes Jesus was fully human but he was also more than just human because he was divine." If that's the case he's NOT fully human, because the divinity swallows up or changes or impacts his humanity. What it really gets to is people saying He's actually MORE divine than human and that's pretty dangerous.
Actually, on second thought, even HUMANITY was created to be fully innocent and, through Jesus sacrifice, we are all made innocent by his blood. So it's not even his innocence that makes Jesus divine. Nothing MAKES him divine. He just is! But I'm of the opinion that his divinity certainly didn't cause him to be superhuman while he was here on earth, able to do things that were impossible for us to do.,....other than be a living sacrifice and atonement for all humanity of course. :D
@@crazyboxer3689, in the Simply Catholic article, "Christ’s Self-Emptying" Fr.Brian Mullady does a good job explaining the hypostatic union. Following are some excerpts: "Jesus, “though he was in the form of God, / did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. / Rather, he emptied himself, / taking the form of a slave, / coming in human likeness; / and found human in appearance, / he humbled himself, / becoming obedient to death, / even death on a cross” (Phil 2:6-8). This Scripture passage from St. Paul summarizes the humility of Jesus Christ and his self-emptying, also called kenosis in Greek." "The one divine person, Jesus, thus acts in two natures. In Scripture, He even demonstrates this because He speaks in both natures as one person often in the same verse. “Now glorify me [human nature], Father, with you, with the glory that I [divine nature] had with you before the world began” (Jn 17:5). This new relation between God and the world is a sheer grace, and it is also a miracle." "The traditional teaching of the Church is that Christ enjoys the beatific vision from the moment of His conception in the womb of His mother in His human intellect. This is not formally defined de fide, but has always been considered proxima fide, meaning that to deny it entails so many problems for other doctrines that it must be affirmed. If Christ were not to have this and therefore have faith on the cross, this would mean that He would have to merit it for himself as man and, in principle, could sin. In fact, faith is never attributed to Christ in His earthly life, and the ability to sin would again compromise His mission." There's a lot more very interesting information in the article.
Fr Casey, I see your points, however, is it not possible that some of the disciples decided to take some notes and later on the gospels were written? for example, writing down the Sermon on the mount is not an easy task, Matthew couldn't possibly remember every single word that Jesus said. I am just thinking out loud here. Thank you
Fr. Casey concerns and red flags. 1) At 1:40 "It is pretty well agreed upon that the Gospels were not written until long after the events took place, between 80 to 90 A.D. for Matthew..." 2) At 2:50 "Rather, the gospels were written much later, by people who never witnessed Jesus themselves. " You are mentioning dates that are far beyond what was shared in tradition. The Gospel of Matthew was written before the destruction of the 2nd Temple. You are using the predominant modern dating extensively used in non-Catholic theoretical research or readings. The most surprising for us is that the teaching of the traditional dates under Catholic tradition viewable on TH-cam from years ago was from an older Fransciscan program. References all can check: 1) If you have access to the Catholic Encyclopedia you can see also the traditional dating being discussed there, there is now more diversity of opinion in the modern era, but in general if favor the years 40 to 45. A.D. 2) On TH-cam the Franciscan's Ave Maria videos.
I love the Chosen and it's become one of my favourite series, but yeah -- I think we as Catholics need to remember that this was a show written by an Evangelical and tends to lean towards Evangelical tendencies (especially the idea of sola scriptura seeping in). I know a Catholic is involved in being an advisor to the script and Jonathan Roumie himself is a Catholic, so it will be interesting to see future seasons from Catholic perspectives while simultaneously just enjoying the show for what it is. (And it isn't made primarily for Catholics -- it was made so that Christians of all denominations can enjoy it and I, like possibly all the other Catholics here, thoroughly appreciate the effort Dallas has made to assure that this is a show that Catholics too can enjoy) (Love the video though, it taught me a lot of new things about Scripture. Like mentioned before, Evangelical theology has seeped in so subtly that I didn't notice until now.)
@@SilenceDogwood. Catholicism traces it's roots to Jesus. Protestants trace their roots to Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ellen G. White, etc... cannot fit the over 44,000 other founders of Protestant Denominations that currently exist. The Bible only mentions 1 of the above names. The others are men and women who have doctrines and dogmas that have... followers. So Protestants believe Catholicism is man made. Catholics believe "Protestantism" is man made... hope no atheist are reading this.
@@SilenceDogwood. Blah, blah, blah - give it a rest already. You are not a Catholic, that's your prerogative. Now leave the rest of us who are, to practice our beliefs in peace!
@Roseann Sorrentino - You are absolutely correct. Luke was a physician. His gospel is literally based on in-person interviews with those still alive at the time he wrote his gospel long after Jesus had died. He was more like an investigative reporter at the time. Note that in his gospel we find very specific details NOT included in the other three gospels. And let's not forget about Paul (formerly Saul) who persecuted the early followers of The Way, and then became Christianity's most ardent advocate.
Although tradition has it that Luke was the little boy who run away from the soldier when they arrested Jesus. But that is a tradition that I am not sure is confirmed in the Bible.
@@raid2533 I'm not sure what "tradition" you are referring to, but I would be hard put to think it was Luke. In fact, only Mark mentions "a young man" running away when Jesus was arrested in the garden. Since Mark DOES name the others present, would he not have also named the young man, too (given the circumstances)? At the beginning of Luke's Gospel, Luke, writing to Theophilus (tradition holds he was a Roman official of some sort), says that he has compiled "a narrative of things...just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitness..." If he had, in fact, been present when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, wouldn't it make sense that he would've mentioned that fact in his own prologue to his own gospel since he would indeed have been one of those eyewitnesses? Further, in the opening lines of The Acts of the Apostles (also penned by Luke), Luke refers to the fact that he is writing it for same Theophilus, so once again that suggests that Luke was never present when Jesus was arrested--and thus could not have been the one who ran away. I'm not a Biblical scholar by any stretch, but I think the texts themselves are clear on this matter.
Luke heard St Paul preaching. He was with him, also during the three apostolic journeys until he arrived in Rome. I’m publishing a weekly TH-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you
Fr. Casey, forgive me if this is a bit uncharitable, but your statement that it is "nearly impossible that the disciples themselves were doing the writing [of the Gospels]" seems to directly contradict the Church's teaching on the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John. Can you perhaps clarify? Because what you are asserting as a seemingly obvious historical fact may be scandalous to the faithful, could very well be incorrect, and seems to go against the Catholic teaching on the topic (while adhering to one position held among the most liberal scholars, which is in no way proven, or even a consensus). "we're not reading literal eyewitness accounts of people who were there"? I fear you are implying that an opinion of some liberal scholars is the baseline factual opinion on the Gospels, rather than what the Church teaches.
If the Church were to teach that the Gospels were fact, or the Bible for that matter, then the sacred tradition deal would fall through. That’s why these videos exist. Remember, scripture alone is not sufficient for the Church.
@@rickdockery9620 If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you might be confused. The sacred tradition, aka the magisterial teaching of the Church, is the reason we have a "Bible" at all - the collection of books we now call the "New Testament" did not exist prior to the Catholic Council of Rome 382, presided over by Pope Damascus I.
Well put. I personally am truly shocked and distressed at reading what Father Casey wrote there, and in replies to this posts. I hope he clarifies directly and does not avoid the issue.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 Hi, I had responded to you, but it must have gotten caught in TH-cam's spam filter. See the church's teaching on the Gospel of Matthew by searching up "AUTORE, TEMPO DI COMPOSIZIONE E VERITÀ STORICA DEL VANGELO SECONDO MATTEO" (they wouldn't let me post the link itself).
Nope. Wrong Father. The later dating doesn't stand out really on several grounds: 1. The Temple still stands 2. Those who helped Jesus were kept anonymous. Seriously, if you're going to write about somebody, why keep it anonymous? 3. It resembles a pre 70 AD Jewish context
Finally I understand from what perspective to interpret the gospels and why! I’ve always struggled with how to reconcile the modern journalistic style of recording events with the bible. Thank you so much for your incredibly insightful and eloquent explanation!
Well said! I’m publishing a weekly TH-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you
The Gospels could easily been written earlier than 80, 90, or even 100 AD. Most "scholarly consensus" that assumes the Gospels were written after AD 70 makes the case by saying that Jesus could not have predicted the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. In all likelihood, there was already some intense memory-based oral or perhaps even written tradition that came after Jesus' death and resurrection that allowed the Gospel to be proclaimed. Israel had already been a culture that prolifically wrote, so what's to say that the Apostles weren't writing stuff down after Jesus' death?
Like others have said, it's true that the Gospels weren't written like stop-and-go journalism. But, they were, in fact, written by eyewitness disciples, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in that order, sometime after the events transpired.
"Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven." (Vatican II, Dei Verbum n. 18)
as a protestant who now has a distaste for protestantism and yearns for a more traditional and dogmatic christian sect, i cannot agree with you. we must go with what the church fathers said. if we fall prey to pure speculation, you, who are blessed to be catholic, will be exposed to heretical thoughts and beliefs held by those who don’t even take seriously the Eucharist. and yes, i have an issue with “sola scriptura.” one of the core problems i have with protestantism, which is leading me to my journey to a more traditional community, is the issue of church authority and who has it. Martin Luther had many reasonable issues with the catholic church at the time, but that doesnt mean to break away and forge your own path; truly he opened up pandora’s box to the point where there’s an innumerable amount of denominations that cannot come to agreement with anything and change their beliefs every few minutes. truly authority does not sit with them.
So, so sad to this sort of fundamentalist thinking gaining a foothold among Catholics. In the past few days I've seen these two names come up time and again as more authoritative than the bishops of the United States, Raymond Brown, John P. Meier (and *most* critical scholars on the matter), and the seminary system in the United States. What sort of world do we live in when popular personalities online can sway people away from the actual teaching authority of the Church. Is this the 16th century Germany?
@@BreakingInTheHabit well the bishop don't really do anything to bring people into the faith, those folks at Catholic answers do and people trust them for it, no offense but people don't trust the current day bishops you know them being modernist. And Trent is following church teaching not what some bishop say. Cause you aren't following what bishop of past centuries put forward either
I’d like to point out that Dallas Jenkins, the creator of The Chosen, is an evangelical Christian. I appreciate the fact that he has tried to build bridges and give the show a broad appeal by taking into consideration the beliefs of Catholics and other Christians. Just because the “scholars” think this or that doesn’t make it gospel. Who is to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire some of the apostles to take notes of some kind. Obviously, there had to be some authentic source material available to the gospel writers. I don’t think it’s a major issue at all and should not dissuade anyone from watching and benefiting from this portrayal.
I was just thinking that same thing. Just because the current iteration of the gospels were penned and compiled decades after Christ's death, we must not assume that all the witnesses of his ministry were so daft and oblivious as to refrain from recording any of it (i.e. journals, personal correspondence, reports to scribes, etc.)
Not too long ago churches we closed because of covid. NO contact and for awhile all 7sacraments denied physically. We had to rely on live stream .Frankly the word of God fed me. Still no holy water allowed can get for personal use only. So instead of nitpicking the obvious why not be grateful for the Christian Unity this show is given Think we Christian's are baptized and that is a bond Satan cannot break. Enter Covid no holy water and baptism well... Holy Water joins Christian in Baptism and is used In exorcisms Anyone tell me how this sacramental going to give you covid?? We are in a spiritual war and need to you unite through any means possible. Holy Spirit at work Our Lord didn't just come for Jews did he so stop with the us them thing it divides
Theologians have always sought to destroy faith, which leads me to believe that this may not be in the spirit of God. They provide services for the other side.
I agree with Fr Casey on all the facts about how scripture was written, but I didn't read the chosen as promoting sola scriptura. I saw especially in the scene with John trying to figure out how to write the prologue, the Chosen trying to present exactly what Fr Casey is saying that they reflected back as old men and as a community and wanted to share the message.
Casey, why do you accept critical scholarship on so many things like the gospels not being accurate and being written decades after the fact, conceding that this is logical and to deny it requires mental gymnastics, but arbitrarily not accept all the other conclusions these same scholars make which leads them to deny Christianity as a whole and make all sorts of claims such as Jesus just being a dime a dozen apocalyptic prophet who never even claimed to be divine (see: Bart Ehrman)? How does it require mental gymnastics to believe the Bible may have been written earlier, but not to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and other foundational Christian beliefs which these same scholars pick apart? I say this as an agnostic who really wants to be a Christian but struggles in large part due to the beliefs you have. If you cannot trust the Bible, and just say it's vaguely 'true' but cannot be relied on in any meaningful way and accept 'logical' atheistic scholarship, going as far as to reject Catholic teachings (which seems bizarre to me for a Catholic monastic of all people?!) then it really seems like you're in dangerous territory. It would be so much easier to be a Christian as a fundamentalist, instead of someone who goes 'well Catholic teaching is wrong, the Bible is largely contradictory and not to be taken literally, tradition is often wrong.... err, what was I relying on again? Where did my faith come from?'. I honestly don't understand how people like you maintain your faith or where it's even derived from, as it's obviously using completely different reasoning from how you choose to interpret scripture. Perhaps you can make more videos on this subject in the future to clarify your position and help people like me understand, because right now I think you're inadvertently turning some people away from Christianity.
Atheist here - I want to point you towards a tantalising view on biblical inerrancy; it’s not that God divinely inspired a perfectly preserved text of a historical record of His actions, but rather that He had full foresight of the very issues highlighted by Biblical criticism as the ultimate author of our natural reality. So the “inerrancy” isn’t so much that God is directly guiding the writers and editors hands, but more so that God has a reason for every letter in every word in every Bible. I think a better version of this is fleshed out by a Christian apologist and author Randal Rauser and I think it’s similar to one that Peter Enns holds too. You can check them out on TH-cam and they’ve written some books on this topic as well.
I think you are jumping to conclusions. Nowhere in Fr Casey's videos does he say « Catholic teaching is wrong » or « the Bible is largely contradictory ». Just because the Gospels weren's written by the Apostle themselves does not mean that the authors weren't faitful to who Jesus was and what he taught. Just because the Gospels are not journalistic reports of the events does not mean they are not trustworthy. I agree that it can be unsettling to learn that Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew, that there probably was no dove when Jesus was baptized, or that we can't know for sure that Abraham, Moses or David existed. I agree that it would be easier to be a fundamentalist and to reject anything that doesn't fit my perspective. However, I can't ignore the fact that there is a scientific community, whose views are not easily dismissed if I'm honest with myself. So I accept it, as challenging as it might be. But the truth is, it isn't as much a challenge as it is a mind-opener ! It leads me to question the way I read the Gospels. As I discovered critical scholarship, I learned to read the Gospels for whar they are : brilliant works of theology that allow me to come in contact with Jesus Christ Himself. That doesn't mean that all of it didn't literally happen : Jesus was truly born in Bethlehem, died on a cross and resurrected on the third day. But the Gospels tell that story, each one in its own wayto give Christians a different point of view on the person of Christ. By the way, Paul does it too in a way, as he tells the major events of Christ's life and how it impacted him and the churches he visited. And those five points of views aren't enough to say everything there is to say about our Lord and Savior ! So the Gospels are also an invitation to review one's life to seek how Jesus was present in it and make it our own Gospel.
Why are they called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John if they weren’t written by them? How does that make any sense? Edit: nevermind But if they were written by the church and theologians wouldn’t that compromise the validity of the gospels?
I agree with your initial comment. The Bible is factual. Chuck Missler explains things very well if you would rather watch videos that are more helpful. This person has been mislead. The disciples didn't write as they were there living the experience, that is true. But that doesn't mean that they didn't write the books nor does it mean that they couldn't correctly remember what happen or what is to come. They were chosen by Jesus.
I agree with what your saying. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Jesus ever told anyone to write anything down. Jesus left a church not a Bible.
"The appstles weren't concerned with hsitorical accuracy-also, this show isnt historically accurate!" Only video I've seen on this channel that didn't seem very charitable. One of the main questions this show should raise for Catholics is, "Why didn't we do this first?"
While I agree that Fr. Casey is way off base with this, I do not think that heresy is the right word for it. St. Thomas defines heresy in the Summa Theologiae Secunda Secundae Q.11 A.1 as "heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas". The authorship of the gospels is certainly not dogmatic. Having the opinion that the gospels should not be attributed to their respective titular authors is not heresy, I would argue that it is wrong and an especially imprudent opinion for a Catholic priest to espouse, however, it is not heresy.
@@sebastos- Today we can say that Arianism is heretical because the dogma of the trinity has been defined. Prior to the Council of Nicaea no such dogma existed, you had two competing viewpoints, that of Arius and that of Athanasius. The purpose of the council was, amongst other things, to decide who was correct. Only after the dogma was defined did Arianism become heretical. Something can be wrong without/prior to being heresy. @Tom Gjokaj Trust me I'm no fan of Fr. Casey but calling someone a heretic who is not actually spreading heresy (in this particular case) is ad hominem. Save the potency of a word like heresy for something actually heretical. I only pointed it out because people online have a tendency to call things they don't agree with, heresy and such use dilutes the word of its meaning. Again not defending Fr. Casey's position, he's incorrect and imprudent, but it is not heresy.
Oh come on. You’re going overboard. There’s no evidence they were writing as if they were writing gospels. Jesus has told them he was going to send them out to preach the good news. How do you know they didn’t write notes before evangelizing to the community? You don’t know that.This debunks your point. Secondly, this is a television show of which Dallas Jenkins has stated it is not a full 100% story of Jesus life death and resurrection. It is entertainment and he is adding things that are not in the Bible. And you mustn’t get lost in this as a full Bible account. He has said over and over and over again that this is not an eyewitness account or a Bible study class. There is a Catholic priest as well as a rabbi and Protestant minister included in this. They have input throughout. I go to church for the lessons I watch tv for entertainment.
I disagree, Father. Jesus presented himself as the way, the TRUTH, and the life. As devout Christians we hold the truth in great reverence… it is the truth that sets us free to know and love God. I find it impossible to imagine a gospel writer simply making up details in order to support a theological point. Can picture yourself doing this? Putting your own words in the mouth of the Son of God, and then presenting that work to the Christian community? I imagine that the gospel writers did EVERYTHING possible to ensure that their accounts were as accurate as possible. You don’t proclaim a historical truth through a work of fiction. I have no trouble accepting the use of symbolism, metaphor, hyperbole, etc in the Old Testament, as that would be in line with the genre of many OT books. But the gospels were written about a real person, real events, with the knowledge that many would read and be skeptical, doubting the veracity of the record- most especially the resurrection. The gospel writers must have been highly motivated to present an account that was accurate and free from error, even as they endeavored to share those events from a unique perspective or theological context. I object strongly to your video because I believe it relativizes the one topic that we, as Catholics, must certainly defend as truth. That Jesus’s incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection happened just as the gospel writers recorded.
With all due respect to him, that is just unbelief. The disciples were men of God, and their words inspired by the Holy Spirit, as St. Peter himself says: For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. [2 Peter 1:16]
3:13 ..."The people who wrote the Gospels...whoever they were..." So this is what seminaries are feeding you?! This is why the Holy Spirit is passing the duty of "witnessing the Faith" out of the First World and into the Third World. I hope your parents are proud.
Satan is hard at work. Leading people astray one confusing message, one head scratching tweet and one street "march" at a time. It's difficult to know if they are conscious of the evil within or they are ignorant and have been misled and are in innocent. I see this everywhere. Keep your eyes wide open.
@@USMC98 I'm starting to believe that at the highest echelons of Church leadership, they don't really believe what they've been pitching. Case in point, they grind our nutz over Sunday "obligations" on Mass attendance for 100 years, and cast it all aside because of a severe strain of respiratory flu. Suddenly, Mass ain't all that important after all. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
There still is debate about when the gospels where written and the dating of Matthew and Mark after 70 is mainly because of the disbelieve in Jesus telling about the destruction of the temple before it happened. This point of critique seems wrong to me. Especially the possibility of Matthew taking notes because of his background seems very plausible.
How could Matthew have written the book in 80 or 90 A.D.? If he was 18 at the time he was chosen as a disciple, he would have been VERY old if he was still even alive by then. I love the Chosen. Yes, they add things that are not in the scripture, but are very likely to have happened or at least not contradict the scriptures. A man as meticulous as Matthew would have been the kind to make notes about things as they were happening, even if he didn't put it all together until later.
So in order just to critique Sola Scriptura, you throw out the whole reliability of the gospels..? (+ history, manuscript evidence, church fathers words, traditional authorship and eyewitness claims by the apostles and people themselves in scriptures, as well as internal and external evidence). You have some decent videos, but this one is a disaster. I hope not many non-factchecking atheists will watch it.
In John's Gospel it says, “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things” (John 21:24). So it there is no eye witness writing any of the Gospels, then John made a mistake when he made this statement. I would think that some of the apostles might have written things down, not necessarily as a gospel or to use for future writings, but to remember what was being said and to tell the others what Jesus said when they were not around at that time. I know that I remember things better when I write them down. They could have later used them when writing the Gospels. This show is not meant to be accurate in what the day by day activities were with the apostles and Jesus. They are helping us imagine what it might have been like to live and travel the way Jesus and his apostles did. The way they are doing the show makes me want to read the Bible more.
As a fellow believer I appreciate these videos and the work that goes into them. As a non-denom protestant pastor I also agree on your comment regarding the the actual authors and historic timeline of the gospels. I personally, however didn't interpret the notes being taken by the disciples as them literally writing their gospels in that moment. I feel it's too soon in the show to say how they will develop that. All that said, I know it's difficult to put yourself out there and I'm grateful you do, it sparks much needed conversation and loving debate to help us all learn from each other's perspectives and become more empathetic. I love that we can rejoice in our common love for Christ, and be challenged to grow from each other's unique faith journey's. God Bless!
I, too was a little worried when I saw the title. I appreciate your insight Fr.! I am not a scholar and would not have picked up on the writings. We do need to watch and know that there is liberty taken despite all that is sound. I was relieved that you, Fr. ended with saying you still enjoy and continue to watch. For me, I believe it is wonderfully made and may even be a start to "the reunion of all Christians" as we pray for. Wouldn't that be something with as many from the world who are being introduced or reintroduced to Jesus? Thank you Father for this and all of your videos!
Well I have to disagree with you and go with the Church Fathers that the Gospel were written by Matthew, Mark (indirectly from Peter), Luke and John themselves. While I agree with you that they were not written like in the Chosen and were written many years later, I cannot agree that they were written by theologians who never witnessed the events. I actually side with St Augustine and St Jerome who believe Matthew was written first and in fact like the whole Church believed for the first 1500 years. We can't always agree ... keep up the good work.
Thank you for clarifying.
I think the show is actually showcasing a hypothesis that tries to blend the early testimony of Matthew writing first and the more modern critical and popular Markan priority hypothesis; it probably showcases Matthew keeping notes that are not identical to the Gospel.
It's also taught that Luke was writing for Paul, and as you say, Mark from Peter, Matthew and John themselves.
Absolutely Not written by the apostles themselves and definitely not without error in translation but still very good and obviously vital. Good rule of thumb to read the Bible metaphorically.
@@stevenking6129 Only two Gospels bear the names of Apostles, Matthew (the tax collector) and John. Every single copy ever found of any of the canonical gospels carry the names of their authors. The idea of "anonymous gospels" has no documentary support and no small logical problems in figuring how every single copy spread throughout everywhere would have the right names. Despite colorful imaginations, there is no real reason to think the gospels were written by others outside of those names given them. 2 aren't even apostles and 1 was a tax collector (who were not liked even moreso back then than even now).
There are different genres in Scripture. Metaphorical genres should be understood metaphorically, but literal genres literally. However, being holy writ, there are many layers. Literal truths can be full of metaphorical meaning.
Statements that the gospels were, "written much later by people who never witnessed Jesus themselves.... to preserve the oral traditions of the eyewitnesses" that the gospels were "poetically and artfully crafted works of literature" "expressing the reflections of faith communities" and gospel stories that seem "completely unbelievable" - are statements that do not reflect the magisterium of the Church. The Church believes that what we call the "new testament" is the Word of God - and is true - and not just in an allegorical / poetical / symbolic sense. The Lord of the Rings is true in an allegorical / poetical / symbolic sense and it is a poetically and artfully crafted work of literature - but it is not the Word of God.
Sure, I agree that it is highly unlikely that Matthew and John kept written notes. On the other hand it is highly likely that Luke spoke to various eyewitnesses including Mary as his gospel specifically reflects her memories. In the same way Mark includes the memory of a young man who fled naked down the street when his clothes were torn off - someone that is almost certainly Mark himself. John recalls leaning on the breast of Jesus and asking "Who is it?" - plus also his direction from Jesus to care for Mary - both almost certainly a memories of that eyewitness. Matthew also includes vignettes of his calling as a tax collector - again an eyewitness inserting himself into the overall narrative. The truth is that scholars are all over the map. There are scholars who believe the gospels were written several hundred years after the time of Christ and are a complete fiction. But there are also scholars who believe the gospels were written by eyewitnesses in the middle to late first century.
As to the differences among the gospels - it is well known that eyewitnesses will emphasize different things - police detectives encounter these differences every day and the are not contradictions, but different points of view.
I would urge you not to flatly accept the comments of "scholars". Instead, study the matter for yourself. Take a look at an early church document know as the Muratorian Canon - a document dated to around 170 AD which lists the accepted books of the new testament and includes some comments on them. Take a look also at the book of church history by Eusebius of Caesarea. He was a Bishop of a large church and an attendee of the Nicean Council. Within his book of history he has an extensive discussion of the gospels and the accepted books of the New Testament. He had access to a library full of books which no longer exist and he had a view of the gospels as early and accurate descriptions of eyewitnesses.
While it is true that they were written after Jesus lived on Earth, the people who wrote the Gospels had one thing going for them that isn't common for writers. The Holy Spirit to inspire their writing and ensure that no error made it into it. Is some information secondhand? Yes. But it's also true and the Holy Spirit ensured that.
And its not necessary - as is implied in the video towards the end - to have a low view of scripture in order to have a high view of church tradition and teaching.
Now this is a guy that knows his stuff.
When you fall for the blunders of skeptical scholarship in new testament criticism (which presupposes secular views) you get videos like these. We know with certainty who wrote the gospels according to actual early teaching, sacred tradition, and biblical manuscripts. Skeptical dating uses erroneous outlines for what they consider a plausible explanation for how things can be written. Such as any predictions in the text ASSUMING these predictions could never take place a skeptic will date it much later than it actually was. Don't fall for smoke and mirrors. A strong case can be made for early dating of the New Testament and its authorship. God bless
Thank goodness for tradition like the Papacy! Go Pope Francis!!
@Джеймс Буржуа Perthaps because tradition may be wrong in it's assumptions?
@@florian8599 Sacred Tradition is Divine Revelation, it's not "assumptions".
@@_MysticKnight assumptions proper.
The early Church endured this lie through the inquisitions and crusades campaigns
@@florian8599 Let me add clarity to the post. Some of the *only* evidence secular scholars have to date the writing of the Gospels is prophecy. For instance, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Since non-religious don't believe in prophecy, they say that the Gospel writers *must* have written their Gospel after the destruction of the temple. That's literally the only evidence they have to date the Gospel. Yes, I have a degree in Religious Studies from secular Biblical scholars, which is how I know this to be true.
Bruh...you're going to sit there and say the church got it wrong about who the authors were? And then you're even going to insinuate that Matthew, a tax collector, couldn't read and write?
And theology vs history is a false dichotomy.
Yeah somenof what he isbsaying isnt making any sense. Especially that bit about if this an historically factual record it becomes nothing more than something to be replicated.
Makes no sense at all. It is quite clear this is meant to be an account of factual happenings, and that the Bible is the innerant word. But even that aside Jesus and others speak in parables and similitudes, it is quite obvious we are to glean lessons from those and not take them as historical fact, but that the story was told is historical fact.
And there are no biblical errors.
Idk what the last part of what you said is...but this guy is Catholic. He's obviously very confused.
he's following modernism, that's why he says this
The Church teaches that scripture is inspired by God and inerrant, so no Catholic should make an issue about the fact that the gospels were written decades later, or doubt that the gospels are historically accurate. And it is a tradition of the Church that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the gospels, in that order. No said otherwise until modern times.
“Hmm today I’m going to lie and name my gospel after Luke the physician and not an apostle, so that people will read it.” -Somebody after AD 70 apparently.
Yeah excellent point @Anthony this priest is going down a path that is off the mark. Sadly, he's gained quite a following and influential in many young adults, who will have a skewed understanding of scripture. Thank you Lord, for providing us FR. Mike Schmitz and FR. Mark Goring are able to balance out this misinformed Christian.
We can’t make an argument for something like this purely based on what tradition has said for many years. Being Catholic means we must have both tradition and reason. Would our entire faith fall apart for example if we found reliable evidence that one of the gospels was written by someone else? Also, Fr Casey never said the gospels aren’t inspired or inerrant.
@@dancarmen9994 What evidence is there against traditional authorship? If the Gospels contradict then they would have errors. Fortunately they don't.
@@Davis_Carlton So if the earthquake and raising of dead bodies from tombs doesn’t come down to eyewitness testimony its an error? Surely it’s not “modernist” to view these details as primarily theological in order to convey a truth within the historical resurrection to a specific audience.
I think that Father needs to read Ratzinger's works. The Apostolic Fathers taught that Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John WROTE the Gospels, not the community. He seems to be a bit of a modernist.
I love Pope Benedict 16.
Needs to read, “Dominus Iesus,” and I am a Protestant.
Since when is literary analysis modernist?
@@florian8599 The friar outed himself @ 5:43
The thing is: Ratzinger is a _fundamental_ theologian -- a very different field from those academic theologians dealing with the Old and New Testament.
The problem is, from the standpoint of a historian, that the idea portrayed in The Chosen, that the Gospels were basically written down "in real time", and that the followers of Jesus took meticulous notes, stems from a _modern conception_ of histiography and biography.
*Applying this modern concept of histiography and biography on pre-modern times is ahistorical.*
What is most likely, is that the Apostles may have compiled sayings of Jesus as well as his most impressive signs. Surely, Jesus may have said his most important sayings several times and the Apostles basically learned them by heart. And the most impressive signs... You get the picture.
Just because the evangelists -- those who ultimately wrote and compiled the Gospels -- were perhaps not first-generation, doesn't mean that they didn't have reliable sources.
But the idea, that the evangelists (as well as the authors of the epistles of John, Peter, James, Jude, or the Apocalypse of John) and the apostles, who happened to have the same name, where the same person, is... It follows certain traditions, but doesn't necessarily need to be historically accurate.
Historiography and biography until the late Middle Ages left room for artistic license. The Benedictus, Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis in the Gospel of Luke, as well as several speeches in the Acts of the Apostles where probably artistic license by "Luke", imitating Greco-Roman histiography and biography, which also used artistic license when it came to grand speeches. To wit, even medieval histiographers and biographers basically composed the big speeches as their own commentary to what happened.
In conclusion, it is actually _modernist_ to assume that modern concepts of biography and histiography apply to pre-modern times.
But just because the author of Matthew is likely _not_ Matthew the tax collector, and the author of the John is likely _not_ the "disciple whom Jesus loved dearly", or the John of the second and third epistle, or the Apocalypse-John, doesn't mean, that there wouldn't have been reliable sources compiled by the apostles about Jesus' saying, Jesus' passion and Jesus' signs for the authors of the gospels to use -- just look at the three "synoptic" Gospels.
Father not going to lie, but I am quite bothered by the statement that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. John's gospel makes it pretty clear when he says "we saw His glory" (John 1:16) as if implying that he was an eyewitness to these events. I'm not denying the fact that the gospels were written later than the time of christ's public ministry, but to say that they weren't by eyewitnesses, much less the two apostles which are attributed authorship, then we have a major problem here.
Agreed.
I don't know if that was what he meant to imply, but there's no shred of evidence that the authors assigned the gospels were ever anonymous. According to the scholar Brant Pitre, every single copy we have ever found of the canonical gospels have their author assigned to them.
I agree. Also, one of the main reasons they have been dated so late by secular scholarship is because in them Jesus foretells the destruction of the Jewish Temple, but the possibility of real prophecy is rejected by default, so they *must* have been written after 70 AD.
For Christians, however, there’s no reason to reject prophecy as a later addition.
I suggest a reading of Dr. Brant Pitre's book, "The Case for Jesus". He makes a very sound arguments that the Gospels were not anonymous and were written by those apostles or disciples whose names have been ascribed to the Gospels; They were ancient bibliographies which tells us that events described did truly happened; there is compelling argument that the Gospels were written earlier and thus much closer to the actual events than many believe.
Agreed. I think we can all agree that yes, they weren't writing the Gospels as we know them today as the miracles were happening. But I think the 'imagination' that the apostles possibly carried around notebooks to remember things isn't so far fetched. As in 'we saw His glory'. They were eyewitnesses--as the Bible, whether Catholic or Protestant, teaches.
As a Protestant, I can say that the "sola scriptura" principle isn't really upheld by most Protestant groups either. What I mean is that each denomination has its own teachings that it puts forward, and if the Bible were the only thing, then no denomination could add to it, right? For example, Methodists (a Protestant group) traditionally completely abstained from alcohol. This practice isn't necessarily a bad idea, but on the other hand, Jesus turned water into wine so can it really be considered biblical? So before we complain about Catholics having teachings that aren't directly based on the Bible, we should examine our own denominations (or individual church for people in a non-denominational church).
Come home brother…
I think you might be looking at “Sola Scriptura” in the wrong way a little bit. “Sola Scriptura” does not mean that all of its adherents, aka most Protestants, will follow the exact same things. It just means they use the Bible as the only guidepost. Humans are flawed, though. It can stand to reason that their conclusions/interpretations can be, too (like in your mentioning of alcohol).
A Protestant of any denomination can interpret something incorrectly, and others can say he or she is looking at the text incorrectly. In this way, you can say there is some subjectivity in the claim. One side is objectively correct, but it might be harder to discern which side that is.
If a Catholic goes against an important tenet of the faith, though, you can have a more objective claim against them via the Church’s authority/traditions. In this way, all Catholics know which side is correct and which one is not.
You're mixing up SOLA scriptura with SOLO scriptura. Sola scriptura is the Bible is the Only INFALLIBLE rule of faith thus ultimate standard. It Is not the only rule of faith. Church Tradition plays a big part but it acknowledges it is fallible. The original reformers did not reject Church tradition as modern Protestants do they just put it as secondary not primary. modern Protestants just chuck out Church tradition and creeds as not important and try to start from scratch that's the problem with all these denominations.
No reformer (Luther Calvin and so on) would reject the Apostles Creed or the athanasius and so on. You be considered heretic if you did even by them.
@@manonthestars Exactly, the reformers are actually pretty catholic. Today’s evangelicals are trying to come up with their own thing claiming that church authority and hierarchy doesn’t matter while they follow whatever the pastor says. What a total contradiction…
@@RGTomoenage11 yes they would come across quite Catholic now because there was so much things that they agreed with because the church in history had a lot of things they agreed on.
The argument with the reformers were, how is one saved justified and what is the ultimate authority for the church. Namely justified by faith in Christ and scripture as final infallible authority.
It was traditional knowledge that the gospels were written in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no reason to doubt it. The claim that the gospel of Mark was written first was first made by Lutheran scholars in the late 19th century. The claim about another John who wrote the gospel of John is also a claim of modern scholars.
Amen
@Omar Savory that's not Catholic tradition
@Omar Savory tradition in and of itself is not bad. Human tradition differs from the tradition given to us by the early Apostles and Church fathers though. It is God's tradition. It basically just follows that if you believe in Christianity, we must be Catholic. If you don't believe in Christianity, sure. You have Islam you have Judaism etc practicing ancient traditions
“Traditional knowledge” maybe, but we have no evidence that any of the Fathers who made the claim had direct knowledge of how the gospels were written. They may have reported stories, but that’s not direct evidence. Further, just because something is a modem or Lutheran claim, does not refute it. The reason why Mark is held to be written first in contemporary scholarship is two: 1) the Greek between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is so similar that literary relationship is likely. There are multiple ways of phrasing sentences in Greek, especially when it comes to word order. Given that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic, almost all of His words in Scripture are a translation. If there’s multiple ways of translating a single Aramaic sentence into Greek, then we would expect these three gospels to be more different then they are. 2) When we accept a literary connection, the next question is the order of that connection. Matthew and Luke both seem to be aware of Mark’s gospel, as both of those gospels have almost the entirety of Mark within them. But we don’t see the same relationship between the two of them. That suggests that they’re both aware of Mark’s gospel at the time of writing, but are unaware of each other’s. There’s more to it than that, such as Matthew and Luke presenting miracles that are also in Mark in a slightly different way, but the main point is that the weight of the textual evidence is on the side of the priority of Mark, and that traditional knowledge isn’t a strong enough counter, given how easy it for such knowledge to be mistaken.
Hi Anthony, the arguments in favour of Markan priority are pretty strong. Why do you think Matthean priority is better?
In all honesty, if it brings people closer to God in ANY way whatsoever, even if it's one person, it did its job.
I agree. I don't think the Lord cares about the medium the Gospel is told through or if there are creative liberties to try to connect the people of today to the people in the Gospels, including Jesus, Himself. If it draws people to Him, it is doing its job.
So by your own description you religion (in your own view) it doesn't matter if the gospel and message is told accuracy or honestly, as long as it convinces people? So Jesus or God doesn't care about honesty, accuracy, and integrity, just results? You might want to reconsider your priorities and your views a bit if that's the case.
Father's dating of Scriptural testimony on Jesus buys into theories which are not settled even by scholars. The idea that the literate members of the Apostolic group were not likely to write down what Jesus said is pure supposition. Plenty of writers in the ancient world were taking notes as they travelled around from Herodotus to Pliny the Younger. The theory of very late Gospel composition is an a priori assumption based on the concept of a multiple Community hermeneutic. This has its roots in the Modernist project that denies, for instance, that Christ could have predicted the Roman destruction of Jerusalem because he would not have had prescience as a human "person." The divinity of Christ is subtly set aside here. Our modern Catholic priesthood has been infected with all sorts of ideas which are not consonant with the Divine origins of Revelatiion. With all due respect to this fine young man who, I believe, needs to reexamine some of his training. He might benefit by starting with Pope Benedict's exegetical work, 'Jesus of Nazareth.'
You say plenty of writers as if they were common. The writers you mentioned were born into fairly influential families; The former being closely related to a famous poet, and the other the Grandson of a Senator and received some of the highest forms education in the Roman Empire. I have my doubts that even a tax collector like Matthew who may have been literate could have afford to write during his ministry with Jesus, much less in koine greek. Papyrus and parchment were expensive. Paul's longest letter, addressed to the Romans has been estimated to have cost the modern day equivalent of ~$2,000 for Papyrus.
That being said, I agree with you on everything else. I disagree with the modernist approach that Jesus couldn't have predicted the fall of the Second Temple and therefore written after. I simply think that the Apostles Matthew and John gave an oral account while their more educated disciples wrote for them. This form of writing and record keeping was fairly common in ancient antiquity. Most authors didn't write their works alone and individually, they usually had 2-3 other people scribe and edit for them.
With respect to Fr. Casey, I think he nearly committed Anathema by saying that the Gospels held contradictions. For Catholics it's not even disputed that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
@@Cklert if you have read the Bible you have read the contradictory accounts. The fact you are afraid to acknowledge them is neither surprising or unusual but rather typical.
@@stevenking6129 the fact that the accounts are contradictory leads to the validation, not detracts from them. This proves they were written by the individuals concerned, and not by groups long afterwards, as if they were written by groups long afterwards, they would surely make an effort to get all their facts straight and to agree with each other. The fact that the Gospel writers have a different take on some things that happened and even contradict each other show the Gospels have not been altered "after the fact" and only serves to prove their authenticity.
@@axab4333 That's a very creative theory.
@@stevenking6129 Wrong, people tend to mistake omissions for contradictions.
I think that you could argue that with the interpretation of Matthew, his previous employment as a taxman lends him to being of the type to keep notes. And with John, his writing of the events is sporadic, to the point I only remember him writing down the healing of the man at the Bethesda Pool. And technically, the show not only implies but directly tells you that what is being written down are not the gospels. There is a flash-forward to 44 AD where John is only just starting to write his Gospel and Matthew says that his Gospel "Will be accurate". As in it was not yet made. So I do not think it was intentional by them to say that the Gospels were written as witness to things as they happened. The show is not Gospel, it is Interpretation.
It's just a bit weird maybe that they are suggesting Matthew's gospel to be very accurate and John's not. John's gospel is just entirely different in the sense that it already shows Jesus as the powerful risen Christ throughout the whole Gospel, hence things like the "I am" words that would not yet make much sense for the historical Jesus to say before his death and resurrection. It's just much more theology in John.
We noted on your point, Brother. Maybe, Father Casey should've mentioned/acknowledged atleast, those insights you've mentioned above along with his review. That would make his review more Charitable than it 'already is'.
@@kynesilagan2676 I do not hold it against him as it is something easily overlooked. I myself never thought to interpret the show this way until I heard Father Casey discuss this. That is why such spreading of ideas are good for they make you think thoughts you might never have otherwise.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are only credited with the Gospels but there is no evidence that these are the actual writers.
Agreed, I think Fr.Casey kind of exaggerated the point of Matthew & John jotting down a few notes just to make a counter argument to sola scriptura
I would respectfully disagree with your first point Friar Casey. I’d first say that the evidence is largely in favor of an early dating of the gospels, rather than the AD 70+ dating most secular scholars give it. There’s great evidence that at least some of the gospels were written as early as the 50’s or even the 40’s. Even so, the sayings of Jesus are probably much earlier given that some of Paul’s early letters written in the early 50’s contain sayings of Jesus as well as a creeds in 1 Corinthians 15 that some scholars date even as far back as the 30’s. There’s many reasons to believe in early dating of gospels as well as the fact that they are written by their traditional authors, much more so than a later dating, but that would take too much time to get into in one TH-cam comment.
My main point is I don’t think it’s wrong for the show whatsoever to portray some of the disciples taking notes of things that occur during Jesus’ ministry, as it would seem that something like this likely happened due to the early dating of the Gospels being much more likely than the later dates you present. Much love and respect to you.
Try to "convert" to Protestantism and write a book on it, while you're converting. Try to replicate, in your life, that theory you just laid out. This write-while-you-see is inspired in the romantic novels of the 1800, NOT in actual history.
@@SuperOnomatopea actually it is in history that people took notes. They were not even writing the actual Gospels, just taking down rough notes. They must have known what was happening was extra-ordinary, even if they did not know what it was exactly, so the literate ones would be inclined to take notes, as anyone would when they sensed something very powerful was going on
@@axab4333 "they must have known something was going on" feels a lot more like modernist projecting than a reasonable assumption, honestly.
So while he may be wrong about the dating, he is correct in the error of the apostles writing along the way, this is evident in the writings of the gospels themselves as well as the traditions of the Fathers. The gospels and epistles were written when the Church grew to the point where oral communication became impossible for the apostles
@@deiniolbythynnwr926 indeed he was. All I'm saying is hindsight is 20/20 and it's unrealistic for us to make these kind of presumptions in regards to the witnesses of Christ's miracles.
Having watched both seasons I took the writings by John and Matthew as symbolic; pointing to the Gospels that would eventually be written bearing their names. If it’s meant to be literal that John and Matthew were writing during Jesus’s earthly ministry, they’re going to need a whole lot of scrolls and tablets by the last season.
From a hidden comment, way below, Fr Casey says “…How do you reconcile Jesus saying three different things on the cross? Or two different lists of Apostles? Or Jesus visiting Jerusalem three times throughout his life or him visiting it one climactic time in his life? The major sermon is said to be on a plain in Luke and a mountain in Matthew. I could go on and on. There are tons of contradictions. But that's okay if you read the Bible like Catholics do, not treating it like literal facts at every moment. If you do, you have to do many mental gymnastics to make it work”.
---No mental gymnastics, Father. With all due respect, there is a simple explanation to all your points: the authors were honest and did not embellish anything. For example, Jesus was reported to say different things on the cross because different people were listening to him at different times, and they did not lie or embellish when writing about it. Also, Jesus most likely visited Jerusalem every single year, for Eastern, as it was tradition for any Jewish family, and authors wrote about only those they knew, without embellishing. Also, the major sermon is reported to occur on a plain or a mountain simply because it happen on both. Jesus made the same speech more than one time for sure, and people remembered it in different locations. Thus, the "contradictions" you are concerned about are actually evidence that the Gospels are truthful and did not embellish anything.
I agree. The men who wrote these accounts weren’t just ordinary men reporting what happened either, they were also holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit.
@@88mphDrBrown before accusing people of dishonesty perhaps it would be better to explain clearly what you are saying. What you wrote is unclear at best.
@@raid2533 I'll rephrase my comment if it was that unclear. In the synoptic gospels Jesus is crucified on a different day than in John, if there are no embellishments or real contradictions how is this possible? This is one of the many contradictions that require extraordinary mental gymnastics to be anything other than differing accounts.
@@raid2533 saying "contradictions are actually evidence that the gospels are truthful and did not embellish anything" is blatant dishonesty. It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. They cannot all be "truthful" literally. Did Jesus carry his cross himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry it? I suppose you'll respond that "Jesus carried it for a lap then Simon carried it when he is unable".
@@88mphDrBrown and from where or what do you conclude that in the synoptic Gospel Jesus is cruicified on a different day than in John's? I don't see it at all. Again, your accusations lack any useful detail. Provide details and then we can talk otherwise you are just a troll.
What I love about the Chosen is that they are open about the fact that it is a production - transparent - in their youtube channel, the discussions about how they made decisions about character portrayals, and other discussions, even Behind the Scenes continuously keep the audience aware of the fact that it is a work of fiction, and something that people of certain faiths have created.
Exactly I find this Catholic priests review of the show as pretty nitpicking considering they did admit that this was not an exact or fully accurate depiction of the Gospel. People have to understand there are some creative, artistic components that are utilized in order to help tell the story or stories. They never said it was an exact depiction, so I find it very unfair that this Catholic priest is trying to preach that this show did something wrong or is misleading in someway that is not meeting the standards of the Catholic Church. I hate to say it, but there are a lot more important things that the Catholic Church needs to pay more attention to within their own faith than worrying about the accuracy of a television show.
@@JudeMalachi my family is Catholic. I am not, but I have to ask you. How can you say that Catholicism was inspired by God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit when the traditions of the religion its self prevented people from speaking directly to God? This is not a gotcha question I truly want to know your thought process, I personally am non-denominational because I believe that all religion is the work of the devil given the fact that the only thing that we all argue about is the politics of the religion when we should be focused on God.
@@BSUSwim4Goldthis is good constructive criticism though. It is not an attack to disregard this beautiful amazing series about the life of Jesus. Even the Vatican or the Roman Catholic Church is grateful to how these series was well written storytelling that depicts the story of the Jewish people before, Jesus mission, and the Apostles encounter to Jesus.
The Catholic Church has all the right to say anything when it comes to such as these movie series about Jesus because it was Jesus in the first place founded this church, the Catholic. It was St. Ignatius of Antioch the disciple of Peter, Apostle of Jesus who put the name Catholic which means Universal- One Faith and One God. All the disciples of the Apostles who became the leaders of the church then after the Apostles died became the Bishop of every place they were assigned to. This happened when Emperor Constantine, emperor of the Roman Empire embraced Christianity. These started the beginning of the structural and governmental development of the church. And as you can see right now there is a Pope, Bishop, Priest, Nun, and Sister. There is already a structure. And then it started seminary schools for future leaders of the church both in the diocesan or religious men congregations or in the diocesan or religious women congregation. It is also the Catholic who arranged all the old testament books and New Testament books into one book which we now called the Bible or Sacred Scriptures. The original manuscript of Scriptures which written in Hebrew and Greek with a little of Aramaic were in the Vatican. There is so much to learn in our faith both in history, culturally, and spiritually. All documental evidences that it was Jesus who founded the Catholic were present as of this moment in the Vatican. You can research it if you want.
The church has all the right to say because when it comes to historical evidences, cultural evidences, catechitecal and theological evidences on the life of Jesus and the Apostles were accurately present in the Catholic. Outside of Catholic they were all false but Catholic respect them and loved them. Catholic bible is the most closest translation to the original manuscript than any other bible out there. That's why the church have all the right to give feedback.
Sadly this rejection of the teaching of Vatican II is pretty common in my experience.
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind"
Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)”
I respect you and love your videos, Father; but the Gospels were written by theIr name sakes
He is a blatant heretic.
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." - St. Irenaeus
The Catholic leadership have never liked the Bible, because they had no intention of living by it. To them, it gets in the way of money, power and stuff. Pharasees will Pharasees.
I have a big problem with the notion that, contrary to Catholic tradition, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. If Peter was not behind Mark’s Gospel and Matthew And John’s Gospels were written by other theologians, the big question is: why? Why would some theologian, not of authority to write such works, even risk his life in doing so? To be beheaded or crucified?? No, since Levi, aka Matthew, was literate, it only makes sense that he took notes. Was his Gospel first or was Mark’s? More people are in favor of Mark’s coming first lately. But just like John outran Peter to the tomb but didn’t enter, it only makes sense that Matthew would have also acquiesced to Peter, the head apostle, to have his version of the biography told first, through John Mark. To think that a literate Matthew would not have documented anything along the way is more far fetched.
It is not necessary that they were written by eyewitnesses to be true accounts. Notes may have been written later, for sure, serving as source material. The friar is objecting to the depiction of someone taking contemporaneous notes like a reporter. The deposit of faith is in the church guided by the Holy Spirit, and God's word continues to be spoken, even after the last word in the last book of the bible was written. The story is not over yet.
@@richardauten7179 I don't see them taking notes as reporters but as students. Specially considering that they were being exposed to new teachings not contained in the Scriptures that they had studied until then.
Agree.
Read I John 1:1-2. How can you get eye-witness than that?
It's interesting that you say that, because even among conservative New Testament scholars, they admit that the traditional authorship of Matthew is the most problematic of the synoptic Gospels.
I am a Catholic who just returned to the faith 5 years ago, and at the same time my wife of 32 years converted to Catholicism. I am not a theologian or scholar, so my knowledge surrounding the history of how the Gospel was written is very limited. During my return to the faith I have noticed many changes. I tend to disagree with a lot of the changes. My disagreement is based on my spiritual “gut” feeling so it obviously carries no weight (No pun intended). One thing that sticks out to me is something that Father said a couple of times that I have trouble with. He stated that the Apostles had no idea of the importance of their pilgrimage with Jesus. I find this hard to believe as they were witnessing the healing of some of the most devastating of diseases of that period. In addition, the healing of the lame and blind, and finally Jesus’ raising of the dead and himself, not to mention the transgression. I relatively sure that some or all of the apostles would have recognized the importance of this time and understood the importance of remembering it by documentation. Again, this is an unqualified position I take, and is my opinion only. Much love and joy to all!
Logical.
You have a valid point
gotta remember everyone that this isn't pushed towards Catholics in particular, it has to cover everything generally enough that people of all denominations will not be turned away and can hear some gospel from this, we must remember that this is a series meant to draw in everyone to a deeper faith, not just the religious, not just the non-religious, but everyone and to draw them in and encourage them to stick with the series and bring the warmth of Jesus Christ to everyone
Amen!
That's an interesting perspective filled with good intentions but I have to agree with Fr Casey's conclusion. As he says, it is fairly well known and established by theologians of many christian faith traditions and not just Catholics that the NT writings emanated much later through the faith experience of the early church who wanted to put in writing for future generations what God had revealed through Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Artistic licence with many character's back stories, which we know nothing about is one thing, but actually falsifying what is generally held to be true about the birth of the New Testament writings is not this otherwise amazing cinematic creation's best attribute!.
I can understand your point of view from a protestant stance, but there is much more to it then that. There is one teaching of Jesus,
@@tipit0086except the writers of the Gospel died for what they knew. No tutti frutti's in that crowd.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 So are you ok with the show portraying this incorrectly? Why? Because it bolsters the Protestant heresy of Sola Scriptura?
Forget whether his is Catholic or not. What is the truth?
Why can't the gospels be based on eyewitnesses and also be literary/theological? I don't think it has to be one or the other. Why not both?
I agree
Because there were no eye-witnesses.
@@butterflybeatles what makes you so sure?
@@remmanuel985 From Google: There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.
@@butterflybeatles Jesus ascended into heaven after He rose from the dead, so of course His body wouldn't be found on Earth.
This criticism suffers three major problems. First, it seems a straw man fallacy, as the show doesn't simply imply the disciples had the foresight to see themselves as fully-fledged gospel-writers, but portrays some jotting down of events and words, with Jesus explicit encouragement.
Second, the dating of the gospels is disputed among highly competent NT scholars, as is the question of how much they are eyewitness accounts (cf. Bauckham, Keener). This criticism simply assumes as fact an unverified and probably unverifiable opinion.
Third, even if the gospels in the form we have were then composed and collated late in the first century, this would not preclude previously circulating collections of written records of speeches and actions of the Lord. It would be impossible to prove or disprove their original provenance among the Apostles.
To deny this is to privilege speculation over knowledge. This is perfectly reasonable to an extent in a dramatic adaptation that is confessedly part fiction, like the Chosen. It is not in a purportedly informed theological or historical critique.
There are exceptions in every field, but Father Casey is simply promulgating the majority opinion. Keener is a great scholar, I'm not saying otherwise, but it needs to be acknowledged how conservative his views are.
There are some arguments which date Luke Acts to being after 100! And based partly on Josephus - also by competent scholars. But since it's not a majority view, Father Casey didn't mention it.
@@Gumbi1012 Calling it, correctly, a majority opinion only proves my point. Opinion is not verified fact, and this is inescapably the case in biblical studies, where having opinions vary and change is the norm and certainty is seldom attainable. Therefore, the level of certitude clearly expressed in Fr Casey's critique is unjustified. He has, in truth, no way of knowing someone like St Matthew didn't jot some things down along the way, nor that our Lord didn't quietly encourage it.
@@trcnmk42 Argument from silence...
The Chosem is 95% fiction...from Dallus'own mouth.
@@trcnmk42 "a majority opinion only proves my point. Opinion is not verified fact,"
but a minority opinion is? This sort of argument is fairly silly. "You don't know it for sure! It's just the majority view!" hence your minority and unlikely but not impossible view should be held?
We don't know all sorts of things and very few things with 100% certainty. Casey's critique is in line with the vast majority of evidence and research. Could there be new evidence that suggests something different, sure, though the reasonable thing is to hold to the most likely view until an if evidence ever is found. Scholars who aren't attached to an inerrancy view of the Bible (including Christians who don't hold to that) place what Casey said to a very high degree of likelihood.
Did unicorns and dragons exist? You can't say confidently they didn't. All the evidence and lack of evidence suggests it's extremely unlikely but you can't say for sure. I'm not sure you want to start applying such a loose standard of accepting things that are unlikely but possible. Otherwise the unlikely but possible argument Jesus never existed at all has to fall onto that too.
I disagree on the Gospel dating. I reckon the Synoptics were written before the Temple fell. Why?
Well Luke wrote his sequel, Acts, without talking about Paul and Peter's deaths. So he provided a tale to a point. This preceded the temple fall.
Matthew written first from tradition, as Dr Alan Nlack posits, Mark then reports the preaching of Peter following Paul's requested stamp of approval for Luke's account.
YES! As the very liberal Anglican theologian J.A.T Robinson wrote in his ignored but never actually refuted 1976 book _Redating the New Testament_ NO book of the NT definitely, in the past tense, speaks about the Destruction of the Temple. Hebrews, usually dated to circa 80-85, speaks of Temple sacrifices as still ongoing. It begs credulity that no NT author, writing after the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, wouldn't have felt compelled to write something like "Jesus was vindicated, see what Rome did to Jerusalem".
Wow, father!!! It feels like I’m listening to Rudolph Bultmann (who wasn’t Catholic…) I humbly suggest you update your biblical studies, especially to deepen your knowledge of Church Fathers. The Living Tradition of the Church has never taught that the Four Gospels were written by theologians, but by two of the Lord’s Apostles (Matthew and John) and by two apostolic men (Mark and Luke). Have you ever read Papias of Hierapolis or St. Iraeneus of Lyons?
When did Paias and Iraeneus live? Hundred years after Jesus. That's enough time for legends deviating from historical fact to arise.
@@florian8599 In fact, the time gap is super small compared to other historical works. Papias either knew John or a disciple of John. Not really consistent with development of legends.
@@florian8599 St. Iraeneus learned from Polycarp who learned from John the apostle.
I went to catholic school. The church teaches exactly what Fr. Kasey said. The Gospels were written up to 400 years after the events of the gospels. It was kept alive for centuries through oral tradition and symbolism.
@@applejuice3562 even the most critical new testament scholars would never say that. absolute nonsense.
I really appreciate your perspective on most things, but I think your going a bit too far on two accounts.
First, (from all that I’ve seen) the idea that the gospels were written later comes from 19th century high criticism that has the underlying assumption that Jesus wasn’t God and couldn’t have predicted the future.
Second, there’s no reason to believe the apostles wouldn’t write stuff down. They most definitely didn’t know the big picture (as stated blatantly in the gospels), but they would’ve marveled at some of His sayings. I’m not saying that the chosen is historically accurate, but I do think it’s historically possible. Believing that they recorded certain sayings and extremely special events doesn’t mean that they didn’t weave the events into theological marvels. We see events that are unique to certain gospels and the timing of things that are different from the gospels. I think the goal of the show is to portray a possible historical reality that the gospel writers rearranged and reordered (with the Holy Spirit’s guidance and inspiration) in order to tell a narrative with specific and complex implications.
I apologize for the long comment, and I can’t wait for more videos. God bless Father!
Younger, not older. The allusions to the destruction of the temple is what is called a terminus post quem. The Gospels must have been written after the destruction of the temple. That dating is not based on the idea that prophecy is impossible, but even if you believe that Jesus foretold that event, it would probably only make sense to write that down after it was fulfilled. Otherwise it would have been meaningless to the readers at the time. They already read it understanding what it meant, just as we do today because the temple was already destroyed at the time.
@@kadda1212 thanks for the correction! I got older confused with later date!
Dr. Brant Pitre wrote an excellent book, "The Case for Jesus" about the dating and authorship of the Gospels and Acts.
@@kadda1212
It made perfect sense to right about the prophecy beforehand, so that it will be confirmed when it happens. The prophets in the Old Testament didn’t wait till their prophecies were fulfilled to write them down, nor did the apostles wait until other prophecies of Christ were fulfilled to write them down.
The entire New Testament was finished by 70 AD.
"Second, there’s no reason to believe the apostles wouldn’t write stuff down."
The problem there is every single reason. Literacy at that time and place was amazingly rare and the ability to write even rarer. Some estimates put it at less than a percent of the population could write at that time. Almost exclusively reserved by high education clerics and some aristocracy. The poor followers of Jesus certainly wouldn't have been able to write.
Fr. Casey, the one thing I appreciate most about your approach to these pop culture discussions is your courage and honesty. You aren't hiding behind any "because I said so" sort of arguments. That courage and strength obviously comes from honesty. Only someone who is completely honest can be that forthright. I hope I don't overstep when I say that I think that would be a fantastic way forward for a church that has always had an amazing message, but has had a few recent problems with some of the messengers. God Bless you.
The following are excerpts from the Introduction to the Gospel of John found in the NABRE, the Bible approved for use by the USCCB for the Catholic Church in the United States:
"Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person."
And:
"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style."
And:
"The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels...These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this."
You can read the complete introduction at the USCCB website.
The part John was writing things down was much later after Jesus was ascended if you see the way it was portrayed in the movie. Pls do check it again. For Mathew, it was his personality putting things down not necessarily writing the gospel in its present form. Maybe much later, he arranged everything into the form we have it. But most importantly it is still a possibility he jotted things down.
Yup- he was an accountant- it’s in his training to make notes and records. I bet he did write a bunch of things down.
Maybe
And maybe he was an illiterate peasant who couldn’t read let alone write.
But most probably a literally device to tell a story.
If you read Mark is it in a series of repeating patterns (to reinforce points) and is a retelling of the story of Jacob from the Hebrew Bible. It is also highly refined Greek and one of the grandest piece of literature in Western history. It had problems though. One of the reasons the long ending was tasted on much latter.
@@russellmiles2861 so ultimately it’s not out of context for those things in The Chosen to occur as drafts
@@chukwuemekamusic663 that's a very modern way of seeing how ancient peoples retold stories. Papyrus wasn't even readily available for everyone and costly enough for the majority to stick to oral traditions (memorization)! Which is exactly what Fr. Casey's point is.
How would you jot things down in the first century? The idea of jotting was not part of their vocabulary. Writing materials were not portable, and writing was a deliberate and professional activity. Most people were not literate.
Many students of the day kept close notes of what their masters said. A way to learn
Many historical critical scholars forget the Jews were a writing culture.
Cite sources
There were no pens and paper in these days. There was only parchment which was very expensive and quills.
Kept notes? How? Most people could not read and write!
@@Anon.5216 thats silly. A rabbi was a cleric aka scribe. They had to know how to read and write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to be disciples. That is why I always laugh at those who think the Historical Critical Method is superior to all other hermeneutic principles. I use the Historical Contextual Method and that brings greater understanding. It says assuming the Bible was true how do we replicate its lessons in our life today.
I love the show Chosen. It's not perfect. But its the best to relate to I have ever experienced. Like the Bible. .. We read it with the heart but it is not in scroll form. It's the way this show has given us a gift to finally relate to who Jesus was .
I would love to see a mini series on St. Francis and St. Clare. My favorite friars lead me to read more about both of them.
Actually, In Italy, where I live, a mini-series (2 episodes) called "Chiara e Francesco" was produced in 2007 and then broadcasted for the first time on 7th and 8th October of the same year on the first channel of national TV (Rai 1).. It also has a beautiful and heartwarming soundtrack composed by Marco Frisina (He is one of the main church music composer here in Italy, his music really get you closer to the Divine).. Hope my information was somehow useful.. I wish all the Best! God Bless!
I love "Clare and Francis" the Italian mini series. It's dubbed in English but I watch it in Italian. Beautiful!
Where can I watch it? I am learning Italian!
This view on the Gospels will lead to apostasy because if what you said is true (which it is most certainly not) then there is really no reason to even believe in the stories in the first place if they are just reflections of communities with no actual eye witness testimony. Trent horn did an excellent rebuttal of Father Casey so check that out on the Counsel of Trent podcast
Why is your faith dependent on stories? Surely our faith is deeper than that. It is a moment by moment living out - really not dependent on stories at all.
@@butterflybeatles These stories that you are saying I'm so dependent on (which you would be correct to state) are the Word of God. It is very important that they are based in history/reality and not some amalgam of ideas from the Christian communities a 100+ years later. If it is just a story with no actual eye witness testimony then how can you really know Jesus died and was resurrected with certainty. Faith without evidence is blind faith which I reject. I believe in God and the Catholic Church because I find it to be the most compelling option. My faith goes far deeper than just intellectualizing everything though, I follow reason and evidence as far as it can go and follow to where it points me which is when I have faith. It is faith with evidence not just believing to believe that is based in reason and reason and logic are part of the Natural Law. So when you say I need stories for my faith you are right in a sense that I need a factual historical account of the Gospels that tell that Jesus is the second person, was incarnated and became man, and died for our sins. If all of that is just hearsay or an epic story like the Odyssey then why in the world do you believe it? It seems unreasonable to me that you have faith in something with no concrete historical evidence. Honestly, if that's your standard then why not take the claims and stories of Joseph Smith more seriously?
@@michaelhodges2391 The fact is that there is no historical evidence and there were no eyewitnesses. There is no proof that Jesus existed except in the faith of the adherents. And that's okay because the Church is the Body of Christ based on faith - not historical accounts. The Word is a Person - not ink on paper.
@@butterflybeatles this is the dumbest thought ever. Absence of proof doesnt deprive the existence of being in the first place. Not to mentiom that there were so many remain UNDISCOVERED. So on what basis can we say "there is no proof?"
Our faith DOES RELY ON WRITINGS STORIES ON IT AND IT IS A HISTORICAL ACCOINT IN ONE SENSE. Thats the ONLY DIFFERENCE between TRUE FAITH and MYTH. How on earth a person like u BELIEVE IN SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT, WHEN, HOW, IS IT? On what do u place tour faith on? Your whole argument is SILLY.
@@butterflybeatles and here is funny thing. U said "the WORD IS ON PERSON NOT ON INK", When u directly, and all the fathers QUOTED it DIRECTLY from the writing u yourself put aside. Where is the logic??????
Please address the criticisms in the comments lest you lead sheep astray. Your silence except towards those who praise and agree with you is not a good look.
@CJ P. His first sentence here uses the word reflection,
but does he ever watch Atheist-Channels
and really challenge his own Religion with real Logic?
Without narrative-manipulation and without excuses?
Cause i know barely anyone does. Atheist-Channels have valid questions to ask and valid things to speak, so duh.
I always felt like the part in John 19:35 "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled" gives a pretty good hint at the fact that at the very least John's gospel was such a strong oral tradition that even if he personally did not write it down, the person who did, wrote it in his name. Obviously this is interpretation, but that always brought it home to me that the apostles definitely wrote something down, even if they were not the ones who assembled the whole thing as an actual gospel. And even if it was oral tradition, do you really think people came to hear the deciples speak and never took notes? Or that the deciples who were aware that they were speaking to the messiah would not want to keep track - at the very least for themselves - of how he explained scripture? Especially Matthew, since we know for sure he was used to writing things down. So while I had the same initial reaction of confusion when I first saw how much they keep taking notes, and while i do share your worry that this is definitely going in a direction where it could lead people into thinking the gospels should be taken as absolute fact, I don't think it takes away from the validity of the series for even a catholic audience.
The gospels are absolute fact.
The people who wrote them had the Holy Spirit inside them. They could not lie.
@@angielovesusa not lie, but human error is possible even with the holy spirit :)
I actually like the parts where they show the disciples taking notes. It does not necessarily mean that the notes are the gospel per se, but that they serve as reminders to the writers, (or reference for the writers, if you believe that it wasn't the same people who wrote the gospels). I mean, imagine recounting all that has been said and done for the past few years in detail, word for word. Wouldn't it make more sense that they kept journals?
That is my thoughts exactly. These sporadic note taking will then be complied into the gospels we know today. Matthew and John are the only disciples doing this since they are the only two gospels associated with 2 of the 12 disciples of Jesus. Mark and Luke come along later and write their own gospels.
That's what I take it to mean, some people watch and take things too literally. They definitely are taking quick notes to build the overall writing from.
@NKWTI this isn't the story they should be taking liberties with. Do you think God wouldn't care? Love of the money they're.making by rewriting Scripture...
Of all of them, it would even make sense for Matthew to write somethings down. Not because he had Autism, there's no confirmed report of this... but because he was a tax collector prior to following Jesus. I bet even during the time of the Roman Empire when Jesus appeared it was rather common for a tax collector, a learned man, to write things down as notes.
Matthew being a tax collector may have taken note and the disciples were amazed and afraid as we learned last weekend. Those miracles weren't so insignificant father.
Yes I'm sure it was very suitable for his character to take notes and trying to be precise. Especially because he was learning the scriptures too
If he had recorded everything that was going on for three years, He would have written volumes. The evangelists actually wrote what they remembered and in order to explain it to a particular audience. Gob bless you.
@@englishlearningcenter1470 most of them were actually illiterate.
@@sissybrooks8588 There is no doubt about that. The only one hing that doesn't make sense is to record history on the making as a journalist would. Had they ( the apostles) known what was going to happen they wouldn't have abandoned Christ at Calvary and would not have hidden away from fear. Jesus never instructed them to take notes, he instructed them to preach the Good news.
@@englishlearningcenter1470 I believe coming back then, things were recorded through oral history. So they would have told others in stories. I think it was different from today. That's why you see the songs keep the story of the Red Sea crossing and things like that. Eventually, someone wrote that oral tradition down. I'm pretty sure it was much the same thing with the Gospels. I assume the difference would be that the Holy Spirit was with these early disciples. I think it was much stronger than now. Especially now. I think we are generally insipid, and sick, and olympic. Otherwise we would be working wonders of the early Christians did. By the way, there seems to be plenty of that going on in the Orthodox church right now. Makes one wonder.
There are no contradictions in the gospel accounts, because the Church teaches that scripture is entirely without error.
Pope Leo XIII: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).
Definitely agree about Evangelical theology seeping into the show at times - there's a part where (I think) Philip says something like "I don't think Jesus cares for the religious very much" which definitely struck me as the whole "relationship not religion" Evangelical shenanigans you've discussed before.
After the “ prosperty movement “ I can’t help but agree .
Well, religion never saved anyone. I don’t have a problem with ‘relationship not religion.’
And Peter has a freaking altar call repentance scene...that actually took me out of the scene a bit.
Whenever I hear someone say something like, "relationship not religion" I know they don't understand the definition of religion.
Who do you imagine was the target audience and folk they hope to advertise to. And really; an historical theological tale would’ve kinda short and boring television. Most folk don’t even care or know that there are many version of the Bible. The Protestants even think their KJV is The Bible. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t expect Hebrews as an Epistle of St Paul, and only the Ethiopian orthodox include Enoch
I respectfully disagree with you.
The Chosen made me closer to Jesus even though I have been a Christian all my life and went to church .I have NEVER felt more closer and loved by God.
Same here. It's an amazing series. So well done and such a blessing. But I had questions. Why are they not showing Jesus's baptism? How are they planning to show the Transfiguration? Turns out they aren't. And for a sketchy reason. I'm still going to watch, but with a more wide-awake brain and heart.
I'm glad to hear your opinion on this. I have been simultaneously watching this and holding it at arms length at the same time, scrutinizing everything in fear that something will ruin it for Catholics. Very curious to see how they handle the last supper and bread of life discourse.
"This is My body *looks directly into the camera* figuratively speaking"
@@dredgenfaith 😂😂
@@dredgenfaith Yikes! Yeah, that would be a cringe moment for sure.
The guy who plays Jesus has said that his Catholic faith ("With the Eucharist, cloud of witnesses, and all that being a part of it"...guy went all out on his FB page earlier this week) really weighs heavily into how he plays the part.
I'm really curious too. Not least because I wonder if he's going to end up seriously butting heads with the director.
@@dredgenfaith with a wink 😜
QUESTION: if the gospels aren't historically true, did the crucifixion really happen? What about the resurrection? Did that happen? How do you know what is actual history in the gospels?
I really want to see a long-form discussion between different Catholics on these questions.
Indeed, if the gospels can't be viewed historically because they weren't written by eyewitnesses or at the word of eyewitnesses, then the entire Catholic thing falls apart since it's in the the Gospels that Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. How do we even know this conversation took place and wasn't just some story. If the gospels can't be viewed historically, all of Catholicism and Christianity falls apart.
@@Thomas-dw1nb absolutely. Fr. Casey is dangerous and misguided
@@Thomas-dw1nb Ultimately it’s impossible to know for certain that they were. Obviously historicity is important, but our religion can’t purely be built on eyewitness accounts. Hypothetically, if it was proven that they weren’t merely written in the way you describe, would your entire Christian faith fall apart?
@@dancarmen9994 Yes it will. There would be no basis for believing anything in the gospels are actual historical events.
Let’s not forget that this is a show. The point I believe they are making is that, eventually, Matthew and John do write about what they experienced and Mark and Luke about what they were told by eyewitnesses. This show is opening up hearts to read God’s Word and to relate to our Lord Jesus… this world can certainly use more of that!
Fr. Casey, I'm a student in Biblical Studies and I think you make too much of the "consensus" of biblical scholars on the issues of authorship, dating, eye witness reports, etc. Really it is entirely plausible that the gospels are eye witness accounts that came into their final form within a decade or two of the resurrection and composed by the traditional authors. I would look at some of Dr. Brant Pitre's work and recommend reading Dr. William Farmer's the Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem for more on this. Much of what you take as a matter of fact are contested issues in Biblical Studies.
Just read this. Agree wholly. Showing my Bias, I share with you that a couple of years ago I threw Robert Brown’s stuff into the trash.
Raymond
I’d additionally recommend some more reading if anyone’s curious about the “written by the eye witnesses” claim
Vatican 2, Papias of Hierapolis, and Saint Iraeneus of Lyons all make the claim of traditional authorship. So the church has, does, and will maintain the tradition
Thanks Trent Horn for debunking this.
He didnt debunk anything, just a lot of speculations and uneducated guesses. If the diciples did write the accounts, why were there contradictions in the account? For example the nativity stories in matthew and luke? If they wrote the gospels themselves, what is the proove within the gospel? Why were the diciples always written in third person? Why it never says something like "i saw, or heard, jesus did so or so?"
@@misterprogressive8730 imagine thinking there are contradictions in the nativity and then calling Trent uneducated 😂🤣😭
@@JeanRausis there are literally so many contradictions in the gospels that the vast majority of Christian scholars agree are there, it has even been written about by them repeatedly. Honestly why do people delude themselves into pretending this isn't the case? The gospels were written 30+ years after Jesus by people who never met him (we know Mark and Luke never met him, and Matthew copies Mark so if he had met him why copy? And John uses all 3), so of course there are contradictions
Horn is simply not academically educated and thus has never seriously engaged in biblical scholarship, he doesn't know what even Catholics like JP Meier have written about
@@connor9700 Lol just take the L. There's no contradictions, at least no formal ones. Only the kind of contradictions you'd expect from actual eye witnesses. And your claims about the writers of the gospels was debunked and is wrong.
@@connor9700 After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn earned master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics. He serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, where he specializes in teaching Catholics to graciously and persuasively engage those who disagree with them
I'm eager to see how they'll depict "You are Peter and on this rock…" or the last supper.
They’ll put him in a white robe, give him a ring, and build him a palace in his own city.
@Jon Evan where in Scripture does it say to compile the New Testament and which books should be included there in?
@Jon Evan "Scripture is God's Word and He, by His Spirit, moved men to write didn't He" I agree.
"as we see Jesus instructing Matthew to write in the Chosen" That's a tv show, not Scripture.
You didn't answer my question. Where in Scripture does it say which books are official Scripture? Where is it said to add the New Testament to the already established Old Testament?
@Jon Evan And yet, we have Paul and Jesus who weren't married.
@Jon Evan You still didn't answer the question. Where does it say so?
How would one verify, through the Bible since it is the only source we should use, which books should be included and which should be excluded?
"move men to gather those writings." So you are saying teachings can come from outside the Bible, up to and including forming the Bible itself?
Agnostic here . Just started following this channel and I have to admit I can't get enough of the reviews!
You will see that we Catholics try to correct one another, so that if one fails, the others keep them on the straight path home. The process can be sometimes amusing, sometimes frustrating. Like all good families.
Be comfortable, we have some pizza.
The late dating of the Gospels comes (partly) from the atheistic belief that prophecy isn't real. Atheists don't believe that Jesus could have predicted the destruction of the temple, so they say the Gospels must have been written after the destruction of the temple. Don't fall for secular "scholarship".
I don't understand Fr. Casey's logic here. First he claims that the Bible shouldn't be taken as literal or accurate events, but then quotes Matthew 16:18 and John 20:21-23 as evidence of something Jesus actually said. How do you know Jesus actually said those things, Fr. Casey? This is contradictory.
You seem to be misunderstanding what I've said. I never said the text wasn't true. I never said the text wasn't authoritative. The whole point of the video is to break people away from the idea that *every single* word of the Gospels is the *literal* fact of how things happened. It's not a history like we would read a newspaper article, it's history like people read history prior to the Enlightenment. The problem people are having here is that they're reading the sources like modern people read them, looking for facts and historicity, whereas I'm suggesting that that is not how ancient people wrote. They included symbolism, exaggerated elements, and references to other stories. Much of what is written in the Gospel did happen as it is written, but not all of it.
I repeat. I never said that the Gospels weren't true or that the events didn't happen. I never said that.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Ok, but how do you know what Jesus actually said and didn't say? How do you as a priest know when something is an accurate saying of Jesus and what isn't? Why trust any of it when some of it, as you say, didn't happen?
@@spector1591
You understand things can be literally true without being literal fact.
That's the whole point of the parables of Jesus.
They are literal truth. Their messages are literal. But the story is not fact.
It's literally true that we are the seeds, but not literal fact that one day a sower sewed us as literal seeds.
@@Bashcutter Everyone knows that parables are not literal, I am concerned about if Jesus even SAID most of the parables or any other saying attributed to him. Also, did Jesus really DO any of the things that were written down? Did he really walk on water? Did he really feed the 5,000? Did he really raise Lazarus from the dead? If the authors were just trying to make “theological points” and not historical ones, why even put faith in it?
@@spector1591
Oh, well Casey did just make bad arguments too. The authors did make historical points and theological points both together. Like a real historical event with a miracle. It's historical and theological.
Look up Trent Horn from Council of Trent, he already made a response to this video pointing out the flaws.
Hello, I am a catholic Bible scholar (in training getting a masters rn) and i say this with all the love in the world that you are completely wrong! I would point you to Brant Pitre’s, Richard Bauckham’s and Joseph Ratzinger’s works on this subject. It seems like u are reading too much German liberal Protestant form critics. This is one of the things the chosen gets right. That the disciples were there taking down the prototypes of the gospels is very historical.
Do you have any references to these resources? Books or websites?
Fr Casey this is unrelated to this video but I just wanted to express how much of a joy it’s been to watch your channel. People at my high school have discovered it and we even watched your video on answering Gods call at a school assembly today. My sister and I especially love your channel and we hope that your channel continues to grow and be a blessing in the lives of Catholics around the world!
I had a big argument with my sister about this. And she kept going back to this argument. "but they could have done it. It doesn't say they couldn't have" I tried explaining that's not the culture or the way things are taught. You don't take notes while your rabbi is teaching and demonstrating. But it just went round and round back to - "but they could have... " finally like Scott hahn says the new testament was a sacrament long before it was a document. The document was supposed to preserve the life around the sacrament. When you divorce scripture from the liturgy... You get this kind if circular argumentation.
@@njtom105 this is the best things family could argue about....just sayin it made me smile at the thought of family at least discussing things that matter instead of arguing who the best tik toc'er is❤
Good to know another Nintendo gamer loves the channel as well.
@@marcokite um, you do know that the evangelists wrote the gospels long after Jesus ascended to heaven right? Casey explains in the video that the early Christians had the gospels written both in a historical and theological context, courtesy of Church tradition.
@@marcokite ok well I'm definitely not the most read individual, but I think it would be a bit biased to say that team scholars x would say that the gospels were written later because of lack of faith.
Casey seemed to be explaining that the gospels were completed in the 80s-120s of that time period, although this in itself is just a guess.
The acts not including Paul's arrest and being written a bit later is fine. I don't disagree and see the possibility that certain books of the New testament were written early, and other were written towards the end of the 1st century AD.
I'm not a toxic fellow. I just like Plants vs. Zombies.
Counsel of Trent just dunked on the inaccuracies in this video
It really didn't, it did what all of those uneducated do, it ignored all of the evidence presented by academia in favour of blind faith
Totally agree it is the best series worthy of watching but, it is still fiction with great biblical text woven in, and yes I do tend to read the Bible more to make sure I know what is truth and what is fiction. Bravo father and thank you for your insights.
To be fair, it doesn't pretend to be anything else.
This take makes me proud to have been raised Catholic. I can trust the honesty of someone that speaks like this.
I don't know if I would call the Scriptures "reflections" as if they are not inspired. Isn't that like calling the Eucharist a symbol? There was more than just what you noticed that is off the wall in the Chosen such as the portrayal of Mary. That being said it is leading people to Jesus through the portrayal of Jonathan Rumie.
This makes sense from any standpoint whether you're religious or not. This is why I as an agnostic truly respects the Catholic Church.
@@WilbertLek what?
Whoa, whoa, Father: Yes, there are some scholars who insist on the gospels not having been written until 80-90 AD.
But, of those scholars, most draw that conclusion by denying supernaturalism of any kind; and thus, the possibility that Jesus successfully prophesied any event. So they consider Jesus' words that "within a generation" the Temple would be destroyed as "evidence" the text was invented after Temple WAS destroyed; i.e., that those words were not original to Jesus but were put into His mouth by the authors.
The argument is: "Real predictive prophecy doesn't exist; ergo, Jesus didn't predict...but, this looks like a true prophecy; ergo, it must have been invented after the actual event, which puts its earliest possible date as 70 AD." So when you say "some want to argue the gospels are much older than the evidence suggests," THAT is usually the "evidence" which is under consideration. And the sole reason it counts as evidence for post-70s authorship is a denial of supernaturalism.
Not to put too fine a point on it: If you, Father, hold that view, you're in the wrong line of work.
You're correct, of course, that it's silly to depict Jesus having been surrounded by guys jotting down quotes, as if John's gospel was composed prior to the crucifixion. (Dumb move by the series-makers.) And it's true the gospels are stylized retellings, not court-reporter notes. The literary genius of John's gospel, structurally and thematically, makes it a literary Antikythera Mechanism, a work of great genius and artistry. Basic shoeleather reportin', it ain't.
But there are reasonable, rational arguments for certain gospels (on one telling, Luke) being composed in the 50's. And, sure, if you have other reasons -- reasons that don't deny important truths proposed to us by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium -- for dating a gospel as late as 80 or 90 AD, that's fine, too. I myself go back and forth on late vs. early dates for John's composition; but on balance, late has the edge.
But it's important to not rely on a "scholarly consensus" which, itself, premises its conclusions on the faith being false. If you confine yourself to only querying scholars who DON'T philosophically presuppose a denial of supernaturalism, the lopsided scholarly consensus favoring late authorship vanishes. You get, instead, a wide range of arguments for possible gospel dates in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.
One other thing: Why characterize a composition in the 90's as a "long time" afterwards, as if it were centuries? Why characterize a composition in the 50's as "much older?" Word selection matters; and we ought to characterize such things relative to other ancient works. Our earliest testimonies to Homer are several centuries (!) after the presumed date of composition. Proportionately, aren't ALL of the proposed dates for gospel authorship rather "early?"
Anyhow, I think you should have mentioned that wider date range, Father...and done so without sounding like you were pooh-poohing it.
That pretty much sums up what one needs to know about dating the gospels late. We just presuppose Humean scepticism with regard to miracles and thus it must have been written post 70 AD.
This is the very first time I disagree with Fr. Casey! ;)
Yes, the Gospels were written long after the resurrection of Christ. And no, I am not convinced that they were written by others than tradition tells us. (Hey! It's TRADITION! Quite an important thing in catholic Church!) The scene with John an Mary shows the exiled Apostle writing things down because he understood that Jesus might not come back tomorrow (and I absolutely love the idea that it's Mary who says with a smile what later will be the very last sentence of John's Gospel). So John is depicted as someone seeing the necessity of writing the Gospel long after Resurrection.
Then, I have absolutely no problems with disciples taking notes. Almost all Jewish men were literate (quite a point for Jewish religion as opposed to heathens). This may also have been quite a private thing - "I have to keep that in mind, I have to write it down or I might think I dreamed"). They may have kept notes for themselves a long time, before it became evident that a written Gospel was needed. Whoever learns to write also learns that writing is a great help to memorize things. And then of course they (or others - though I don't think so) wrote it down later in a more artful and theological way.
Then, the different versions may be easily explained. Think of a police report. If four witnesses tell exactly the same course of action, would any police officer in the world believe them? Rather not. It would very much sound like an agreement. But if four witnesses tell the same story with a concordance in the most important points but different focusses, and in little, with different courses, they may be credible.
"Cold Case Christianity" Nd the four witnesses... sounds like you have heard J. Warner Wallace's book and part in God's Not Dead 2. I appreciate your thoughts.
"This may also have been quite a private thing - 'I have to keep that in mind, I have to write it down or I might think I dreamed'). They may have kept notes for themselves a long time, before it became evident that a written Gospel was needed. Whoever learns to write also learns that writing is a great help to memorize things." Exactly. I have a very good friend, who is in no way an aspiring writer, who nonetheless is a compulsive note-taker simply as an aid to his own memory. I respectfully think Fr. is making way too much of this, as well as being a bit too credulous of what is by now a barely credible "late-date theory" for the Gospels' composition. Others have suggested it: Read Brant Pitre.
Respectfully Fr. Casey, I think you missed the ball here. One doesn’t need to accept ‘sola scriptura’ in order to agree that the gospels are written as histories.
Sola scriptura asside, at 2:51 you state that “the gospels were written by people who never witnessed Jesus themselves”
This is contradictory to scripture, John 21:24 states “John 21:24 -This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things”
This is an eyewitness account, not simply a “tapestry of theology”
5:46 “Insistence on assuring us modern people that the stories are exactly as they appear”
This is Literally what Luke takes the time to insist to his Patron theophilus when writing his gospel; Luke 1:3-4
[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 have certainty concerning the things* you have been taught.”
Now I’m not saying that the gospels, specifically Matthew & John’s were written as they happened entirely, neither do I think the show is. Rather, they’re exploring the quite plausible probability that some of Jesus’s students, would have taken a few notes here & there of Jesus’s sermons & feats. This is not uncommon at all as Rabbinic students often did take notes, and Matthew being a tax collector and literate in multiple languages would be a good candidate to do so.
I’m a protestant myself who accepts sola scriptura , but I’ll refer you to a Catholic Theologian and professor Dr. Brant from Notre Dame seminary who would completely disagree with you stance. Matthew & John are eyewitness accounts written by Jesus’s students and Mark & Luke record testimonies from eyewitness, they’re meant to be taken as history. In your attempt to take a dig at “sola scriptura” you’re arguing against the historical reliability of the gospels and disagreeing with all the Early Church fathers (for which i’m sure you’re a fan of) who unanimously attribute authorship to Matthew & John.
Well said. I would add that all the Apostolic letters and book of Revelation, fully support all the content and authorship of the Gospels.
CCC 126:
...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."...
Nothing I said contradicts that.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Thank you for your reply Father. I really liked your point about authority and that we must not give in to the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura!
At 5:06 you say (as related to the writing of the Gospels), "Not every story needs to fit neatly together in some large narrative. Some things may have happened exactly as they are written, but some things may be the work of the evangelist after the fact. Making connections that weren't explicit at the time. Fashioning stories together in a particular way to present the truth of the good news in the way their particular readers needed to hear it. What the evangelists created were beautiful tapestries. We mustn't get lost in the individual threads."
By your statement, "Some things may have happened exactly as they are written, but some things may be the work of the evangelist after the fact," you seem to at least imply that scripture is not entirely fact based. In my hearing, throughout your video, you imply that the writers of the Gospels took license to report events that never truly happened. This seems to contradict CCC 126, "...whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms..." I realize my interpretation of your words may not be perfect and I am not professionally trained in scripture. Your words just seemed off to me from everything I have been taught about scripture (please feel free to respond with your understanding/intent of these words, I am just stating how I perceived your words).
Thank you for your ministry and for devoting your life to God as his priest! I will pray for you, please pray for me and my family. May God greatly bless you and your work!
@@BreakingInTheHabit Quick follow up, I just realized I a missed a couple words in my longer quote. That was unintentional
(it is hard to comment full quotes correctly on mobile).
Honestly (being catholic) I know I‘ll have to take the show with a grain of salt. The notetaking doesn’t bother me as much as you. Jews have a long tradition of recording events -> Old Testament. So why wouldn’t you take notes in order to remember better when you sit down 50 years later - and start writing in proper inspired by the Holy Spirit?
The show is fictional but it does help me reconnect to Jesus in a very impactful way. You did a very good job on respectfully making your points without collateral damage.
Well said! I’m publishing a weekly TH-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you
If anyone is led to follow Jesus by watching this series, glory be His.
A better approach would be where we fast forward and see the disciples sharing their accounts to other people, who themselves are writing it down, or just listening eagerly. A bit like how the movie Titanic is played out.
I didn't get the sense that they were writing the Gospels in those moments... simply taking notes. There is, to my knowledge, a big flaw in believing the disciples likely did take notes, even if only for themselves, as a way of journaling to understand for themselves. Just a thought.
As a disciple, I spend a lot of time studying the Bible, looking up reference materials and journaling. I have no call or intention of writing a gospel, a book or even a Bible study guide, but I am a notetaker by nature. I even have a collection of meticulous notes from sermons that I keep in my Bible. I imagine that a few of the disciples may well have taken down some notes as they listened to Jesus’ teachings, describing His miracles and jotting down a few anecdotal accounts. Rather than being put off, seeing a couple of the disciples taking notes is something that I relate to, and actually makes a great deal of sense to me. I don’t see them trying to make an argument for the apostles writing the gospels “in real time,” rather depicting a couple of the more analytical followers doing what came naturally to them. Might they have referred to what they’d written years later, when they actually did write the Gospels? If they had notes, they certainly did. I think you’re overthinking this.
I have watched the chosen since its beginning. I thoroughly enjoy this series and it does help to make Jesus real to me. I love the scenes where they’re sitting around joking with each other. It makes the apostles relationship with Jesus so human which we know it had to have been. But I enjoyed your pros and cons series about the chosen. Very well done and with such charity. Thank you!
I too was more relatable to Jesus and his apostles watching this series.
We know this series is taking creative license . It’s sad it even has to be brought up at all .
The pint is to help us understand the literal humanity of the disciples.
The Bible itself contradicts.
Why did men of the past opt to drop 66 or so books from the original? Could it be agenda?
Im a cradle Catholic and was fortunate in high school to take “theology “. We were encouraged to be open minded and to “ seek “.
I did too . I live amongst Hindus, several other practices from around the world , indigenous people and mostly Protestants.
Very few Catholic people live here . I have Muslim friends .
To include my own faith , ask me who represents what Jesus taught ?
This series has been a uniting thought provoking work . It shows where we fail as “ Christians”.
I’m 66. I’ve studied the ways of others since I was 11.
What I’ve learned is to see the common denominator of all spiritual practices.
The idea that the work and works of humans along with faith ( and away from ego ) . I’ve seen first hand the “ Beatitudes “ practiced in a way many churches fail completely at .
The arguments I’ve seen on the site itself have been incredibly exposing.
Every one seems to believe their personal view and doctrine is the only absolute.
Spiritually we should evolve .
God hasn’t stopped inspiring people bc the book was already written. I think it’s good we re-evaluate many things in context .
I really like The Chosen’s “humanity”, because sometimes reading scripture “feelings” are hard to interpret. What I don’t have liked is when they show Jesus rehearsing his speeches. That to me shows a “flawed” Jesus, as if he isn’t Divine enough to say the right words at the right moment without any “practiced speech”. Like when the show shows Jesus practicing the sermon on the mount or when Matthew suggests to Jesus that the intro to the speech will take the listeners of guard, or something. It just doesn’t “fit” that Jesus, being God, can say what we need to hear “impromptu”. God bless!!
I agree with you. I didn't like any of the sermon on the mount scenes. Rehearsing it with Matthew, passing out flyers, having a backdrop, and deciding what to wear, none of it seemed plausible. From reading Matthew's Gospel, Jesus went all around Galilee teaching and healing and his fame spread so much that large crowds began following him. So, he went up to the mountain, sat down, and started teaching them.
Practicing makes a person "flawed"? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.
Personally, I don't think something being prepared or impromptu doesn't make it more spirit-filled or divinely inspired. If Jesus should have just been able to do stuff impromptu or automatically. because of his divinity, why was he taken out by the Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days? Why did he spend SOOO much time in prayer and by himself, especially when a big decision or moment happened directly afterwards or before? Why does scripture say things like "Jesus was made perfect through his suffering". OR that "Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Luke 2:52.
I think a lot of people think Jesus divinity was proven through his power and ability. I don't think it was. I think that had a lot more to do with his innocence more than anything else. A theology that says that Jesus had some sort of superhuman mental capacity and didn't need to rehearse, learn or rehearse things BECAUSE of his divinity actually gets into some pretty shaky ground when you come to understand a theology of Jesus as fully God and fully human. You get to a point where you're like "Yes Jesus was fully human but he was also more than just human because he was divine." If that's the case he's NOT fully human, because the divinity swallows up or changes or impacts his humanity. What it really gets to is people saying He's actually MORE divine than human and that's pretty dangerous.
Actually, on second thought, even HUMANITY was created to be fully innocent and, through Jesus sacrifice, we are all made innocent by his blood. So it's not even his innocence that makes Jesus divine. Nothing MAKES him divine. He just is! But I'm of the opinion that his divinity certainly didn't cause him to be superhuman while he was here on earth, able to do things that were impossible for us to do.,....other than be a living sacrifice and atonement for all humanity of course. :D
@@crazyboxer3689, in the Simply Catholic article, "Christ’s Self-Emptying" Fr.Brian Mullady does a good job explaining the hypostatic union. Following are some excerpts:
"Jesus, “though he was in the form of God, / did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. / Rather, he emptied himself, / taking the form of a slave, / coming in human likeness; / and found human in appearance, / he humbled himself, / becoming obedient to death, / even death on a cross” (Phil 2:6-8). This Scripture passage from St. Paul summarizes the humility of Jesus Christ and his self-emptying, also called kenosis in Greek."
"The one divine person, Jesus, thus acts in two natures. In Scripture, He even demonstrates this because He speaks in both natures as one person often in the same verse. “Now glorify me [human nature], Father, with you, with the glory that I [divine nature] had with you before the world began” (Jn 17:5). This new relation between God and the world is a sheer grace, and it is also a miracle."
"The traditional teaching of the Church is that Christ enjoys the beatific vision from the moment of His conception in the womb of His mother in His human intellect. This is not formally defined de fide, but has always been considered proxima fide, meaning that to deny it entails so many problems for other doctrines that it must be affirmed. If Christ were not to have this and therefore have faith on the cross, this would mean that He would have to merit it for himself as man and, in principle, could sin. In fact, faith is never attributed to Christ in His earthly life, and the ability to sin would again compromise His mission."
There's a lot more very interesting information in the article.
Fr Casey, I see your points, however, is it not possible that some of the disciples decided to take some notes and later on the gospels were written? for example, writing down the Sermon on the mount is not an easy task, Matthew couldn't possibly remember every single word that Jesus said. I am just thinking out loud here. Thank you
Fr. Casey concerns and red flags.
1) At 1:40 "It is pretty well agreed upon that the Gospels were not written until long after the events took place, between 80 to 90 A.D. for Matthew..."
2) At 2:50 "Rather, the gospels were written much later, by people who never witnessed Jesus themselves. "
You are mentioning dates that are far beyond what was shared in tradition. The Gospel of Matthew was written before the destruction of the 2nd Temple. You are using the predominant modern dating extensively used in non-Catholic theoretical research or readings.
The most surprising for us is that the teaching of the traditional dates under Catholic tradition viewable on TH-cam from years ago was from an older Fransciscan program.
References all can check:
1) If you have access to the Catholic Encyclopedia you can see also the traditional dating being discussed there, there is now more diversity of opinion in the modern era, but in general if favor the years 40 to 45. A.D.
2) On TH-cam the Franciscan's Ave Maria videos.
I love the Chosen and it's become one of my favourite series, but yeah -- I think we as Catholics need to remember that this was a show written by an Evangelical and tends to lean towards Evangelical tendencies (especially the idea of sola scriptura seeping in). I know a Catholic is involved in being an advisor to the script and Jonathan Roumie himself is a Catholic, so it will be interesting to see future seasons from Catholic perspectives while simultaneously just enjoying the show for what it is. (And it isn't made primarily for Catholics -- it was made so that Christians of all denominations can enjoy it and I, like possibly all the other Catholics here, thoroughly appreciate the effort Dallas has made to assure that this is a show that Catholics too can enjoy)
(Love the video though, it taught me a lot of new things about Scripture. Like mentioned before, Evangelical theology has seeped in so subtly that I didn't notice until now.)
I find myself closer to Dallas than the head of the Jesuits who made the snide remark that the disciples had no tape recorders.
it's like saying the gospels were man made too
@@SilenceDogwood. Catholicism traces it's roots to Jesus. Protestants trace their roots to Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ellen G. White, etc... cannot fit the over 44,000 other founders of Protestant Denominations that currently exist. The Bible only mentions 1 of the above names. The others are men and women who have doctrines and dogmas that have... followers. So Protestants believe Catholicism is man made. Catholics believe "Protestantism" is man made... hope no atheist are reading this.
@@SilenceDogwood. Blah, blah, blah - give it a rest already. You are not a Catholic, that's your prerogative. Now leave the rest of us who are, to practice our beliefs in peace!
Hey Don't forget it's a Mormon entertainment (LDS), DALLAS is LDS, look at he recent "the messenger" Special Christmas Episode, too shallow.
I don't think Luke witnessed Jesus first hand. He wrote the Gospel speaking to the Apostles.
@Roseann Sorrentino - You are absolutely correct. Luke was a physician. His gospel is literally based on in-person interviews with those still alive at the time he wrote his gospel long after Jesus had died. He was more like an investigative reporter at the time. Note that in his gospel we find very specific details NOT included in the other three gospels. And let's not forget about Paul (formerly Saul) who persecuted the early followers of The Way, and then became Christianity's most ardent advocate.
Although tradition has it that Luke was the little boy who run away from the soldier when they arrested Jesus. But that is a tradition that I am not sure is confirmed in the Bible.
@@raid2533 I'm not sure what "tradition" you are referring to, but I would be hard put to think it was Luke. In fact, only Mark mentions "a young man" running away when Jesus was arrested in the garden. Since Mark DOES name the others present, would he not have also named the young man, too (given the circumstances)? At the beginning of Luke's Gospel, Luke, writing to Theophilus (tradition holds he was a Roman official of some sort), says that he has compiled "a narrative of things...just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitness..." If he had, in fact, been present when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, wouldn't it make sense that he would've mentioned that fact in his own prologue to his own gospel since he would indeed have been one of those eyewitnesses? Further, in the opening lines of The Acts of the Apostles (also penned by Luke), Luke refers to the fact that he is writing it for same Theophilus, so once again that suggests that Luke was never present when Jesus was arrested--and thus could not have been the one who ran away. I'm not a Biblical scholar by any stretch, but I think the texts themselves are clear on this matter.
Luke heard St Paul preaching. He was with him, also during the three apostolic journeys until he arrived in Rome. I’m publishing a weekly TH-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you
Fr. Casey, forgive me if this is a bit uncharitable, but your statement that it is "nearly impossible that the disciples themselves were doing the writing [of the Gospels]" seems to directly contradict the Church's teaching on the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John. Can you perhaps clarify? Because what you are asserting as a seemingly obvious historical fact may be scandalous to the faithful, could very well be incorrect, and seems to go against the Catholic teaching on the topic (while adhering to one position held among the most liberal scholars, which is in no way proven, or even a consensus).
"we're not reading literal eyewitness accounts of people who were there"? I fear you are implying that an opinion of some liberal scholars is the baseline factual opinion on the Gospels, rather than what the Church teaches.
In which document does the Church teach that the Gospels were written by the people whose names are attached to them, out of interest?
If the Church were to teach that the Gospels were fact, or the Bible for that matter, then the sacred tradition deal would fall through. That’s why these videos exist. Remember, scripture alone is not sufficient for the Church.
@@rickdockery9620 If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you might be confused. The sacred tradition, aka the magisterial teaching of the Church, is the reason we have a "Bible" at all - the collection of books we now call the "New Testament" did not exist prior to the Catholic Council of Rome 382, presided over by Pope Damascus I.
Well put. I personally am truly shocked and distressed at reading what Father Casey wrote there, and in replies to this posts. I hope he clarifies directly and does not avoid the issue.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 Hi, I had responded to you, but it must have gotten caught in TH-cam's spam filter. See the church's teaching on the Gospel of Matthew by searching up "AUTORE, TEMPO DI COMPOSIZIONE
E VERITÀ STORICA
DEL VANGELO SECONDO MATTEO" (they wouldn't let me post the link itself).
Please refer to Trent Horn on this matter.
Please refer to my response: twitter.com/caseyofm/status/1443395449713528833?s=20
@@BreakingInTheHabitthe link seems to be dead now. Is the content that used to be there still represented somewhere? Thanks!
Nope. Wrong Father. The later dating doesn't stand out really on several grounds:
1. The Temple still stands
2. Those who helped Jesus were kept anonymous. Seriously, if you're going to write about somebody, why keep it anonymous?
3. It resembles a pre 70 AD Jewish context
Finally I understand from what perspective to interpret the gospels and why! I’ve always struggled with how to reconcile the modern journalistic style of recording events with the bible. Thank you so much for your incredibly insightful and eloquent explanation!
Letters from the apostles were being distributed among believers AT THE TIME they were written.
exactly. and they fully support the Gospels in any substantive matter.
Well said! I’m publishing a weekly TH-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you
The Gospels could easily been written earlier than 80, 90, or even 100 AD. Most "scholarly consensus" that assumes the Gospels were written after AD 70 makes the case by saying that Jesus could not have predicted the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
In all likelihood, there was already some intense memory-based oral or perhaps even written tradition that came after Jesus' death and resurrection that allowed the Gospel to be proclaimed. Israel had already been a culture that prolifically wrote, so what's to say that the Apostles weren't writing stuff down after Jesus' death?
Like others have said, it's true that the Gospels weren't written like stop-and-go journalism. But, they were, in fact, written by eyewitness disciples, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in that order, sometime after the events transpired.
"Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven." (Vatican II, Dei Verbum n. 18)
as a protestant who now has a distaste for protestantism and yearns for a more traditional and dogmatic christian sect, i cannot agree with you. we must go with what the church fathers said. if we fall prey to pure speculation, you, who are blessed to be catholic, will be exposed to heretical thoughts and beliefs held by those who don’t even take seriously the Eucharist. and yes, i have an issue with “sola scriptura.” one of the core problems i have with protestantism, which is leading me to my journey to a more traditional community, is the issue of church authority and who has it. Martin Luther had many reasonable issues with the catholic church at the time, but that doesnt mean to break away and forge your own path; truly he opened up pandora’s box to the point where there’s an innumerable amount of denominations that cannot come to agreement with anything and change their beliefs every few minutes. truly authority does not sit with them.
Here's my reply: twitter.com/caseyofm/status/1443395449713528833?s=20
Thank the Lord for people like Trent horn and Jimmy Akin for refuting people like this
So, so sad to this sort of fundamentalist thinking gaining a foothold among Catholics. In the past few days I've seen these two names come up time and again as more authoritative than the bishops of the United States, Raymond Brown, John P. Meier (and *most* critical scholars on the matter), and the seminary system in the United States. What sort of world do we live in when popular personalities online can sway people away from the actual teaching authority of the Church.
Is this the 16th century Germany?
@@BreakingInTheHabit well the bishop don't really do anything to bring people into the faith, those folks at Catholic answers do and people trust them for it, no offense but people don't trust the current day bishops you know them being modernist. And Trent is following church teaching not what some bishop say. Cause you aren't following what bishop of past centuries put forward either
@@BreakingInTheHabit also since when the us bishop control the Catholic Church in a whole
I’d like to point out that Dallas Jenkins, the creator of The Chosen, is an evangelical Christian. I appreciate the fact that he has tried to build bridges and give the show a broad appeal by taking into consideration the beliefs of Catholics and other Christians. Just because the “scholars” think this or that doesn’t make it gospel. Who is to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire some of the apostles to take notes of some kind. Obviously, there had to be some authentic source material available to the gospel writers. I don’t think it’s a major issue at all and should not dissuade anyone from watching and benefiting from this portrayal.
I was just thinking that same thing. Just because the current iteration of the gospels were penned and compiled decades after Christ's death, we must not assume that all the witnesses of his ministry were so daft and oblivious as to refrain from recording any of it (i.e. journals, personal correspondence, reports to scribes, etc.)
Yes! Let it be! The HS is in charge!
Not too long ago churches we closed because of covid. NO contact and for awhile all 7sacraments denied physically. We had to rely on live stream .Frankly the word of God fed me. Still no holy water allowed can get for personal use only. So instead of nitpicking the obvious why not be grateful for the Christian Unity this show is given Think we Christian's are baptized and that is a bond Satan cannot break. Enter Covid no holy water and baptism well... Holy Water joins Christian in Baptism and is used In exorcisms Anyone tell me how this sacramental going to give you covid?? We are in a spiritual war and need to you unite through any means possible. Holy Spirit at work Our Lord didn't just come for Jews did he so stop with the us them thing it divides
Theologians have always sought to destroy faith, which leads me to believe that this may not be in the spirit of God. They provide services for the other side.
I agree with Fr Casey on all the facts about how scripture was written, but I didn't read the chosen as promoting sola scriptura. I saw especially in the scene with John trying to figure out how to write the prologue, the Chosen trying to present exactly what Fr Casey is saying that they reflected back as old men and as a community and wanted to share the message.
Casey, why do you accept critical scholarship on so many things like the gospels not being accurate and being written decades after the fact, conceding that this is logical and to deny it requires mental gymnastics, but arbitrarily not accept all the other conclusions these same scholars make which leads them to deny Christianity as a whole and make all sorts of claims such as Jesus just being a dime a dozen apocalyptic prophet who never even claimed to be divine (see: Bart Ehrman)? How does it require mental gymnastics to believe the Bible may have been written earlier, but not to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and other foundational Christian beliefs which these same scholars pick apart?
I say this as an agnostic who really wants to be a Christian but struggles in large part due to the beliefs you have. If you cannot trust the Bible, and just say it's vaguely 'true' but cannot be relied on in any meaningful way and accept 'logical' atheistic scholarship, going as far as to reject Catholic teachings (which seems bizarre to me for a Catholic monastic of all people?!) then it really seems like you're in dangerous territory. It would be so much easier to be a Christian as a fundamentalist, instead of someone who goes 'well Catholic teaching is wrong, the Bible is largely contradictory and not to be taken literally, tradition is often wrong.... err, what was I relying on again? Where did my faith come from?'. I honestly don't understand how people like you maintain your faith or where it's even derived from, as it's obviously using completely different reasoning from how you choose to interpret scripture. Perhaps you can make more videos on this subject in the future to clarify your position and help people like me understand, because right now I think you're inadvertently turning some people away from Christianity.
Atheist here - I want to point you towards a tantalising view on biblical inerrancy; it’s not that God divinely inspired a perfectly preserved text of a historical record of His actions, but rather that He had full foresight of the very issues highlighted by Biblical criticism as the ultimate author of our natural reality.
So the “inerrancy” isn’t so much that God is directly guiding the writers and editors hands, but more so that God has a reason for every letter in every word in every Bible.
I think a better version of this is fleshed out by a Christian apologist and author Randal Rauser and I think it’s similar to one that Peter Enns holds too. You can check them out on TH-cam and they’ve written some books on this topic as well.
I think you are jumping to conclusions. Nowhere in Fr Casey's videos does he say « Catholic teaching is wrong » or « the Bible is largely contradictory ». Just because the Gospels weren's written by the Apostle themselves does not mean that the authors weren't faitful to who Jesus was and what he taught. Just because the Gospels are not journalistic reports of the events does not mean they are not trustworthy.
I agree that it can be unsettling to learn that Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew, that there probably was no dove when Jesus was baptized, or that we can't know for sure that Abraham, Moses or David existed. I agree that it would be easier to be a fundamentalist and to reject anything that doesn't fit my perspective. However, I can't ignore the fact that there is a scientific community, whose views are not easily dismissed if I'm honest with myself. So I accept it, as challenging as it might be.
But the truth is, it isn't as much a challenge as it is a mind-opener ! It leads me to question the way I read the Gospels. As I discovered critical scholarship, I learned to read the Gospels for whar they are : brilliant works of theology that allow me to come in contact with Jesus Christ Himself. That doesn't mean that all of it didn't literally happen : Jesus was truly born in Bethlehem, died on a cross and resurrected on the third day. But the Gospels tell that story, each one in its own wayto give Christians a different point of view on the person of Christ. By the way, Paul does it too in a way, as he tells the major events of Christ's life and how it impacted him and the churches he visited. And those five points of views aren't enough to say everything there is to say about our Lord and Savior ! So the Gospels are also an invitation to review one's life to seek how Jesus was present in it and make it our own Gospel.
@@Droledecoco50 That was beatifully written. Thank you!
Why are they called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John if they weren’t written by them? How does that make any sense?
Edit: nevermind
But if they were written by the church and theologians wouldn’t that compromise the validity of the gospels?
I agree with your initial comment. The Bible is factual. Chuck Missler explains things very well if you would rather watch videos that are more helpful. This person has been mislead. The disciples didn't write as they were there living the experience, that is true. But that doesn't mean that they didn't write the books nor does it mean that they couldn't correctly remember what happen or what is to come. They were chosen by Jesus.
I agree with what your saying. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Jesus ever told anyone to write anything down. Jesus left a church not a Bible.
"The appstles weren't concerned with hsitorical accuracy-also, this show isnt historically accurate!"
Only video I've seen on this channel that didn't seem very charitable.
One of the main questions this show should raise for Catholics is, "Why didn't we do this first?"
This is definitely heretical. I pray that you repent and people don't get swayed by this.
This is not Catholicism this is Lunacy by so many leftest lunatics who claimed there Catholic 💔💔
While I agree that Fr. Casey is way off base with this, I do not think that heresy is the right word for it. St. Thomas defines heresy in the Summa Theologiae Secunda Secundae Q.11 A.1 as "heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas". The authorship of the gospels is certainly not dogmatic. Having the opinion that the gospels should not be attributed to their respective titular authors is not heresy, I would argue that it is wrong and an especially imprudent opinion for a Catholic priest to espouse, however, it is not heresy.
@@9legolas7 So Arianism wasn't a heresy because the trinity was not a dogma then?
@@9legolas7 Call it whatever you want brother it’s not Catholic
@@sebastos- Today we can say that Arianism is heretical because the dogma of the trinity has been defined. Prior to the Council of Nicaea no such dogma existed, you had two competing viewpoints, that of Arius and that of Athanasius. The purpose of the council was, amongst other things, to decide who was correct. Only after the dogma was defined did Arianism become heretical. Something can be wrong without/prior to being heresy. @Tom Gjokaj Trust me I'm no fan of Fr. Casey but calling someone a heretic who is not actually spreading heresy (in this particular case) is ad hominem. Save the potency of a word like heresy for something actually heretical. I only pointed it out because people online have a tendency to call things they don't agree with, heresy and such use dilutes the word of its meaning. Again not defending Fr. Casey's position, he's incorrect and imprudent, but it is not heresy.
Oh come on. You’re going overboard. There’s no evidence they were writing as if they were writing gospels. Jesus has told them he was going to send them out to preach the good news. How do you know they didn’t write notes before evangelizing to the community? You don’t know that.This debunks your point. Secondly, this is a television show of which Dallas Jenkins has stated it is not a full 100% story of Jesus life death and resurrection. It is entertainment and he is adding things that are not in the Bible. And you mustn’t get lost in this as a full Bible account. He has said over and over and over again that this is not an eyewitness account or a Bible study class. There is a Catholic priest as well as a rabbi and Protestant minister included in this. They have input throughout. I go to church for the lessons I watch tv for entertainment.
I disagree, Father. Jesus presented himself as the way, the TRUTH, and the life. As devout Christians we hold the truth in great reverence… it is the truth that sets us free to know and love God. I find it impossible to imagine a gospel writer simply making up details in order to support a theological point. Can picture yourself doing this? Putting your own words in the mouth of the Son of God, and then presenting that work to the Christian community? I imagine that the gospel writers did EVERYTHING possible to ensure that their accounts were as accurate as possible. You don’t proclaim a historical truth through a work of fiction. I have no trouble accepting the use of symbolism, metaphor, hyperbole, etc in the Old Testament, as that would be in line with the genre of many OT books. But the gospels were written about a real person, real events, with the knowledge that many would read and be skeptical, doubting the veracity of the record- most especially the resurrection. The gospel writers must have been highly motivated to present an account that was accurate and free from error, even as they endeavored to share those events from a unique perspective or theological context. I object strongly to your video because I believe it relativizes the one topic that we, as Catholics, must certainly defend as truth. That Jesus’s incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection happened just as the gospel writers recorded.
With all due respect to him, that is just unbelief. The disciples were men of God, and their words inspired by the Holy Spirit, as St. Peter himself says:
For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[2 Peter 1:16]
3:13 ..."The people who wrote the Gospels...whoever they were..." So this is what seminaries are feeding you?! This is why the Holy Spirit is passing the duty of "witnessing the Faith" out of the First World and into the Third World. I hope your parents are proud.
Satan is hard at work. Leading people astray one confusing message, one head scratching tweet and one street "march" at a time. It's difficult to know if they are conscious of the evil within or they are ignorant and have been misled and are in innocent. I see this everywhere. Keep your eyes wide open.
@@USMC98 I'm starting to believe that at the highest echelons of Church leadership, they don't really believe what they've been pitching. Case in point, they grind our nutz over Sunday "obligations" on Mass attendance for 100 years, and cast it all aside because of a severe strain of respiratory flu. Suddenly, Mass ain't all that important after all. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
There still is debate about when the gospels where written and the dating of Matthew and Mark after 70 is mainly because of the disbelieve in Jesus telling about the destruction of the temple before it happened.
This point of critique seems wrong to me. Especially the possibility of Matthew taking notes because of his background seems very plausible.
Exactly, i find the dating of the Gospel of Mark a little bias. Maybe one day it'll be proven wrong.
How could Matthew have written the book in 80 or 90 A.D.? If he was 18 at the time he was chosen as a disciple, he would have been VERY old if he was still even alive by then. I love the Chosen. Yes, they add things that are not in the scripture, but are very likely to have happened or at least not contradict the scriptures. A man as meticulous as Matthew would have been the kind to make notes about things as they were happening, even if he didn't put it all together until later.
So in order just to critique Sola Scriptura, you throw out the whole reliability of the gospels..? (+ history, manuscript evidence, church fathers words, traditional authorship and eyewitness claims by the apostles and people themselves in scriptures, as well as internal and external evidence). You have some decent videos, but this one is a disaster. I hope not many non-factchecking atheists will watch it.
In John's Gospel it says, “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things” (John 21:24). So it there is no eye witness writing any of the Gospels, then John made a mistake when he made this statement. I would think that some of the apostles might have written things down, not necessarily as a gospel or to use for future writings, but to remember what was being said and to tell the others what Jesus said when they were not around at that time. I know that I remember things better when I write them down. They could have later used them when writing the Gospels. This show is not meant to be accurate in what the day by day activities were with the apostles and Jesus. They are helping us imagine what it might have been like to live and travel the way Jesus and his apostles did. The way they are doing the show makes me want to read the Bible more.
Trent Horn has tackled this. It's worth a listen.
Here's my response: Here's my reply: twitter.com/caseyofm/status/1443395449713528833?s=20
As a fellow believer I appreciate these videos and the work that goes into them. As a non-denom protestant pastor I also agree on your comment regarding the the actual authors and historic timeline of the gospels. I personally, however didn't interpret the notes being taken by the disciples as them literally writing their gospels in that moment. I feel it's too soon in the show to say how they will develop that. All that said, I know it's difficult to put yourself out there and I'm grateful you do, it sparks much needed conversation and loving debate to help us all learn from each other's perspectives and become more empathetic. I love that we can rejoice in our common love for Christ, and be challenged to grow from each other's unique faith journey's. God Bless!
I, too was a little worried when I saw the title. I appreciate your insight Fr.! I am not a scholar and would not have picked up on the writings. We do need to watch and know that there is liberty taken despite all that is sound. I was relieved that you, Fr. ended with saying you still enjoy and continue to watch. For me, I believe it is wonderfully made and may even be a start to "the reunion of all Christians" as we pray for. Wouldn't that be something with as many from the world who are being introduced or reintroduced to Jesus? Thank you Father for this and all of your videos!