Bishop Mcgrath said :
"While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief."
You point out that the timelines don't match, but the Gospels do agree on the HISTORICAL events.
Jesus healed the Centurian's Servant
The Disciples plucked grain on the Sabbath
Jesus healed the withered hand
The temple was cleared
The Fig tree was cursed
These are historical events, not theological reflections. I am not a Catholic, but if the church proclaims the gospels to be Historical accounts and the Bishop says they are not. He is going against the church in my opinion.
not historical accounts of the historical events -- the Bish
The gospels are NOT written to be history textbooks (one hopes this is what the bishop meant). They ARE written to be theological reflections which detail true historical events.
You point out that the timelines don't match, but the Gospels do agree on the HISTORICAL events.
That is what I said in my post.
These are historical events, not theological reflections.
They are both.
LIKE I SAID, shades of meaning are very important here. The bishop may very well have been in error in his (im)precise terminology; I'm not an expert. But to impute a theological disagreement from one sentence is unfair, IMO.