Post resurrection Jesus sayings confusion?

[simspt]

Some Catholics hold to the view that post resurrection gospel accounts of Jesus sayings were not literally spoken by the risen Jesus to the apostles but were theological insights the gospel writer gained by the Holy Spirit much later after the events and later retrojected these into the gospel narrative accounts. I am a neophyte when it comes to the bible but can anyone please help me understand the arguments for and against this theory.

 

[Cachonga]

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard this, but I would simply ask - Are the Scriptures inspired by God? If so, wouldn’t God tell us the truth (by His Holy Spirit through the writer)? If not, why believe any of it?

 

[patg]

Some Catholics hold to the view that post resurrection gospel accounts of Jesus sayings were not literally spoken by the risen Jesus to the apostles but were theological insights the gospel writer gained by the Holy Spirit much later after the events and later retrojected these into the gospel narrative accounts. I am a neophyte when it comes to the bible but can anyone please help me understand the arguments for and against this theory.

This argument is NOT specific to the post resurrection sayings of Jesus. Some of the primary statements on this topic (again, not specific to post-resurrection) are in the Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as authorized and approved by Pope Paul VI). This document and a summary by the primary translator are available online by searching for the title.

The Truth is not dependent on having an exact quote of the sayings, which we can’t have because:

1. 
   *]We don’t have any of the original documents.
   *]There is no such thing as an exact translation process.

 

[the_Assyrian_1]

Some Catholics hold to the view that post resurrection gospel accounts of Jesus sayings were not literally spoken by the risen Jesus to the apostles but were theological insights the gospel writer gained by the Holy Spirit much later after the events and later retrojected these into the gospel narrative accounts. I am a neophyte when it comes to the bible but can anyone please help me understand the arguments for and against this theory.

hey friend…
I dont know what a neophyte is… I hope it isnt bad…! Nevertheless you need to become Born Again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven if at all you seek it…

But regarding your quote, you need to know the truth… Jesus when Ressurrected, was raised in Power, was able (and did) speak, eat, appear to His disciples and everything else… there is an account of him appearing to more than 500 disciples at once…

Jesus did physically speak to them. And he also ‘opened’ their understanding to understand the scriptures…I hope this helps…

 

[simspt]

This argument is NOT specific to the post resurrection sayings of Jesus. Some of the primary statements on this topic (again, not specific to post-resurrection) are in the Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as authorized and approved by Pope Paul VI). This document and a summary by the primary translator are available online by searching for the title.

The Truth is not dependent on having an exact quote of the sayings, which we can’t have because:

1. 
   *]We don’t have any of the original documents.
   *]There is no such thing as an exact translation process.

1. 
   patg I understand the problem with exact wording. My confusion I guess has to do more with the general historicity of the Jesus sayings. Are Catholic scholars arguing that the sayings attributed to Jesus are purely theological insights by the authors 50 years or so after the events and not necessarily historical vs. historical statements (not exact wording of course) that were made by Jesus and reflected upon and later written down?

 

[imkingdad]

Sounds like an example of some deconstructionist theologian teaching.

Since there are no extant original copies of any of the scriptures they can & do argue that one can never be sure of what was actually said vs attributed to Christ or even the apostles. However Faith & adherence to Scripture as the divinely inspired Word of God, and mandated Submission to the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium should compel these somewhat errant Theologians back onto the reservation. Failing that the Church will correct them as needed.

 

[Reuben_J]

patg I understand the problem with exact wording. My confusion I guess has to do more with the general historicity of the Jesus sayings. Are Catholic scholars arguing that the sayings attributed to Jesus are purely theological insights by the authors 50 years or so after the events and not necessarily historical vs. historical statements (not exact wording of course) that were made by Jesus and reflected upon and later written down?

They were words of Jesus. Period. But then again, I am not a scholar.

 

[patg]

patg I understand the problem with exact wording. My confusion I guess has to do more with the general historicity of the Jesus sayings. Are Catholic scholars arguing that the sayings attributed to Jesus are purely theological insights by the authors 50 years or so after the events and not necessarily historical vs. historical statements (not exact wording of course) that were made by Jesus and reflected upon and later written down?

Here are some of the statements from the Instruction which may help you with this:

“From the many things handed down they** selected some things**, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. With every (possible) means they sought that their readers might become aware of the reliability of those words by which they had been instructed. Indeed, from what they had received the sacred writers above all selected the things which were suited to the various situations of the faithful and to the purpose which they had in mind, and adapted their narration of them to the same situations and purpose. Since the meaning of a statement also depends on the sequence, the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers.”

and

“For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the** fact** that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.”

Note that this is not the final word on this topic. Indeed, the Instruction starts out with the comment: “Since there will never be an end to (biblical) problems, the Catholic exegete should never lose heart in explaining the divine word and in solving the difficulties proposed to him.” The Instruction is, however, authorized and approved by Pope Paul VI.

 

[thistle]

**Some Catholics **hold to the view that post resurrection gospel accounts of Jesus sayings were not literally spoken by the risen Jesus to the apostles but were theological insights the gospel writer gained by the Holy Spirit much later after the events and later retrojected these into the gospel narrative accounts. I am a neophyte when it comes to the bible but can anyone please help me understand the arguments for and against this theory.

And who are these mysterious Catholics?

 

[simspt]

Here are some of the statements from the Instruction which may help you with this:

“From the many things handed down they** selected some things**, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. With every (possible) means they sought that their readers might become aware of the reliability of those words by which they had been instructed. Indeed, from what they had received the sacred writers above all selected the things which were suited to the various situations of the faithful and to the purpose which they had in mind, and adapted their narration of them to the same situations and purpose. Since the meaning of a statement also depends on the sequence, the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers.”

and

“For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the** fact** that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.”

Note that this is not the final word on this topic. Indeed, the Instruction starts out with the comment: “Since there will never be an end to (biblical) problems, the Catholic exegete should never lose heart in explaining the divine word and in solving the difficulties proposed to him.” The Instruction is, however, authorized and approved by Pope Paul VI.

patg: Thanks for the resource it is helpful. I guess I have quite a bit of questions and homework to do to differentiate the different positions. Do you have any book resources to recommend on this subject. It seems some books state these theories but don’t go into great detail defending them. I have been recommended the Marginal Jew Volumes as a starting point. What do you think??

 

[simspt]

And who are these mysterious Catholics?

Hi thistle,
I have been reading some things by Raymond Brown. I will be the first to admit that I could possibly be misunderstanding some of the things he writes about. I have read other opinions about this biblical scholar by some who in my opinion clearly misrepresent some of his ideas as liberal which in my opinion proves that if one is far enough to the right even a centrist bible scholar will start looking more and more liberal. My goal is to try and understand exactly what some of these positions are and more importantly how they are defended.

 

[patg]

patg: Thanks for the resource it is helpful. I guess I have quite a bit of questions and homework to do to differentiate the different positions. Do you have any book resources to recommend on this subject. It seems some books state these theories but don’t go into great detail defending them. I have been recommended the Marginal Jew Volumes as a starting point. What do you think??

Here are some of my favorites. I recommend starting with the first two as great introductions to this whole area:

And God said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms - the Catholic adult education textbook on scripture analysis and history written by Margaret Ralph, a student of Raymond Brown who is also a Catholic Director of Religious Education.

***Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know ***by Ronald Witherup S.S. (imprimatur and Nihil Obstat).

For a serious scholarly work, try:

The three volume Rethinking the Historical Jesus series by the Jesuit John Meier (published under the imprimatur).

And then there are always:

"Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels" by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI.
catholic-resources.org/Church…thFitzmyer.htm

**The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - ***DEI VERBUM *by Pope Paul VI (available online).

***An Introduction to the New Testament ***
***The Birth of the Messiah ***
***An Adult Christ At Christmas ***
by the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Raymond Brown (these may be out of print).

 

[simspt]

Here are some of my favorites. I recommend starting with the first two as great introductions to this whole area:

And God said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms - the Catholic adult education textbook on scripture analysis and history written by Margaret Ralph, a student of Raymond Brown who is also a Catholic Director of Religious Education.

***Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know ***by Ronald Witherup S.S. (imprimatur and Nihil Obstat).

For a serious scholarly work, try:

The three volume Rethinking the Historical Jesus series by the Jesuit John Meier (published under the imprimatur).

And then there are always:

"Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels" by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI.
catholic-resources.org/Church…thFitzmyer.htm

**The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - **DEI VERBUM by Pope Paul VI (available online).

***An Introduction to the New Testament ***
***The Birth of the Messiah ***
***An Adult Christ At Christmas ***
by the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Raymond Brown (these may be out of print).

Thank you for these recommendations I appreciate it.

 

[utunumsint]

When you get into the authors like Raymond Brown, and other practitioners of historical criticism, just be careful to realise that they are providing a set of filters that help to determin how historically probable a certain account or writing is. These filters include determining the genere of writing, identifying different levels of revision, identifying historical contexts, etc… The method, although good, is not infallible. There are things that HC must exclude that may be historical. Faith is important here, and also trusting the accounts provided by scripture. But realise that this same faith and trust is not something that a practitioner of HC can allow themselves. And understandably so. But even they will make distinctions on what they believe as a matter of faith and what they believe is a matter of historal certainty.

If you want a good book that provides a balanced faith prespective on this methodology, read Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth. Even if all you do is read the introduction, you will be well ahead of many others.

God bless,
Ut

 

[simspt]

When you get into the authors like Raymond Brown, and other practitioners of historical criticism, just be careful to realise that they are providing a set of filters that help to determin how historically probable a certain account or writing is. These filters include determining the genere of writing, identifying different levels of revision, identifying historical contexts, etc… The method, although good, is not infallible. There are things that HC must exclude that may be historical. Faith is important here, and also trusting the accounts provided by scripture. But realise that this same faith and trust is not something that a practitioner of HC can allow themselves. And understandably so. But even they will make distinctions on what they believe as a matter of faith and what they believe is a matter of historal certainty.

If you want a good book that provides a balanced faith prespective on this methodology, read Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth. Even if all you do is read the introduction, you will be well ahead of many others.

God bless,
Ut

utunumsint: Thank you for the excellent point on the distinction. I was warned that when first starting to read materials based on historical critical method research that some people have there beliefs challenged to the point of losing or having their faith damaged. So far in my experience it has had the opposite effect. I came from an evangelical church that took a very fundamental literalist approach to the bible that resulted in me having many questions about the bible that were never really answered to my satisfaction. Naturally my desire to educate myself has led me in this direction not to mention that while in college I was exposed to a Jesus Seminar member who taught philosophy and religious studies and strongly promoted the gnostics over the canonical gospels. Thanks to him my presuppositions were challenged and resulted in me reading Patristic writings for the first time. This strongly influenced my interest in Catholicism. Imagine that, a Jesus seminar professor’s challenges leading an evangelical fundamentalist toward the Catholic Church. GOD works in mysterious ways. Thank you for the book recommendation. I have been reading Pope Benedict XVI’s Principles of Catholic Theology.