Fr. Charles on how the Authors of the New Could Quote Jesus

Home Page Contact Sacramental Schedule Attending Mass at Annunciation Baptizing at Annunciation Marriage at Annunciation The PNCC on Video Who and What Is the PNCC PNCC Dioceses PNCC Organization PNCC Beliefs 11 Great Priniciples of the PNCC The Ecumenical Creeds of the Church Tenets and Aims of the Church Statement on the Mother of God Call to Faithfulness Declaration of Scranton Hymn of the PNCC Deacons in the PNCC The Deacon's Role Instruction: Bible Comparisions Instruction on Sacred Scripture Instruction: The Problem of Arius Instruction: Christian Art and Music Instruction: The Gospel of Matthew Instruction: The Gospel of Mark Instruction: The Gospel of Luke Instruction: The Johannine Community Instruction: How Writers of the New Testament can Quote Jesus Instruction: How the New Testament writers used the Old Testament Instruction: St. Paul and the Eucharist bring community together Instruction: Part One of the Gospel of Matthew Instruction: Four Encyclicals Video Litany Video Novena Video Prayers Favorite Links Legal Notice Blog

This document will attempt to address to the Parishioners of Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Catholic Church of the PNCC, the question asked; “How can an author or authors possibility “quote” what Jesus, Peter, Stephen or any other person said when the author was not there and there does not appear to be any written document that have the quotes?”. To answer this question I will write from J. A. Fitzmyer’s analysis of the “Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels” issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on April 21, 1964. Although this is a forty-six year old document, it does provide an adequate explanation of the question.

There are eleven Biblical criticisms that can be used in attempting to unravel the histories, quotes, and stories contained in the collection of works call the Gospels, however the Biblical Commission favored the Form Criticism. Also the Commission admitted, according to Fitzmyer (Pg 1) the distinction of three stages of traditions contained within these Gospel texts.

The three stages of tradition attempt to explain the material contained within the Gospels. The first is called Christus Dominus and are focused on the things that Jesus said and did while on earth. Two points should be remembered; first, these things were witnessed by His disciples to teach about Jesus’ life and teaching (Pg 3) and secondly, the teachings were done so the disciples would understand and remember the message.

The second stage of tradition emphasizes on the testimony of the disciples to whom they conveyed the message. Like Jesus, the disciples modified their message so the audience understood and could relate to what was being preached or taught. It should be noted here that the disciples many have worked of a set of summaries that were written by scribes about the life and saying of Jesus. Fitzmyer points out that many find the writer of Mark may have used such a summary (Pg 4). This might explain why the writers of one Gospel sometimes changed the sequence of events and even the event itself all the while maintaining the same message. It is just this maintenance of the message that the Commission felt strongly enough to emphasis that the witnesses to Christ life and words were as the document states, “Faithfully explained” (Pg 4). Fitzmyer supports this pointing out the disciples preached to a variety of audiences and would change and adopt the message to the audience (Pg 4).

The third stage of tradition stresses the preaching of the Evangelists. Again, as the Evangelists travelled throughout the land and met a variety of people, they adapted their knowledge of Jesus’ life and sayings so that the audience would understand. It is very clear in this tradition that what was originally done and said by Jesus was not as the Evangelists said, after all, the Evangelists were not first-hand observers of Jesus’ works or sayings. However, they did hear the message, may have read writings about the message and therefore faithfully preserved the message and sayings of Jesus.

Fitzmyer quotes the Biblical Commission saying, “The inspired Gospel Truth was intended by God to give us not simply a ‘remembered’ account of the doctrine and life of Jesus, but a ‘preached’ form of it, ‘so as to offer the Church a basis of faith and of morals” (pg 8). So how does this answer the original question? Well, to professors or scholars of Sacred Scripture they must take the time to instruct the students about these three stages of Gospel tradition and stress the message of the Gospels and not invent or downplay the intent or message of Jesus. The preachers, such as me, it is important to study these stages of Gospel tradition and to maintain fidelity to the message of Christ. We are discouraged from adding to the words of Christ as written in the Gospels. We are discouraged from adding to or to embellish the events surrounding Jesus life and message. To you the faithful, the Biblical commission encourages you to remember that the words of the Gospels are filled with great treasures and wisdom that they can bring you closer to the God. You need not worry whether Christ said this or that, or that the writers of one Gospel included or did not include a particular story or saying. It is more important to hear the message which has been inspired by God.

In Fitzmyer’s final remarks he stresses what has already been written here and that in the end, the Biblical Commission “calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists (pg.8). To quote again from the Commission, “The inspired Gospel truth was intended by God to give us not simply a ‘remembered’ account of the doctrine and life of Jesus, but a ‘preached’ form of it, ‘so as to offer the Church as basis of faith and of morals’” (pg 8).