ESTUDIO DE FRECUENCIA DE PASO Y CARGA

Many scholars today cite this instruction as an example of a reversal by the Church. Of course, it would not be a doctrinal reversal, just a change in the use of a technique in Scripture study, namely

Form Criticism. Yet, form critics often do fall into doctrinal errors, and many seem to claim that the Church has approved.²²⁰ So let us see.

Form Criticism assumes that the Gospels arose in three stages. This is clearly true. First were the words and deeds of Jesus; we take it for granted that He, like any good speaker, adapted His presentation to the audience at hand. Second, the Apostles and others of the first generation preached what He did and said. Again, they would adapt their presentation. Third, some individuals

in the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, decided to write down some part of this basic preaching, thus producing the Gospels. So the Gospels are just part of the basic teaching of the Church, written down under inspiration. Hence the teaching of the Church is more basic than even the

Gospels.

Further, each of the Evangelists had his own special purpose, and would present things to help prove a particular concept. For instance, Matthew was intent on revealing the fulfillment of prophecies in Jesus. The early form critics thought the Evangelists should not be called authors at

all. They thought they did nothing but stitch together the individual sayings or acts of Jesus. But today the pendulum has swung the other way and critics claim to see the most intricate design and

artistry in the Gospels.

Thus far we find no basic fault with Form Criticism. But the next step the critics take brings problems. They would like to find out at which of the three stages any of the "forms" or units took its present wording and pattern, to see what light this information could shed on interpretation. The

trouble is how to determine where one part begins and another ends.

They propose to do this chiefly by noting the several different forms or patterns of writing that are used within a passage. We might even call these minigenres. Thus, for example, Rudolf Bultmann, the greatest pioneer in New Testament Form Criticism, first distinguishes sayings from narratives.

He subdivides sayings into apothegms and dominical sayings. Apothegms are sayings of greater importance. They are further subdivided into controversy dialogues, scholastic dialogues (talking with sincere inquirers) and biographical apothegms. Dominical sayings include proverbs, prophetic

and apocalyptic sayings, laws and community regulations. The second major group, narratives, includes miracle stories, historical stories, and legends.

Further help is supposed to come from noting the Sitz-im-Leben, the community-life situation which called for the choice of a particular form.

Of course, other Form Critics have modified this outline and there is far from unanimity of opinion about it. But this will provide a good frame from which to build our study.

After identifying the units out of which a passage is composed, the critics say the history of the tradition can be determined, noting what happened at which of the three stages. This is very good.

But our essential question is "What does this show us of the reliability of various things in the Gospels?"

At this point we meet with quite a difference of opinion among critics. Some are almost totally skeptical, saying we cannot be sure of much of anything; others are more open-minded.

Among the more severe positions is the use of the so-called principle of dual irreducibility. This means briefly that a saving of Jesus can be considered authentic only if it meets two tests: (1) it does not fit with the Jewish thinking of the time; (2) it does not fit with the viewpoints of the later Church. This view is founded on extreme skepticism about the honesty of the Evangelists and others

in the early Church. So they call the community "creative."

A special example of this creativity is supposed to appear in the Controversy Dialogues. Bultmann wrote about this in his History of the Synoptic Tradition (p. 40, n. 2): "The Controversy Dialogues as

we have them ... are creations of the Church." In other words, imagine two groups within the Church disputing. Group A has no saying of Jesus to support what they believe, so they just invent

one; Group B has none either, so they too invent a saying. No respect for the truth whatsoever!

This, of course, is ridiculous. Can we really imagine people, who know that their eternity depended on getting the facts about Jesus, just making up things? We know that they could use different

major genres of the sort we saw in Chapter 8. But we can, with the principles we saw in that chapter, determine what they meant to assert was factual. Bultmann himself admits his ideas on

Controversy Dialogues are subjective. So he adds, "Naturally enough, our judgment will not be made in terms of objective criteria, but will depend on taste and discrimination." (p. 47).

Subjectivity shows again in the fact that Bultmann thinks the Controversy Dialogues arose "in the apologetic and polemic of the Palestinian Church ... It is quite inappropriate to call those passages

paradigms, i.e., examples of preaching as Dibelius does." (pp. 40-41). For Dibelius said the community life situation (Sitz-im-Leben) had been preaching for missionary purposes. Two great

pioneers cannot agree on so simple and basic a point.

As we said, the critics like to claim that the early community was "creative" and that it ran with no check at all by the Apostles, or by the Truth. The 1964 Instruction warned against this error.

"Finally, there are others who make light of the authority of the Apostles as witnesses of Christ and their function and influence on the primitive community, but magnify the creativity of the community. All these things are not only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but lack a scientific

foundation and are foreign to the true principles of the historical method."²²¹

Acts 5:12-13 tells us about the real position and control exercised by the Apostles: "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders done among the people. And they were all with

one accord in Solomon's porch. But of the rest no one of the rest dared to join himself to them; but the people magnified them." Acts 2:42 says, "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the

apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers."

The critics see much creativity in miracle stories. They commonly try to compare them to pagan or rabbinic miracles saying they have the same pattern, and then give little value to the accounts. A

large part of the reason is that, in varying degrees, critics reject in advance the possibility of anything supernatural. But we showed in Chapter 3 of this book that miracles checked thoroughly

by modern science, still occur today. As for the alleged similarities to pagan or rabbinic miracles, even if they did exist, they would not disprove anything. Actually, there is scant similarity, as detailed studies have shown (summary of these studies and references to the original studies can be found in W. Most, The Consciousness of Christ, pp. 218-19). Besides, as we have said often, the

fact that their eternity depended on getting at least the basic facts right about Jesus would assure that the community, led by the Apostles who had seen for themselves, would get the basic facts

right.

(a) Did the evangelists change the sense?

At first, the critics thought the Evangelists should not be called authors at all. They were compared to stringers of beads because they supposedly just put together, in hardly any set order, what bits about Jesus they had gathered. Now the pendulum, predictably, has swung in the other direction

and the Evangelists are called high artists, showing magnificent skill.

We do not deny some skill and artistry in the Evangelists; we admit that each had his own purpose or theological framework to stress. But this would not lead them to falsify anything at all. Nor could one Evangelist contradict another, for all were instruments of the Holy Spirit, the Chief Author of

Scripture.

However now we must deal with the claim that by putting things in different orders or settings, the Evangelists could change the sense of things.²²² To get at the truth, we need to distinguish two kinds of material, namely, simple, straightforward things, in contrast to things that are by nature

enigmatic or of flexible meaning (such as proverbs and similar sayings).

About the simple things: the six basic points we have concluded surely cannot be affected by what setting they are put in: There was a man Jesus, who claimed to be a messenger from God, and proved it by miracles worked in special connections. He had an inner circle within His followers, told them to continue His teaching, and promised that God would protect it. Clearly, a change of setting

for these items will not affect their meaning, and hence what we need to prove the teaching authority of the Church is intact. Really, most sayings of Jesus would mean precisely the same no

matter what setting they were put in.

But there are some Biblical sayings that could shift in setting. Form criticism does a good service in pointing out that Mark 13:30 probably was first written with a setting referring to the fall of Jerusalem (most of Mark 13 seems that way): "This generation shall not pass until all these things be done." But in its present setting, after Mark 13:27, which seems to refer to the return of Jesus at

the end, Mark 13:30 could be puzzling. Though we could still take generation to refer to the Christian era, which is to last to the end and would make all of Mark 13 a multiple fulfillment

pattern.

Examine how the meaning of these two verses changes when we know the setting. Matthew 10:27 says, "That which I tell you in the dark, speak in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach upon the housetops." Luke 12:2-3 says, "For there is nothing covered, that shall not be

revealed: nor hidden, that shall not be known. For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness, shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers, shall be

preached on the housetops."

Now, if we check the contexts, Matthew refers to public preaching by the Apostles later, of what Jesus told them in private. But in Luke the saying seems to refer to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees eventually being brought to light. So it does seem that this change of setting changed the sense of

the passage.

What shall we say about this? First of all, Jesus was a travelling speaker. Anyone familiar with public speaking knows that speakers will often repeat things in different places, using slightly different

language, or even with some shifts of idea. Jesus easily could have said the same thing in two different settings. Further, we happen to know from the Targum on Qoheleth 12: 13 that this saying

really was a proverb. The meaning of proverbs is flexible.²²³ Even beyond that, it would not be unfaithful for an Evangelist to make different applications of some nonessential sayings-particularly

proverbs and enigmatic things, which are flexible by nature. We know too that St. Paul could change the setting of quotations he made from the Old Testament. Yet he always did it in such a

way that the thought was really faithful to the teaching of Christ.

We conclude that there can be such variations in applications, and on proverbs, and perhaps a few other sayings too; but they are not an instance of infidelity to the teachings of Jesus. And for certain they simply cannot touch the basic truths that we enumerated above, which are part of the foundation of faith. We say this for two reasons: first, the intense concern for facts stemming from concern for their own eternity on the part of the writers; second, the basic truths are, as we said, such that their meaning is simply by nature incapable of shifting when placed in a different setting.

(b) Retrojection

In Chapter 16, we spoke briefly about retrojection-taking a scene that really happened after the Resurrection, and placing it before that. We saw in Chapter 16 that some types of retrojection would involve falsification, such as retrojecting a prophecy. A prophecy has no meaning if it does

not refer to the future. But other kinds of retrojection would not be falsification, as long as the things really happened and the words were really said, in substance at least. However, we also said

that it does not seem likely that the Synoptic Gospels would do this because it does not seem to fit with their unfanciful and factual genre or pattern.²²⁴

Form critics are quite inclined to claim retrojection, i.e., to say that certain things presented by the Gospels as though happening before Easter really took place after Easter. Various reasons are given

for such claims, especially: the belief that the Gospels are not factual reports, the belief that Matthew and Mark clash in their picture of how much the disciples understood, and the belief that

Jesus was ignorant.

Let us examine each of these points separately.

Fitzmyer forcefully expresses the first of these notions (italics all his): "The Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admitted that what is contained in the Gospels ... is not the record of the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of the tradition."²²⁵ We recall from above that there were three

stages: first, the words and actions of Jesus (who adapted His presentation to the audience), second, the way the Apostles and others preached these, adapting also the presentation to the

audiences, and third, the recording of part of this ongoing preaching by the Evangelists under inspiration.

Of course, the Biblical Commission did admit that there are these three stages, and did admit what is obvious, that the Apostles, like any good teachers or speakers, would adapt their presentation.

However, we need to stress a statement of the 1964 instruction of the Biblical Commission that the critics are apt to leave out: "The fact that the Evangelists report the words and deeds of the Lord in different sequences, and that they express His statements in varied ways, not word for word, but

yet keeping the sense-these things do not at all affect the truth of the narrative."²²⁶

So we can admit a difference in presentation, and even in wording of the sayings of Jesus. However, the 1964 Instruction insists that the revised wording and presentation still faithfully report what was really said and done. The concern of the Evangelists and Apostles and of the Christians in general

for their eternity would ensure that they wanted facts.

The 1964 Instruction added something to which the critics like to point: "After Jesus rose from the dead and His divinity was clearly seen, the faith of the disciples not only did not wipe out the memory of the things that happened, but rather strengthened that [memory].... There is no reason to deny, however, that the Apostles handed down to their hearers what the Lord had really said and done in the light of the fuller understanding which they gained by being instructed by the glorious

events of Christ, and being taught by the light of the Spirit of truth."²²⁷

We notice first that the Instruction insists on the fact that the disciples by then saw His divinity clearly and not only did not want to distort their memory of what the Lord had really said and done." So again, there is an insistence on the truth of the Gospels. Yet, to say that they wrote in the light of better understanding, could leave room for some retrojection. We must explore precisely

in what areas that claim could consist.

A special case is clearly the second reason for supposing the retrojection which we mentioned above. Namely, the fact that Mark consistently pictures the disciples as slow to understand, while Matthew, chiefly in Matt. 14:33 and 16:16 has Peter and even the others calling Jesus "Son of [the

living] God." How can we explain this seeming difference? One way is surely to say Matthew is retrojecting. Yet it is far from certain that he did so. First, that phrase, "Son of God" could be applied to any devout Jew. However, in context it surely means something more in Matt. 14:33 and

16:16. How much more? Commentators are much divided. So, even though we grant that the Evangelists did write in the light of fuller understanding, we would not have to say 14:33 and 16:16

involve clear and full knowledge of the divinity of Jesus.

Some²²⁸ commentators do say that Peter fully understood His divinity; others²²⁹ say Peter did not.

They say Peter had only a slight grasp of the fact that Jesus was Son in some special, perhaps even unique sense. J. D. Kingsbury puts it this way: "The title Son of God in Matthew's Gospel refers to the deepest mystery of the person of Jesus, viz. that in Him God draws near with His eschatological rule to dwell with humankind."²³⁰ This of course is not the same as saying clearly that Jesus was the

natural Son of God.

If one says Peter did not know the divinity of Jesus, he must still explain the fact that Jesus praises Peter in 16:16 ff. as having a revelation from the Father, and with the fact that Peter later on can

still deny Jesus. In (c) below we will take up these problems.

Critics also like to claim ignorance in Jesus.²³¹ Almost all scholars today insist on this, in spite of the clear teachings of the Church.²³² My book, The Consciousness of Christ, quotes all of these documents, and answers every argument for ignorance advanced by any scholar of note. Of course,

if they claim the ignorance of Jesus, they then can say that Jesus did not understand enough to directly found the Church-and so they have an added reason for saying the promise of primacy was

really given after Easter.

(c) Retrojection of Peter's confession

Quite understandably, Protestants like to try to do away with a grant of real primacy to Peter. Thus J. D. Kingsbury, in the article cited above, argues at some length to try to show that Peter was merely presented as the typical disciple and spokesman for the others, but yet is not given any

Quite understandably, Protestants like to try to do away with a grant of real primacy to Peter. Thus J. D. Kingsbury, in the article cited above, argues at some length to try to show that Peter was merely presented as the typical disciple and spokesman for the others, but yet is not given any