Basic Scripture
By: William G. Most
(c) Copyright by William G. Most, 1993
| HOME |
|---|
CHAPTERS
- Introduction
- A Revolution by Vatican II?
- What is Inspiration ?
- A Revolution by Pius XII?
- Using Genre to defend Inerrancy
- How to Interpret Scripture
- The l964 Instruction of the Biblical Commission
- Which are the Inspired Books?
- The Pentateuch
- Genesis
- Exodus
- Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
- Joshua, Judges and Ruth
- Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah
- Pre-exilic Prophets
- Exilic and Post-exilic Prophets
- The Psalms
- The Wisdom Literature
- Daniel
- The Two Books of Maccabees
- Judith, Esther, and Tobit
- The Gospels
- The Acts of the Apostles
- St. Paul's Epistles
- The Catholic Epistles
- Study Questions
- Selected Answers
Books/Resources
by Fr. Most
- EWTN Scripture Q & A
- Basic Scripture
- Bible Commentaries
- Our Lady in Doctrine And Devotion
- Outline of Christology
- An Introduction to Christian Philosophy
- The Living God
- The Holy Spirit and The Church
- Catholic Apologetics Notes
Apologetic Resources
- Ask Father
- Biblical Catholicism
- Theology/Philosophy
- Scripture Resources
- Scott Hahns Lectures
- Apologetics Links
Other Services
- Catholic Chaplaincy
- St. Anthony Communications
Chapter 6
The l964 Instruction of the Biblical Commission
On April 21, 1964, The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued an Instruction
on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. Left-wing scholars often quote only
the parts they like, and omit other important things. We will try to give a
broad coverage of the document.
The most important feature of the document is what it has to say about Form
and Redaction Criticism.
Before looking at the comments in the Instruction, we notice something that
is quite obviously true, which the Form and Redaction critics consider
basic: in the production of the Gospels there were three stages:
Before going ahead, we inject the comment: In this way we see that the
Church has something more basic than the Gospels, its own ongoing teaching.
For the Gospels are just part of that teaching, written down under
inspiration.
The critics would like to find at which of the three stages the text we now
have took its present form. In this way they hope to find out some helpful
things.
The study of the first two stages is called Form Criticism. The study of
the third stage is called Redaction Criticism.
Thus far there can be no quarrel with this type of study. But problems
begin to arise when we attempt to take the next steps.
The work begins with two things. First we try to classify each unit in the
Gospels according to the literary form. This is much like literary genre,
but attempts a more detailed classification. We might even speak of
minigenres. The critics think each passage in the Gospels is made up of
several of these units.
In the early days of Form Criticism, the critics commonly said the
Evangelists were not authors at all. They were just "stringers of beads."
Various people who had heard Jesus were reporting each just one thing He
did or said. The Evangelists merely put these together in a string. Today
the pendulum has swung far: now the critics see very remarkable artistry in
the work of the Evangelists. (We recall that inspiration does not affect
the literary style of an author one way or another).
The second thing the critics watch in order to separate out the various
units is what they call Sitz-im-Leben. It merely means the life situation
in which each form or unit arose, which called for the type of form. At
this point already the critics begin to show their great subjectivity.
The two great pioneers who first applied this technique to the Gospels are
R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius. (Still earlier, Hermann Gunkel [1862-1932]
used the technique in the Old Testament).
First, Bultmann and Dibelius disagree on how to classify the minigenres.
For Bultmann the two chief major forms are the Sayings and the Narratives.
Sayings include apothegms and dominical sayings. The apothegms are brief
sayings of some importance. They include controversy dialogues, scholastic
dialogues (where the inquirers are sincere) and biographical sayings.
Dibelius uses the name paradigms instead of apothegms. Dibelius thinks only
eight out of eighteen paradigms are pure in form.
As to the so called controversy dialogues, Bultmann thinks they arose in
the apologetic and polemic work of the Palestinian Church. He objects to
calling these passages paradigms (examples of preaching) which is precisely
what Dibelius does call them. For example, Bultmann says that the incident
in Mark 2:1-12, the forgiveness and cure of the paralytic let down through
the roof, is a controversy saying. But Dibelius says that such passages
can't be described as disputes. Bultmann says the purpose was to enable the
Church to trace its power to forgive sins back to Jesus. But Dibelius says
the only point is the reality of the forgiveness.
It is remarkable to hear Bultmann admit explicitly:
"Naturally enough, our judgement will not be made in terms of objective
criteria, but will depend on taste and discrimination" (R. Bultmann, The
History of the Synoptic Tradition, tr. J. Marsh, N. Y. , Harper & Row,
1963, p. 47).
The critics commonly assert that the primitive community was "creative."
That is, it made things up. So Bultmann thought the controversy dialogues
were creations of the Church. We could visualize it thus: two groups in the
Church are disputing. Group A has no saying of Jesus to prove its point, so
it makes one up. Group B does the same.
But on the contrary, the concern these Christians had for their own
eternity would prevent such fakery. St. Ignatius of Antioch was sent to
Rome to be eaten by the wild beasts, around 107 A. D. He was eaten. He
wrote a heroic letter to Rome, which we still have, in which he says he
wants to die for Christ. If one of the Christians there might have
influence, and could get him off, Ignatius still wants to die! Now if
anyone is tempted to think the community was creative, let him take a copy
of Ignatius' letter to Rome to the zoo, and read it in front of the lions'
den and ask himself if a man about to be eaten would be creative and
indulge in fakery.
Not strangely, in view of the alleged creativity, the critics find it hard
to be sure of anything. They propose four criteria to see if a thing is
genuine: 1)Double dissimilarity or irreductibility: This means that if an
idea is unlike the emphases of both ancient Judaism and early Christianity,
it may come from Jesus; 2)Multiple attestation: if we find the same idea
coming in different literary forms, it is more likely to be genuine; 3)
Coherence: If the item fits with material we already know is authentic by
other criteria, it is likely to be genuine. 4) Linguistic and environmental
tests:. If the material does not fit with the languages spoken or the
environment of Jesus we reject it. But if it does fit, it is not enough to
prove it is authentic.
It is obvious that such criteria, especially the first, would rule out many
things that are genuine. We saw earlier that we can make a bypass around
these worries of critics by means of apologetics, using only six very
simple things from the Gospels.
The leftists love to quote the fact that this 1964 Instruction does say
Catholic scholars may use these techniques. This is correct, for the method
can be used well and be helpful. But many like to forget the warnings in
the Instruction: "Certain followers of this method, led astray by the
prejudices of rationalism, [1] reject the existence of a supernatural order
and the intervention of a personal God in the world as taught by revelation
properly so called and, [2] they reject the possibility and actual
existence of miracles and prophecies. [3] Others start with a false notion
of faith, as if faith does not care about historical truth or is even
incompatible with it. [4] Still others deny, as it were in advance, the
historical value and character of the documents of revelation. [5] Others,
finally, think little of the authority of the Apostles as witnesses of
Christ, and of their role and influence on the primitive community, while
they extol the creative power of this community. All these things are not
only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but also lack a scientific foundation,
and are foreign to the right principles of the historical method." [We
added numbers for convenience in reference].
Of course persons like Bultmann have these prejudices. In regard to ##1 &2,
Bultmann wrote that today "nobody reckons with direct intervention by
transcendent powers" (Jesus Christ and Mythology, Charles Scribner's Sons,
N. Y. , 1958, p. 36). On p. 15 of the same book he says that the whole
conception of the world supposed in the New Testament is mythological. In
his Kerygma and Myth (ed. H. W. Bartsch, tr. Reginald H. Fuller, N. Y.
Harper & Row, Torchbooks, 1961, 2nd ed. I. p. 5) he says that anyone who
has seen electric light and the wireless cannot believe in spirits and
miracles.
Some Catholics have taken similar attitudes today. Thus R. E. Brown once
wrote (in: "The Myth of the Gospels without Myth" in St. Anthony's
Messenger, May 1971, pp. 45-46) that to accept all the miracles in the
Gospel would be fundamentalism, and adds that no respectable scholar,
Catholic or Protestant would do that today. It is good to be able to say
that now the NJBC (pp. 1320-21), which espouses some unfortunate views on
errors in Scripture, still admits that extraordinary deeds like exorcisms
and cures by Jesus were never denied in ancient times, not even by the
enemies of Jesus - they would instead attribute them to magic or the devil.
The third criticism of the Instruction says that some start with a false
notion of faith, as if faith would not care about historical truth. Patrick
Henry, in a broad survey of conditions at the time of writing (New
Directions in New Testament Study, Westminster, 1979, pp. 252-53) reports
various views: "Much more important is the Bible's own portrayal of the
'piety of doubt', the 'faithfulness of uncertainty." And a writer in
Catholic Biblical Quarterly (July 1982, pp. 447-69) after saying Scripture
is full of errors, says that to want to answer charges of error shows a
lack of faith, and is "a kind of idolatry that gives a certitude that
trespasses upon the true Christian faith-relationship with God." Shades of
Bultmann, who in the article cited from Kerygma and Myth said, on pp. 211
and 19 that it is illegitimate and sinful to want to have a basis for
faith!
In regard to # 4, the denial of the historical character, we must of
course, take into account the genre of any part of Scripture we are
considering. But some insist that the Gospels are just preaching. In a way
this is true they are preaching. We recall that the third stage mentioned
above consists of writing down some part of the original preaching under
inspiration. But we must still remember that concern for their eternity
would mean that the preaching of the Apostles and others was the truth.
Some writers today make statements that could be confusing. Thus Joseph
Fitzmyer, in Christological Catechism (Paulist, 1981, p. 118, note 34)
writes that it is not easy to define what a gospel is or to say in what
"gospel truth" may consist. "In any case" he says ", it is not simply
identical with 'historical truth' in some fundamentalistic sense."
In contrast, DV #19 tells us: "Holy Mother the Church firmly and most
constantly has held and does hold that the four Gospels mentioned, whose
historicity it unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus the
Son of God, living among men, really did and taught for their eternal
salvation." Bede Rigeaux, in his commentary on this passage in the
Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (edited by H. Vorgrimler III, p.
259) explained that in this passage we see the clear intention of the
Church to accept the value of the synoptic Gospels "as testimony to the
reality of the events that they narrate and to the certainty with which
they present us with the Person, the words, and the acts of Jesus."
The Instruction does grant what we said before, that the Gospels do not
always use the same words, but adapt them to their audience: "The fact that
the Evangelists report the words or deeds of the Lord in different order
does not affect at all the truth of the narrative, for they keep the sense,
while reporting His statements, not to the letter, but in different ways."
There has been confusion about a further statement in DV # 19: "The
Apostles after the ascension of the Lord, handed on to their hearers the
things which He Himself had said and done, with the fuller understanding
which they enjoyed since they were instructed by the glorious events of
Christ and the light of the Spirit of truth." Cf. Jn 2:19-21; 3:22; 6:6;
12:16; 20:9.
Of course, this does not mean they invented things or falsified things. For
example, the Gospels still portray the Apostles as slow to understand and
weak in character. They had not understood His prophecies of His death and
resurrection, since their minds were filled with the false notion that He
would restore the kingship to Israel - just before the ascension one of
them asked if that was the time for it (Acts 1:6). And after the
multiplication of the loaves, they had not understood that either, as Mark
6:52 reports.
Again, they did not understand His predictions of His death and
resurrection at the time they were given. Later, in the light of the
glorious events, they did understand, and preached correctly and wrote
appropriately in the Gospels, without, however, presenting themselves as
having understood at the time.
So the Instruction did well to warn against considerable dangers, which
Catholic scholars have not always avoided. But yet the technique is
valuable, even though it can be used well or badly. Let us look at an
example or two, both good and bad.
Reginald H. Fuller, one of the chief critics, in Foundations of New
Testament Christology (Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y. 1965, p. 109) made a
very influential analysis of Mark 8:29-33. Jesus is up at Caesarea
Philippi. He asks His disciples who people says He is. They report various
views. Now we will number the units Fuller thought he found: 1) He asks the
Apostles who they say He is. Peter replies: You are the Messiah. 2) Jesus
tells them not to tell anyone about it. 3) He predicts His death and
resurrection, and Peter objects to His death. 4) "Get behind me, satan."
Fuller found no objection to units 1 and 4. But He thought units 2 and 3
were faked by the Church. Jesus had never said He was Messiah. Later the
Church was embarrassed, and so invented scenes in which the subject would
come up, and Jesus would tell them to keep quiet about it. This notion is
really the result of the work of Wilhelm Wrede, The Messianic Secret (tr.
J. C. C. Greig, James Clarke Co. , Cambridge and London, 1971, 3rd
edition). Wrede gave several instances in the Gospels, in which this
happened. He said his strongest case was the raising of the daughter of
Jairus, after which Jesus called for silence. But, exclaimed Wrede: anyone
could see the girl was alive. So this was faked by the Church.
The reply is extremely simple: Jesus went into the house with only the
parents, and Peter, James and John. He raised the girl, and called for
silence. If the crowds found out, they might seize Him and proclaim Him
king Messiah, with a false notion of Messiahship. But how long did He need
to keep it quiet? Just long enough for Him to slip out quietly and get on
His way to the next village.
So Fuller and Wrede have failed to invalidate the second unit.
In the third unit Jesus predicts His death and resurrection. But, when
these things happened, the Apostles acted as if they had never heard about
them. So, the critics conclude: The Church faked this unit.
Again, the answer is simple: If someone has a fixed framework of ideas in
his mind, and something that would clash tries to get in, it usually does
not get in. For example, in the 19th century, one of the three discoverers
of germs (along with Pasteur and Lister) was Dr. Semmelweis in Hungary. He
therefore told the other Doctors to use antiseptic precautions - which they
had never heard of. So they put him into an insane asylum for the rest of
his life!. (Scientists can be rougher on science than the Church!).
Again, Norman Perrin of the University of Chicago said in his book,
Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (Harper & Row, N. Y. , 1967, p. 16)
that at one time he was inclined to believe the Gospels. But then, form
criticism over and over again showed him he could not trust them. He gives
his strongest example: Mark 9. 1, "There are some standing here who will
not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God come with power." Mt
16:28 is the same, except that they will see "the Son of Man coming in his
kingdom." In Lk 9:27 they see merely "the Kingdom of God." Matthew and
Mark, thinks Perrin, expect the end soon. But Luke has settled down to "the
long haul of history." So there is a clash.
Again, the answer is easy. All three synoptics put this line just before
the Transfiguration, so that could be what they would see. But better, many
scholars admit (e.g. , John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible , p. 481;
R. E. Brown, in The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, p. 52 - cf. also his
Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible, p. 12) that often in the Synoptics
the Church is called the Kingdom of God. Thus in the end of the parable of
the wicked tenants, Jesus says (Mt. 21:43): "The kingdom will be taken from
you and given to a people who will bring fruit." It meant that the
Pharisees would be out of the People of God, and others would take their
place (the gentiles). The implication is similar in the parable of the net
and the parable of the weeds in the wheat, as well as in other places.
So they will see the kingdom, the Church, and it will be coming with power.
Power in the Greek is dynamis. That word in the plural means displays of
power, i.e. , miracles. So they will live to see the Church being spread
with miracles. As to the form in Matthew, they will see the Son of Man,
Christ, coming in His kingdom. It means visiting, taking care of His Church
by His power (the concept of Hebrew paqad, taking care of it). Luke's
reading, "the kingdom" is of course no problem, makes no clash. So Perrin
was not really "forced" by form criticism to give up on the Gospels. He had
a mental framework, in which there was no room for the facts on this text.
So Fuller's analysis fails since he did not succeed in showing units 2 and
3 to be false, faked by the Church. But if we, since it is interesting,
imagine he had proved it, then he would read units 1 and 4: Jesus asks the
Apostles who they say He is. Peter says: The Messiah. "Get behind me
satan". He angrily rejects the title of Messiah.
This false analysis has been a large root of the claims of ignorance in
Jesus.
Then there is the strange case of Teilhard de Chardin, who thought that
just before the return of Christ at the end, most people would be joined
together in a wonderful unity, like a totalitarian state, but not painful:
it would be love that would bind them. He must have read Luke 18:8: "When
the Son of Man comes, do you think He will find faith on the earth?" or 2
Thessalonians 2. 3 which also predicted a great falling away from the
faith. Or Matthew 24:12: "Because sin will reach its peak, the love of
most people will grow cold. Chardin too had a fixed framework of ideas, and
so could not see.
But as we said, this technique can be used well. For example, Mark 13:30
says: "This generation will not pass away before all these things take
place." Form criticism helps us here, by pointing out that things are
sometimes put into different settings, so that it is likely that the
original context of this verse was one of the fall of Jerusalem. Still
further, Hebrew dor can mean generation, but can also mean a time period -
here - the Christian regime - and so the sense could be that the Christian
regime is the last phases of God's dealings with our race. It is never to
be replaced as the Old Testament was. DV # 4 assures us this is the case.
One more example. When Jesus says that if anyone would come after Him, he
must take up his cross. Now the cross in the literal sense was known to all
the people of his land and time. But He meant it in a modified sense, in
the sense of imitating him by self-denial and acceptance of providential
sufferings. We gather then, that it is not very likely that Jesus used
these words about taking up one's cross, though He expressed the same
thought in another way. It would be only later, when the Church had
meditated on this point, that such language would be understood by most
persons.
Form and Redaction criticism today is under some attack. Reginald H.
Fuller, a chief critic, and author of the analysis of the scene at Caesarea
Philippi we just saw, has now charged that Form criticism is bankrupt, and
that the bankruptcy should be overcome by feedback from the believing
community! Fuller showed bad judgment twice. First there was bad judgment
when he and others were so very confident they had scientifically proved
things, when really the whole historical critical method (of which Form
Criticism is a part, as also the approach via literary genres) seldom gives
conclusive proof of anything, since it relies mostly on internal evidence
(e.g. , the claim that Luke wrote the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem
after 70 AD since he spoke of any army surrounding Jerusalem). Internal
evidence by its nature seldom gives more than probability. Fuller shows bad
judgment a second time in throwing out the baby with the bath, for these
techniques really are useful if only one uses them with keen awareness of
their limitations.
Further, the critics, as we saw, think it important to discover the life
situation, the Sitz-im-Leben of each form. But there is heavy uncertainty
about a very major case of this. The traditional view was that Mark wrote
at Rome, from the preaching of St. Peter. Some major scholars still agree,
e.g. , Martin Hengel of Tubingen, in his Studies in the Gospel of Mark (tr.
J. Bowden, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1985, p. 29). Hengel thinks Mark wrote
to help Christians facing the persecution of Nero. But others, e. g,
Wilfred Harrington (Mark, Wilmington, Glazier, 1979 p. xii) thinks it comes
from a Christian community in Syria between 66 and 70 AD. R. E. Brown, in
Antioch and Rome (Brown and Meier, Paulist, 1983, pp. 199-200) admits he
cannot know what purpose Mark had in mind , and that we cannot be sure we
know what is tradition and what is editing by Mark - a major step in Form
Criticism. C. F. Evans, in The Cambridge History of the Bible (3 vols,
Cambridge University, 1960-63, I, pp. 270-71) is almost in despair on this
question about Mark.