Uploaded August 2024 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Why does it matter if Jesus didn't historically, recognizably say something recorded in the Gospels? What if what we find there is just the author's extrapolation or application of Jesus' teaching put into his mouth, based on the author's belief that this is the "higher meaning" of what Jesus really taught, or that this is what Jesus would have said if asked?
Even if you're not a Christian (yet), it's legitimate for you to wonder what you'd be buying into if you became a Christian. Would you have to adopt the position that apostolic teaching *put into the mouth of Jesus* is just as authoritative as what Jesus really historically taught? That is hardly obvious.
The historical teaching of Jesus constitutes theological data in a special way. The Apostle Paul makes it clear in Galatians that he thinks apostles can err, and that Peter did err in not eating with Gentiles. He also says that "we" (presumably himself or other apostles) could in theory teach the Galatians something that contradicted the gospel they had taught before, and that the Galatians need to be discerning. One way to check apostolic teaching is to see if it agrees with Jesus' historical teaching. For example, there are sayings of Jesus reported in the story of the centurion's servant that are quite relevant to the question of Jewish and Gentile Christians eating together. But what if he never said them? What if Matthew made them up?
If Jesus was sent from God and did rise from the dead, his recognizable historical teachings are theological data in a special way, even more fundamental than what the apostles taught, and certainly more fundamental than the apostles' views if they non-factually put these into Jesus' mouth.
Before we accept uncritically the view that it doesn't matter if the evangelists put their words in Jesus' mouth, we should consider the ramifications if they did. Then, knowing that it does matter, we can examine the arguments for and against this position. I find these arguments completely lacking in force. See The Mirror or the Mask and The Eye of the Beholder for more information.
amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mirror+or+the+mask&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1
amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage/dp/1947929151/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2P5N15K1P8TIJ&dchild=1&keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder+lydia+mcgrew&qid=1617757441&s=books&sprefix=the+eye+of+the+beholder%2Cstripbooks%2C185&sr=1-1
Why does it matter if Jesus didn't historically, recognizably say something recorded in the Gospels? What if what we find there is just the author's extrapolation or application of Jesus' teaching put into his mouth, based on the author's belief that this is the "higher meaning" of what Jesus really taught, or that this is what Jesus would have said if asked?
Even if you're not a Christian (yet), it's legitimate for you to wonder what you'd be buying into if you became a Christian. Would you have to adopt the position that apostolic teaching *put into the mouth of Jesus* is just as authoritative as what Jesus really historically taught? That is hardly obvious.
The historical teaching of Jesus constitutes theological data in a special way. The Apostle Paul makes it clear in Galatians that he thinks apostles can err, and that Peter did err in not eating with Gentiles. He also says that "we" (presumably himself or other apostles) could in theory teach the Galatians something that contradicted the gospel they had taught before, and that the Galatians need to be discerning. One way to check apostolic teaching is to see if it agrees with Jesus' historical teaching. For example, there are sayings of Jesus reported in the story of the centurion's servant that are quite relevant to the question of Jewish and Gentile Christians eating together. But what if he never said them? What if Matthew made them up?
If Jesus was sent from God and did rise from the dead, his recognizable historical teachings are theological data in a special way, even more fundamental than what the apostles taught, and certainly more fundamental than the apostles' views if they non-factually put these into Jesus' mouth.
Before we accept uncritically the view that it doesn't matter if the evangelists put their words in Jesus' mouth, we should consider the ramifications if they did. Then, knowing that it does matter, we can examine the arguments for and against this position. I find these arguments completely lacking in force. See The Mirror or the Mask and The Eye of the Beholder for more information.
amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mirror+or+the+mask&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1
amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage/dp/1947929151/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2P5N15K1P8TIJ&dchild=1&keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder+lydia+mcgrew&qid=1617757441&s=books&sprefix=the+eye+of+the+beholder%2Cstripbooks%2C185&sr=1-1
