Are Jesus’ Words “Authentic” ?

Like the title of the preceding chapter, this one may be considered somewhat inflammatory. Again, our intent is not to be provocative. It is simply to speak to an often raised question regarding biblical authority. What gives the words attributed to Jesus their authority? Is it their historicity: that they might have been tape recorded to show their authenticity? Or is it their canonicity: that they constitute a major element of the divinely established “rule of truth”?

To the minds of many people, Jesus during His earthly ministry spoke each word attributed to Him in the Gospels (hence their preference for red-letter editions of the New Testament). Modern biblical scholarship, on the other hand, has shown that the tradition concerning Jesus’ teachings contains variants and inconsistencies that lead most exegetes to attribute the form and, in many cases, the content of those sayings to the Gospel writers rather than to Jesus Himself. (Members of the radical “Jesus Seminar,” taking this point to an extreme, argue that practically none of the words ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament are authentic in the sense of verifiably historical—except perhaps the counsel, “Render unto Caesar”….)

With only the most cursory reading, for example, the words attributed to Jesus in St John’s Gospel “sound” very different from those he speaks in the Synoptics: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. (“Synoptic” means that “seen together” the first three Gospels exhibit striking similarities to one another in both tone and content.) In order to explain the unique voice of the “Johannine Jesus,” we must first recall that the main purpose of the evangelists was to write theology, not biography or historiography. They were concerned to preach the Good News, not to offer a detailed account of specific events or reproduce verbatim specific sayings of Christ, except insofar as such specificity was needed to convey the message of salvation.

Each evangelist felt free to take the received tradition (what St Paul terms paradosis, 1 Cor 15:1-5) and reshape it according to his own experience, his own understanding of Jesus’ person and work, and the particular needs of his own ecclesial community. This does not mean the evangelists willy-nilly changed Jesus’ words. Nevertheless, we need to recall that those words appear in the biblical text in translation, from Aramaic (and occasionally Hebrew) to Greek. This in itself works a modification, if not of meaning then at least of tone.

Then again, a comparison between parallel Synoptic verses, like a comparison between John and the Synoptics, demonstrates clearly that many sayings of Jesus came down through oral tradition in several different versions. Similarly, the Gospels reflect different—and irreconcilable—traditions concerning even the most significant events in Jesus’ life, such as the cleansing of the Temple (compare Mt 21:12-17 with Jn 2:13-22, in terms of date and content) or the day on which the Last Supper was celebrated (according to the Synoptic Gospels, it was a Passover meal; according to St John’s Gospel, it was a pre-Passover meal served the preceding day, the “Day of Preparation” for the Passover).

What enables us, then, to affirm that the Gospels represent Jesus’ words and teaching, rather than the literary invention of the apostolic authors? How can we honestly attribute those words to Jesus Himself rather than to the “post-Easter Church”?

The fundamental point is that Jesus speaks His word—He reveals the person and will of the Father as well as the Truth about Himself—not only during His earthly ministry, but after His resurrection and ascension, in the time of the Church. How can we justify such a claim?

First, we need to point out that the real question is not whether all the words attributed to Jesus are “authentic” (meaning that they stem uniquely from Jesus’ teaching during his earthly ministry) or that they are “historically accurate” in a way verifiable by a tape recording. The real question concerns the canonicity of those teachings, their divine origin and authority. If we indeed take the notion of “inspiration” seriously, it can only mean that the Holy Spirit both guides the composition of the apostolic writings and confers canonical authority on them. As in the case of the Pentateuch, this implies that “who” wrote those works is largely immaterial. What really matters is their God-given canonicity.

What does this mean about statements attributed to Jesus by the evangelist John? Can we call them “Jesus’ own words” (ipsissima verba Jesu) if St John in fact modified the tradition he received, giving it a distinctively “Johannine” flavor? The answer is a robust “Yes!” How, then, is this so?

The answer is provided in John 14:26 and 16:13-15. The risen and glorified Lord, together with the Father, sends the Holy Spirit—the Paraclete and Spirit of Truth—upon the gathered Church, in order to guide Christ’s followers into “all the truth.” The Spirit receives what is Christ’s and conveys it to the Christian community through the witness of the evangelist, beginning with his oral preaching.

Inspiration is the key to this point. It is the risen Lord Himself who speaks through the Holy Spirit, just as it is the Spirit who guides the composition of the Gospel. The words that St John attributes to Jesus, then, are definitely the words of Jesus. Perhaps they were not spoken during Jesus’ earthly ministry in the precise way they appear in the Gospel. But the words the evangelist attributes to Jesus as he writes his Gospel are in fact the words of the risen Lord, communicated to him by the Holy Spirit, who dwells within the Church. (St Luke makes a similar point by showing the risen Lord “opening the minds” of His disciples to the true meaning of Scripture, Lk 24:27, 45-48!)

To defend the authenticity of Christ’s words in the Gospels, therefore, it is not necessary to argue from the perspective of biblical literalism. Many people fear that if we admit that the evangelists felt themselves free to modify their received tradition, including the words attributed to Jesus, then the authority of those words collapses like a house of cards. If St John, for example, could “change” Jesus’ words or put words into His mouth He did not actually speak, then this seems to mean that we cannot trust the Bible to be true.

In reply, we can only insist on the Orthodox understanding of the synergy that is at the heart of biblical composition. Synergy means “cooperation” between God and the biblical author. This does not mean a 50% division between God and man. God is the one who inspires; composition of the Scriptures depends on divine initiative, just as it depends on divine authority. But God uses his human creatures—with their unique historical, cultural, and linguistic particularities—to convey the eternal truths enshrined in canonical Scripture. We cannot deny the human element, any more than we can deny the advantages that a variety of approaches to the mystery of Christ provides for us.

We should remember that the Syriac Church tried to create a single Gospel from several that circulated in the Christian East. This produced the so-called “Diatessaron,” compiled and edited by Tatian in the latter half of the second century. If the greater Church never accepted this reworking, it is because it always recognized the value in having four canonical Gospels, each of which complements the others. Certainly the earliest Christians were no less aware than we are that these writings present different perspectives and contain certain inconsistencies. Yet they recognized as well the unique vision and revelation offered by the four, both individually and taken together.

The mystery of Christ is greater than any human expression, even that of the Gospels. Language remains symbolic. It strives to grasp and express truth, but it can by no means exhaust truth. This is why some truths can only be expressed poetically. The Gospels have their own language, unlike that of any other writing. It is common human language, yes. But its uniqueness lies in the fact that it is uniquely inspired language, language shaped by the Spirit of the risen Lord, who works through the biblical author in such a way as to convey canonical authority to Scripture as the perfect and full expression of divine revelation.

Therefore the words of Jesus that appear in the Gospel of John— or elsewhere in the canonical Scriptures—are indeed “authentic.” For whether they stem from the period prior to His crucifixion, or whether they represent the “words”—the ongoing revelation—of the risen Lord, conveyed through the apostolic writings by the Spirit of Truth, they originate with Jesus Himself and bear faithful witness to His continuing presence and purpose within the world, for the world’s salvation.

“When the Spirit of Truth comes [following my resurrection and glorification], He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak…. He will glorify me, for He will take what is mine and declare it to you” (Jn 16:13-14).