JOSEPH A. FITZMYER, S.J.
A Christological Catechism
NEW TESTAMENT ANSWERS
NEW REVISED AND EXPANDED EDITION
PAULIST PRESS | .png){kind=small} | New York / Mahwah |
1991 |
Rev. Eduardus Glynn, S.J.
Praepositus Provinciae Marylandiae
Nihil Obstat
Rev. Stephen J. Brett, S.S.J.
Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur
Rev. William J. Kane
Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington
November 13, 1990
The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat and the imprimatur agree with the content, opinions, or statements expressed.
Copyright © 1991 by The Corporation of the Roman Catholic Clergymen, Maryland.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the Publisher.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
A Christological catechism: New Testament answers/by Joseph A. Fitzmyer.—2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 0-8091-3253-2 (pbk.)
1. Bible. N.T. Gospels—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Jesus Christ—History of doctrines—Early church, ca. 30–600. 3. Jesus Christ—Person and Offices. I. Title.
BS2555.2.F49 1991
225.6′7—dc20
91-21329
CIP
Published by Paulist Press
997 Macarthur Boulevard
Mahwah, NJ 07430
CONTENTS
2. How Much Can We Claim To Know About the Jesus of History?
3. Do the Apocryphal Gospels Tell Us Anything Important About Jesus of Nazareth?
5. How Historical Are the Infancy Narratives of the Matthean and Lucan Gospels?
6. Does the Story of the Virgin Birth Record Simple Historical Fact or Are There Other Possible Ways of Understanding It?
8. How Are the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Baptism To Be Understood?
9. How Are the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Temptations To Be Understood?
10. What Themes in the Gospels Are Accepted as Representing the Teachings of Jesus Himself?
11. What Did Jesus Teach About the Kingdom of God?
12. How Are Jesus’ Sayings and Parables To Be Understood, Also His Sermon on the Mount?
13. How Are the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Miracles To Be Understood?
14. How Are Jesus’ Words to Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi To Be Understood?
15. How Are Jesus’ Words and Actions at the Last Supper To Be Understood?
16. Who Was Responsible for the Death of Jesus?
18. How Are References to the Resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament To Be Interpreted?
19. How Are New Testament References to the Ascension of Jesus To Be Understood?
20. Did Jesus Clearly Claim To Be God?
21. Did Jesus of Nazareth Know All Things, Even About the Future?
22. What Is To Be Said of the Titles Messiah or Christ, Son of Man, Son of God, Lord, etc.?
24. In What Sense Can It Be Said That Jesus Was the Redeemer of the World?
25. Did Jesus Found the Church?
1. The Biblical Commission and Its Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels
3. Vatican Council II Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum §19 (AAS 58 [1966] 826–27)
AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis
AER American Ecclesiastical Review
Ang Angelicum
Anton Antonianum
ASS Acta Sanctae Sedis
BenMon Benediktinische Monatschrift
BeO Bibbia e Oriente
BKirche Bibel und Kirche
BLit Bibel und Liturgie
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
ChicStud Chicago Studies
CivC Civiltà Cattolica
CJT Canadian Journal of Theology
ColBG Collationes brugenses et gandavenses
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum
DaS Divino afflante Spiritu
DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément (ed. L. Pirot et al.; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1928–)
DS H. Denzinger and A. Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum (33d ed.; Freiburg im B.: Herder, 1965)
EnchBib Enchiridion biblicum: Documenta ecclesiastica Sacram Scripturam spectantia auctoritate Pontificiae Commissionis de re biblica edita (2d ed.; Naples: M. D’Auria; Rome: A. Arnodo, 1954; 4th ed., 1961)
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HPR Homiletic and Pastoral Review
HSNTA E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols.; London: Lutterworth, 1963, 1965)
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IER Irish Ecclesiastical Record
ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly
LTK Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche (11 vols.; 2d ed.; ed. J. Höfer and K. Rahner; Freiburg im B.: Herder, 1957–67)
NCE New Catholic Encyclopedia (15 vols.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967)
Nestle-Aland26 E. and E. Nestle and K. Aland, Novum Testamentum graece (26th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979)
NHLE The Nag Hammadi Library in English (ed. R. Smith; San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row; Leiden: Brill, 1988)
NJBC The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (ed. R. E. Brown et al.; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990)
NRT La Nouvelle Revue Théologique
ns new series
NTS New Testament Studies
OssRom Osservatore Romano
pace with all due respect to the opinion(s) of …
PG Patrologia graeca (ed. J. Migne)
PL Patrologia latina (ed. J. Migne)
RB Revue biblique
RDiocNam Revue diocésaine de Namur
RevistB Revista bíblica (Argentina)
RSS Rome and the Study of Scripture: A Collection of Papal Enactments on the Study of Holy Scripture with the Decisions of the Biblical Commission (7th ed.; St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1962)
par. parallel(s)
SalTer Sal Terrae
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
ScCatt Scuola cattolica
Scr Scripture
SdZ Stimmen der Zeit
TBT The Bible Today
TheolGeg Theologie der Gegenwart
TPQ Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift
TRev Theologische Revue
TS Theological Studies
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Collegii Sanctae Crucis Vigorniensis
summo honore Litterarum Doctoris A.D. MCMLXXIX accepto
et
praesidi magistrisque
Universitatis Scrantoniensis
summo honore Doctoris Litterarum Humaniorum eodem anno
accepto
grato animo dedicatum
Some years ago the director of Chicago Studies asked me to prepare a brief survey of New Testament christological problems for his “Pastoral Guide to the Bible.”1 It was simply entitled “Jesus the Lord” and proposed succinct answers to fifteen questions which the director had sent to me.
The entire pastoral guide was eventually translated into Italian under the title Catechismo biblico.2 Later on, the director of La Nouvelle Revue Théologique requested that the article be updated and revised for a French version, to which request I was happy to accede.3 The French form of the article included a further question (§7) and the reformulation of some answers to the original questions.
The text that was presented in the first edition of this book was a further improvement of the original English article. The wording of the answers was revised, and four new questions (§4, 8, 14, 15) were added, bringing the total to twenty. The new questions were suggested by readers of the French form of the article.4 In this second edition I have added five more questions (§3, 5, 9, 21, 25), questions that persons have asked me about since the book first appeared. Minor revisions of the formulation of both questions and answers have also been introduced at times. In all, my effort has been to update the discussion and make it more practical for readers in the last decade of this century.
The answer to one question (4), however, touches on an issue which lies at the heart of the problems discussed in this book. For the catechism builds upon the Instruction of the Biblical Commission issued in 1964 on the historical truth of the gospels. Having written a commentary on that Instruction in the year that it was issued,5 I have come to realize how pertinent that church document is to the present christological discussion. As a result, I included in the appendix a revised form of that commentary, a slightly revised form of the translation of the Instruction prepared in 1964, and the significant paragraph 19 of Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from Vatican Council II, which made explicit use of the Instruction. In this way it will be seen that the answers given in this catechism to the questions proposed have been inspired by the work of the Biblical Commission and of the fathers of Vatican Council II.
If I stress this point, it is to clarify what I am about in this book. A moment’s reflection will make it clear that tomes could be written in answer to each of the questions posed. Originally, my intention was, and it still is, to give a succinct, well-worked-out answer to each question, with a minimum of bibliographic references and within a limited amount of space. Readers are asked to take this feature into account and realize the implications of such a brief-answer format. The answers are frankly proposed as my own, but they are fashioned from the standpoint of modern Catholic New Testament study and of today’s research. In this regard they have been especially guided by the Instruction of the Biblical Commission.
My intention, then, is to set forth the New Testament data as succinctly as I can. The limitation of the answers to such data implies no judgment about the endeavors of others, either of the magisterium, or of systematic theologians, or of patristic scholars, who might seek to answer the same questions about Jesus the Lord on the basis of other data. In this regard the reader, after having read this book, would do well to peruse the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium Filii Dei, on the incarnation and the blessed Trinity,6 and above all the International Theological Commission’s Select Questions on Christology.7 In these two texts one will see how theologians, coping with data derived from beyond the New Testament, try to answer some similar questions. The most crucial question in this whole area of christology will always remain that about the consciousness of the Jesus of history, Jesus of Nazareth. The treatment of that question by the Theological Commission is highly significant.8 It goes beyond the purpose of this book, however, to try to deal with it in detail, but comments will be made about it in various ways, as occasion offers.
It remains to express my thanks to various persons who have helped me in bringing this book to its completion. I am indebted, first of all, to the Rev. George J. Dyer, the director of Chicago Studies, who initially asked me to compose such answers to his questions in the Pastoral Guide and who has granted permission for this revision and expansion of the article. Second, to Dr. John J. Collins of University of Notre Dame, who—as I learned only subsequently—had no small hand in the formulation of the fifteen questions originally proposed. Third, to R.P. Bruno Clarot, S.J., who first brought the Chicago Studies article to the attention of the director of NRT. Fourth, to R.P.H. Jacobs, S.J., the director of NRT, who requested the revision of the text and thus provided the stimulus for further work on it (as well as to his translator). Fifth, to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., who was kind enough to send me comments on the revised form of the article. Lastly, to Lawrence E. Boadt, C.S.P., Donald F. Brophy, and other members of Paulist Press who have graciously accepted this revision of several articles and made it into a book for me.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.
Professor Emeritus, Biblical Studies
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC 20064
Resident at the Jesuit Community
Georgetown University
Washington, DC 20057
Shop for A Christological Catechism: New Testament Answers By Fitzmyer, Joseph A. on Logos
Posts
.jpg?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/quality,q_70/resize,m_mfit,w_350,h_350/format,webp)
4 comments:
This is an excerpt from the book I just introduced above: 14. How Are Jesus’ Words to Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi To Be Understood?
The question is concerned with the scene of Peter acknowledging Jesus’ messiahship in the synoptic tradition (Mk 8:27–33; Mt 16:13–23; Lk 9:18–22). Only Mark and Matthew mention the locale of the episode: Caesarea Philippi. Luke omits all reference to locale, only placing the episode toward the end of Jesus’ Galilean ministry (9:18–20), shortly before he begins his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (9:51). It is, in fact, the first episode with which Luke resumes his use of Marcan material after the so-called “big omission” of this material in his gospel (= Mark 6:45–8:26). Since Caesarea Philippi was outside of Galilee, Luke would not want to admit that Jesus was there. Given the literary build-up of his gospel and its geographical perspective, in which Jesus moves resolutely from his Galilean ministry to Jerusalem, the city of destiny, an episode situated at Caesarea Philippi would be an added distraction.
a. Many commentators regard John 6:67–71 as a related form of the same tradition. The episode there is located in the synagogue of Capernaum, again in Galilee (6:59), and Peter acknowledges Jesus to be, not the messiah, but “Lord” and the “Holy One of God.” Given its general relation to the Galilean ministry, there may be some connection between this Johannine confession of Peter and the synoptic form as found in Mark.
b. In the synoptic form Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do people say I am?” Having received various answers (John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the prophets [Matthew adds, “Jeremiah”]), Jesus then asks the disciples, “Who do you say I am?” Peter speaks up. In Mark 8:29 he acknowledges Jesus to be “the messiah” (or “Christ,” ho christos); in Luke 9:20, “God’s messiah” (or “the Christ of God”); in Matthew 16:16, “the messiah (or Christ), the Son of the living God.” The tradition about Peter’s confession has obviously grown.
Here is a second excerpt from the book I just introduced above: c. In Mark (8:30) and Luke (9:21) Jesus immediately charges the disciples to tell this to no one and proceeds to make the first announcement of his passion, death, and resurrection (as the Son of Man). Though Luke omits it, Mark adds Peter’s uncomprehending protest, to which Jesus replies with an epithet for Peter and a rebuke: Peter is identified as Satan and “not on the side of God but of human beings.”
d. In the oldest form of the tradition about Peter’s confession (Mk 8:27–33), there is thus an acknowledgement by Peter, the spokesman for the disciples, that Jesus is the messiah. The fact that Jesus forbids his disciples to repeat that acknowledgement and that he counters it with a corrective saying about his own fate reveals that he did not accept the implications of the title as used by Peter. The extent to which Peter (and other disciples) would have considered Jesus to be a messiah in a political sense is difficult for us to ascertain today. Certainly Peter’s acknowledgement of Jesus as messiah cannot be understood in Stage I of the gospel tradition with all the connotations of the title in Stages II or III (see §4h above). Peter’s confession would have to be taken as an indication of a breakthrough of some sort in the disciples’ awareness about who Jesus was, though only in an inceptive way. Yet that title in no way implies an allegiance to Jesus that would keep Peter from eventually denying him (14:66–72) or the disciples from deserting him (14:50–52). For the connotation, see further §22a below.
e. As used in the Marcan gospel, Peter’s confession and Jesus’ subsequent sayings form a turning point in the literary structure of that writing. Up to this point (inclusive) Jesus imposes silence on those who would use titles of him; after that point the use of titles changes, and the climax of the revelation about him in the Marcan gospel is reached when a pagan Roman centurion declares about the crucified Jesus, “Surely, this man was the Son of God!” (15:39).
f. The Lucan use of Marcan material is significant for three things: (1) The title is slightly expanded: Jesus is “God’s messiah” (9:20). However, this is not radically different from the Marcan confession. (2) Luke omits all reference to Peter’s protest and Jesus’ rebuke. This fits in with the general tendency in the Lucan gospel, in which the disciples are not portrayed as deserting Jesus. (In fact, even at the crucifixion among those standing not far off from Jesus are not only the women who had followed him from Galilee, but “all his acquaintances” [hoi gnōstoi, masculine! (23:49)], so that his disciples have not deserted him.) Peter will, indeed, deny Jesus in the Lucan gospel, but Jesus will pray for him (22:32), and he will be converted. (3) The confession of Peter plays a different role in the Lucan gospel, not enhancing Peter so much, as it does in Matthew, but supplying an important christological assertion. Because of the “big omission” (see above), Peter’s confession comes in Luke’s sequence on the heels of Herod’s crucial question, “Who is this about whom I hear such talk?” (9:9). It thus proves to be one of several christological answers given to that question in chapter 9, which is a peculiarly Lucan refashioning of the synoptic tradition. (See further my commentary, The Gospel according to Luke [AB 28–28 A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985] 756–58.)
g. Matthew too has made use of the Marcan story; its parallel is found in a 16:13–16, 20–23 (with Peter’s protest and Jesus’ rebuke retained). But the Matthean gospel has in this instance some additional material (vv. 16b–19), which further expands (significantly) Peter’s confession: Jesus is not only “the messiah,” but “the Son of the living God.” To this acknowledgement Jesus now replies with an admission that Peter’s insight has been granted by God (“Flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”). Jesus then bestows on Simon a title, Petros (masculine), “Rock,” and promises to build his church unshakably on “this rock” (petra, feminine) and give him authority in it. Having pronounced a beatitude over Simon Peter and promised him a significant role or function, Jesus charges his disciples to tell no one that he is the messiah (16:20), thus resuming the Marcan form of the story with Peter’s protest and Jesus’ rebuke. In the present Matthean context the retention of this material clashes with the beatitude and the promises.
This is the last excerpt from the chapter 14 of the book I just introduced above: Verses 16b–19 are an addition to the story inherited from Mark, added by the evangelist who is using material from another part of the gospel tradition. In John 21:15–17 the risen Christ, having appeared to seven disciples in Galilee at Lake Tiberias, confers authority on Simon Peter as he commissions him (three times over) to feed his sheep. Whereas former generations of interpreters often distinguished the promise of a Petrine function to Simon (in Matthew 16) and the conferral of it (in John 21), modern interpreters regard the additional material in Matthew 16:16b–19 as a variant in the synoptic gospel tradition of that in the Johannine scene. Matthew would then have retrojected an episode from the tradition about appearances of the risen Christ into the public ministry itself. The acknowledgement of Jesus as “the Son of the living God” is certainly more plausible on the lips of Peter after his denial and the experience of the resurrection than it is at Caesarea Philippi. Such a christological title as “Son of the living God” could readily have been joined to the other one, “the messiah,” which was more suited to the ministry itself, thus producing in Matthew 16:16 a double confession on the lips of Peter. This post-resurrection matrix for the material in vv. 16b–19 also provides a plausible setting for the beatitude pronounced over Peter by Jesus and for the church-founding promises made to him, a setting far more plausible than in the ministry itself.
h. This theory would also provide a plausible explanation for what has always been a major problem in the episode of Peter’s confession: If Jesus had said all this (Mt 16:16–19) to Simon at Caesarea Philippi, how could Mark (and Luke) have failed to find any trace of these words in the tradition about the Galilean ministry? If Matthew 16:13–19 were the more correct record of what had happened at Caesarea Philippi, how could the tradition have arisen in such a truncated form as that now found in Mark 8 and Luke 9? Rather, it seems likely that Matthew has followed his custom of adding things, in this case, to the sayings of both Simon Peter and Jesus.
i. Lastly, this theory also explains why the word “church” (ekklēsia) appears only in the Matthean form of the episode, and nowhere else in the gospel tradition (save, again, in a Matthean passage, 18:17). Neither Mark, nor Luke (in his gospel), nor John ever portrays Jesus speaking of his community of followers as “the church.” See further §25 below.
j. In the Matthean gospel the expanded episode (16:13–23) joins two others in which material has been added by the evangelist and all of which enhance the Petrine role: Matthew 14:22–33 (Peter’s walking on the waters, to be compared with Mark 6:45–52 [omitted by Luke]) and Matthew 17:24–27 (the finding of a coin in the fish’s mouth, an episode exclusive to Matthew). All three episodes relate Peter closely to Jesus. They describe the Petrine function in a manner that is unique to this gospel. It has, in turn, had a marked emphasis on the developing ecclesiology of the early church beyond that of any other gospel. See further R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), Peter in the New Testament (New York: Paulist; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973) 75–107.
Post a Comment