Heretical Bible Study?

[Dave]

Today at daily Mass, Father presented a Bible study rather than a homily. I don't know if that's OK for a weekday Mass (though I know the homily is optional then). But that's not the point. Anyway, I'm not sure the materials he used were 100% faithful. Father claimed that most, BUT NOT ALL, the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were spoken by Him. As for the "not all" part, he cited the example of the Samaritan woman who asked for a cure for her child, and Jesus responded that it wasn't right to give such things to dogs. Father said that Jesus would NEVER have said something so abrupt and unkind. He claimed instead that during the Church's early days, that sort of attitude was very common between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. He said that quote thus somehow found its way into the Bible anyway to show people that they shouldn't have that sort of attitude.

Such ideas sound wrong and maybe even heretical to me. But I could be wrong. Anyone know if such ideas are good or bad?

[hyperdulia again]

I've never believed that every word in the bible is actually what anyone said. I was taught that it was all meant to express certain important themes of Christ's teachings that are contained in sacred tradition, not to be an actual play by play account. If this is heretical someone please correct me.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ

1/14 - First Wednesday

I think that it's important to remember, whether or not certain words actually passed through the lips of Our Lord's mouth, they managed to make it into the inspired Scriptures; therefore, God wants them in there for a certain reason. They convey a certain truth. Traditionally, the passage in question has been interpreted as a dog might acquire scraps from the dinner table. One does not give the dog the preferred meat, but that which those eating reject is given to the dogs. The Jews rejected the salvific message of Our Lord; therefore, he gave His message to the Canaanite woman.

Yours,

Pio Nono

[Norseman82]

I just have a problem with the "Jesus never said that because He never would have said that" argument as poor, weak, circular reasoning.

[Speech]

But don't you agree that the comment directed toward the Syro-Phoenician woman was somewhat uncharacteristic of Jesus? And how do you reconcile Jesus saying "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword," with: "I have come not to bring peace, but the sword."

It may be heretical, but the only logical explanation behind these contradictory statements is that Jesus didn't actually say them. I absolutely agree that they were intended to convey certain doctrines, and that there is probably wisdom in most if not all of what's said in the Gospels. But if one is going to say that Jesus did make these contradictory statements, they also need to logically explain such statements.

[BLAZEr]

Woah! First off, when Jesus says "I come to bring not peace but the sword." He means he has come to cause division, like a sword, in the Jewish community. He is not advocating war.

Secondly, Why would say that what Jesus says to the Syro Phoenecian woman is out of character? The only character you know of Christ is the one presented in the Gospels. Obviously this is within his character.

However, just so you don't think Jesus a cold heartles Syro-Phoenecian hating jerk, think about the statement. The woman doesn't seem to be offended. In fact, she immediately retors that people treat dogs better than they treat her, offering them the scraps from the table. Christ grants her request for a miracle. Christ is speaking to her of her Human dignity which he well recognizes and knows that she does as well. The lesson in that passage is not so much for her, but for the Apostles who undoubtedly were nearby and had probably been trying to push her away.

[Speech]

Woah! First off, when Jesus says "I come to bring not peace but the sword." He means he has come to cause division, like a sword, in the Jewish community. He is not advocating war.

That's one interpretation. But he goes on to say that he'll divide a child from his parents, siblings from other siblings, etc. That certainly doesn't sound like the "family Gospel" that many conservatives are so fond of referring to. How do you explain that? I'm not being argumentative, but I'm really not sure how to explain it.

Secondly, Why would say that what Jesus says to the Syro Phoenecian woman is out of character? The only character you know of Christ is the one presented in the Gospels. Obviously this is within his character.

To me, it is uncharacteristic, because it's inconsistent with the way he teaches throughout the rest of the Gospels. It doesn't seem consistent with the Sermon on the Mount, with "love your enemies," or "love your neighbor as yourself." That's why I say that it seems uncharacteristic.

However, just so you don't think Jesus a cold heartles Syro-Phoenecian hating jerk, think about the statement. The woman doesn't seem to be offended. In fact, she immediately retors that people treat dogs better than they treat her, offering them the scraps from the table. Christ grants her request for a miracle. Christ is speaking to her of her Human dignity which he well recognizes and knows that she does as well. The lesson in that passage is not so much for her, but for the Apostles who undoubtedly were nearby and had probably been trying to push her away.

First, I'm not sure that we can assume the woman wasn't offended. She replied with a retort, and it seems from that retort that Jesus' response to her reminded her of the disdain shown to her. I'd think that would be extremely offensive. I think you're reading too much into it when you say that she doesn't seem to be offended. It's just not clear. She may have been offended, or she may not have.

And wouldn't this lesson have been better taught to the Apostles by just granting her request, rather than referring to her as a "dog"? Maybe it was a misunderstanding of this incident, assuming that the incident actually occurred, that compelled later Jewish Christians to become Judaizers and reject Gentile converts. If Jesus or the Gospel writer had made more clear their feelings toward Gentiles, maybe the Judaizer movement would never have arisen. Or maybe it would have. But it seems to me that this lesson would have been better taught using other methods, and that this was inconsistent with Jesus' style throughout the majority of the Gospel accounts.

[BLAZEr]

That's one interpretation. But he goes on to say that he'll divide a child from his parents, siblings from other siblings, etc. That certainly doesn't sound like the "family Gospel" that many conservatives are so fond of referring to. How do you explain that? I'm not being argumentative, but I'm really not sure how to explain it.

Same thing. Jesus is saying that fidelity to Him is more important than fidelity to your family, to your brother and sister, mother and father. Christ is the source of division, even among families. Just ask my sister what Holidays are like when she and her live in boyfriend come to visit.

In fact, Nathan, some bibles translate that word as division . . . I don't know the Greek word that's used there, but I don't think I've ever heard that passage used (by a saint, or bishop or pope) to suggest that Christ is in favor of war.

[Speech]

Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that these things were inconsistent with the rest of Jesus' teaching. But thank you for offering some explanation for such contradictions. Most don't.

[cmotherofpirl]

I think the mistake is one of context and details if the gospel he is referring to is Matthew 515:21-28. A Canaanite woman is asking her daughter to be healed. (Marks paralle account is 7:24-30 says she is greek) Jesus says he is come to the lost sheep of Israel first. Jesus says "it is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs". Notice he is not calling her a dog. A "dog" in this context was a Jewish epithet for a pagan. Dogs in Jewish culture were generally undomesticated strays and scavengers. (read Matthew 7:6 in the context of what is holy). Her reply is "that even dogs eat the crumbs from the masters table." THe words used can translated "little puppies".

The next line is the whole point of the story "O Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done as you desire". She is not a jew, not a member of th chosen people, but her humility and faith is what saves her child. Here is a pagan woman recognizing Jesus, when the jews do not. (St. Ignatius Study Bible)

Why don't you ask your priest what Bible study he is using?

Edited January 15, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Anna]

Thanks, CMom, for pointing that out.

And, remember that the Jews were considered the children of God, and were awaiting a Messiah.

Jesus was the Bread for the Children, yet was being asked to give of Himself to a pagan. Get it?

I am amazed that a priest wouldn't explain this better, and would cast doubt upon Scriptures, and try to re-invent Christ. Makes me wonder what seminary he attended. -_-

Perhaps a little note to him might clarify things.

And I do believe that Jesus spoke the very words that are in the Bible.

I do not think that they are contradictory; I think our perceptions and perspectives today clash with the messages he was expounding in that day.

While Christ is timeless, the Bible was written in a certain era and in a certain place.

We read it from the viewpoint of our culture, ourgeneration, and we think, "Hey, Jesus was rude," or "Jesus contradicted Himself righ there." No. I don't think so. I'd sooner think there is something I'm not understanding correctly, than to think that the Bible, or the Church got it wrong.

Pax Christi. <><

[NewReformation]

I think the mistake is one of context and details if the gospel he is referring to is Matthew 515:21-28. A Canaanite woman is asking her daughter to be healed. (Marks paralle account is 7:24-30 says she is greek) Jesus says he is come to the lost sheep of Israel first. Jesus says "it is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs". Notice he is not calling her a dog. A "dog" in this context was a Jewish epithet for a pagan. Dogs in Jewish culture were generally undomesticated strays and scavengers. (read Matthew 7:6 in the context of what is holy). Her reply is "that even dogs eat the crumbs from the masters table." THe words used can translated "little puppies".

The next line is the whole point of the story "O Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done as you desire". She is not a jew, not a member of th chosen people, but her humility and faith is what saves her child. Here is a pagan woman recognizing Jesus, when the jews do not. (St. Ignatius Study Bible)

Why don't you ask your priest what Bible study he is using?

If you don't mind CMom, I'm gonna build on what you said some.

You all would be correct in stating that the Jews frequently referred to Gentiles as "Dogs." However, the word Jews used to convey this is roughly translated 'filthy mongrel.' The word Christ used is 'little dog' probably meaning 'puppy', and possibly referring to puppies kept as house dogs in those times. This could be an illustration of Temple Worship at this time. The Jews were able to go farther in the courtyard than the Gentiles could. The Gentiles had a small, segregated area of the courtyard of the Temple that they could enter into, whereas the Jews got in even farther.

[NewReformation]

That's one interpretation.  But he goes on to say that he'll divide a child from his parents, siblings from other siblings, etc.  That certainly doesn't sound like the "family Gospel" that many conservatives are so fond of referring to.  How do you explain that?  I'm not being argumentative, but I'm really not sure how to explain it.

I would think that Christ was referring to the fact that in some families, if one chooses to follow Him, they could be cast out of their family. Sometimes a wife or husband will divorce their spouse over the salvation of the other. Sometimes a child is disowned because they choose to follow Christ. The 'Family Gospel' you refer to is the parents teaching the Bible to their children. The gospel may bring families together, but it sometimes will drive them apart as well. THAT is what it is referring too.

[Jake Huether]

I was just going to say that...

"dog" in Aramaic (the Language Jesus most likely spoke) in the year 30 AD doesn't have the meaning it does in the English language in the year 2004, especially when directed at a woman.

Indeed that would be uncharacteristic of Christ.

You see, exhibit 1A of how personal interpritation is damaging.

I would definitly consider talking privatly to this priest. And if he doesn't listen to you, then bring a few witnesses. And hif he doesn't listen to them... Well, you know how the rest goes.

I consider this serious stuff. Especially because he is the shepherd of a flock.

[Norseman82]

Whenever someone says that something is uncharacteristic of Christ, I must wonder if they just want to impose their own personal agenda on the gospels....

Now, I'm not saying that there are certain things that Christ said that will cause us to think "What is He talking about?" In those cases there more than likely will be a deeper lesson that Christ is trying to give and it should not be dismissed as simply "Well, Jesus probably never really said that". To me, that's lazy scholarship.