Did Jesus Say Everything Attributed To Him?

[Dave]

I recently heard a priest, in the course of a Bible study, claim that Jesus said most of the stuff attributed to Him in the Bible, but not all. 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.

Is what the priest said heretical, or can Catholics believe stuff like that?

I asked this question once in the Debate Table but never really got a concrete response as to whether it's OK or not.

[Adeodatus]

Dave,

This is a really good question. I'm not sure if there's a straightforward answer, but I'll try to be brief.

Imagine a group of your friends and you went to a party. And then imagine that you all related the events of the night before. Usually there'd be a kind of unity in the whole story. People listening in would be able to recognise that you're all describing the same party.

The 4 gospels reflect this same pattern inasmuch as they are written by four different evangelists. But because they are also inspired Scripture, they are also guided by God. Each one tells the story from his perspective, and each emphasises certain things that are more important to him. So the substance of what is reported in the gospels DO reflect what Jesus said. Think about how you'd describe the party the night before. Would it be a word-for-word account, or would it reflect the substance of what went on? What would you think was the real highlight, and who said what to whom?

This doesn't mean that we should think the evangelists made it up. And into all this mix, we need to remember that Jesus and the evangelists belonged to a culture where memorising long pasages was not extraordinary. And the Holy Spirit was helping them to recall certain things, and put in some things over others etc.

For example, in John you have Jesus speaking in a distinct poetic manner. This doesn't mean John invented it, because you have Jesus lapsing into this manner even in Matthew. There is no reason to suppose that Jesus only used each parable once in His lifetime. Like you and me He may have used and re-used parables (jokes in my case!), and even changed some of the details. Hence the different forms of parables recounted.

On top of all this, there is something we call the ipsissima vox (Jesus's very own voice). For example, the peculiar way Jesus would say 'Amen I say' or 'Amen, amen, I say to you...' are his own particular idioms of speech. There are also examples of the ipsissima verba, His own very words. These are mostly in Aramaic, when Jesus says 'Ephphatha' (be opened), or 'Talitha cumi' (Little girl, get up), or 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani' (My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?).

The particular episode with the Syro-Phoenician woman is, to my mind, really the words of Jesus. For one thing, they are embarrassing. You would expect the early Christians to be embarrassed by this episode (even as we are today) and delete them from the text. But they didn't. Why? Most likely because they knew Jesus had actually said those words! In this case, I reckon our interpretation should look further into the text (and compare it with similar ones in the other gospels). Look at the woman's boldness and jocularity ("yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs falling from the table..."). It seems more likely that she is responding in a jokey way because Jesus delivered His line in a jokey way too! But we can still say that His words reflect the attitude of most Jews of His time, and probably of His apostles too! His seemingly cruel words are therefore like a lesson for His disciples, and not a rebuke to the woman.

I would affirm that all the words of the Gospels are inspired text, and truly reflect---in substance at the very least---what Jesus actually said and taught and did. The Gospel will shock us, from time to time, but we shouldn't water it down. Jesus is not easy to fit into a box so we can say 'He would do this, He wouldn't do that'. The One who forgave sinners also threatened the Pharisees with hell-fire and beat the money-changers in the Temple with a whip made of cord! The Love of God may find unusual (unusual to us) ways to express itself.

[BLAZEr]

I would add here too that Jesus and woman are offering a prophecy.

Jesus came first and foremost for the Jews. Yes, we know that he came for all men, but his immediate mission was to the sons and daughters of Israel. That is why he was a Jew, born of a Jew. That is why he came as a fullfillment of the Old Testament.

In this scene the Syro-Phoenician woman, a non Jew, is begging Christ for a miracle. He speaks very clearly to everyone so that they will know that he came first for the Jews. For the Children of God. The woman begs for the scraps from the table and through it demonstrates a faith that is greater than many of the children. She too knows that he came for her as well, that he will care for her as well, that she will not starve as a dog, but be fed by her master.

In a sense, she becomes a prophet to the Jews, that what they reject the dogs will feast on. That when the Jews reject Christ, the gentiles will readily accept him. This is an abhorrent idea to the Jews because they are the "Chosen ones" and here even the "dogs" are feasting at the table of the Lord.