If the words of Jesus trump all other voices, then when the words of Jesus don’t fit our preferred picture of him, one can always object that the words in question were not truly spoken by Jesus, but were invented by the early church. One can do this in cases like the question of whether hell exists (Jesus warns about it more than any other voice in Scripture), or whether Jesus ever named homosexual behavior as a sin (see Hobson, “Aselgeia in Mark 7:22”). Of course, the danger in doing so is that one can just as easily do the same with the parables of the Rich Man and Lazarus, or the Sheep and the Goats. We can say, “The early church made that story up.”
Bultmann made the strongest case in favor of the theory that no distinction was made in the early Christian kerygma between the utterances of Christian prophets ostensibly from the ascended Christ, and sayings of the earthly Jesus. Bultmann points out the apparent lack of interest in the life and words of Jesus shown in Paul and the sermons in the book of Acts, along with the little or no attempt that is made to quote Jesus when his words would be helpful. He also argues that Paul never attempts to distinguish his own words from those of Jesus when he does quote Jesus.
James D. G. Dunn makes the strongest rebuttal to Bultmann in his article “Prophetic ‘I’ Sayings and the Jesus Tradition” (New Testament Studies 24 [1978]: 175-98). Dunn first argues that all Old Testament prophecy comes through a named prophet, “so much so that unless a human recipient was named the writing stood little chance of being accepted as inspired prophecy.” Dunn observes that “the early churches were as suspicious of anonymous prophetic oracles as their Jewish forbears,” and he questions whether there was ever a stage when “‘sayings of Jesus’ were circulated without any concern as to who first gave them utterance”.
Dunn then argues that Paul does distinguish his own word from that of Jesus, the key passage being 1 Corinthians 7 (verses 10, 25, and 40). Dunn also points to Revelation 2 and 3, where words of Jesus are specifically attributed to the exalted Christ, not to the earthly Jesus. He also observes that the Gnostic gospels “felt no need to project sayings of the risen Jesus back into the Jesus-tradition”. If the sayings of the risen Jesus carry equal authority with the words that he spoke on earth, why would anyone bother to project them back into his earthly ministry?
The key issue that Dunn uses to press his case is the evidence that the early church strenuously tested prophetic utterances to weed out false prophecy. Not only is there evidence in the New Testament that this was done (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1), we also find the Didache (95 AD) and the Shepherd of Hermas (early second century AD) calling for prophetic words to be tested (dokimazein).
Like the Qumran community, Jesus uses conduct and character as the criterion for testing false prophets: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matt 7:16). “For Matthew this means primarily disregard for the law: false prophecy and lawlessness…go hand in hand.” Dunn sees Paul using three criteria to evaluate inspired utterances: kerygmatic tradition (1 Cor 12:3), character (1 Cor 13), and edification (1 Cor 14). 1 John likewise employs tests of both kerygmatic tradition (“Jesus Christ has come in the flesh”) and conduct. The Didache condemns as false the prophet who abuses the community’s hospitality. Hermas says the false prophet prophesies on demand, does so for money, is too talkative and greedy for honor, yet confines his activity to circles of followers where he is least likely to be exposed. Dunn sums the early church’s tests for prophecy as the criteria of past revelation, present conduct, and community benefit.
Dunn’s conclusion is that it is unlikely that “any new or strange element” entered the Jesus-tradition in the post-Easter situation. Indeed, no successful attempt was made to create words of Jesus to answer the early church debates about circumcision (at least, not until Gospel of Thomas 53 in the mid-second century).
We who take Reformed ordination vows are not free to make up words of Jesus, nor are we free to discard them. We vow that we affirm the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be “the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the church universal, and God’s word to you.” It does make a difference what Jesus really said and did. We have no right to falsify the story, by addition, subtraction, or revision.
TOM HOBSON of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor for 28 years, is currently serving at First Church in Herrin, Ill and as adjunct professor at Morthland College, West Frankfort, Ill.
