Easter gospels


At Easter we hear the stories of angelic visitors, empty tombs, Jesus walking through walls. All of these are metaphors, not to be read as history.They are as the great scholar Dominic Crossan says,”prophecy historicized.’

Stories carry ultimate  truths but you have  to go deep to hear  them. You must know what a gospel is, what literary form you are dealing with. A gospel is not like a  traffic report—time, date etc.They are powerful faith statements, a blend of history, symbol and myth. The ancient writers well knew what they were doing. It is modernists who are tethered mechanical fundamentalism devoid of poetry and imagination.

And this Sunday we heard the ne plus ultra, the classic “Doubting Thomas” story of John’s gospel. We all know the fantastic details—Jesus suddenly appears having walked through walls with his word “Peace”. He is so real that Thomas puts his hands in his crucified side. It is a marvelous story, the major point being (70 years after!) “blessed are  those who have not seen yet believe.” In brief this is a gospel story and it will serve to point out what a lousy job the institutional church has done to unpack the nature of scripture.I mean this is 50 years after the Pontifical Biblical Commission accepted the  results of form criticism pioneered of course by the great Protestant exegetes beginning at the turn of the 20th century and proceeding through Bultmann and Dibelius in the 20s. It literally took 40 years for RCs to catch up and little was dome at the local level to rectify this huge gap.Catholics were simple catechism people. My generation was forbidden even to read the Bible or to study theology without a pastor’s permission.


To repeat, these are gospel stories! They are not history!

When I began teaching this 40 years ago, people were in shock and they still are today because a patronizing church  has  had such a poor adult education history that it left parishioners still in the dark as to the nature of a gospel. What have we been doing for 50 years ?I t is nothing less than scandalous. Cranking out Catholic fundamentalists? No, not really but assiduously avoiding real teaching .One can almost make a case for keeping people biblically illiterate.

The resurrection stories—all of them as Crossan says  are simply “prophecy historicized”, tales made real, tales told in dramatic form to convince people that Jesus indeed had risen. They are written by believers for believers. No Roman ever sees Jesus.As a matter of fact neither do the early Jewish Christians who followed him. He never recovered from his horrible death. His bones still lie in Palestine. In all the Easter stories, the followers saw “the Lord”, that is the resurrected Christ.They experienced him as alive, among them as a enabling power. St Paul went out of his way as the first real “evangelist” in the 50s to explain that the resurrected body is not a corpse come back to life (see 1.Cor 15 ff.)In the Thomas story  Jn 20:26 Jesus  does not need to walk through walls —he’s already present in the community!

Remember this key point.  it is always “the Lord” who is seen, the one who was raised into a new life. All these great stories are symbols of the deep reality these people experienced.The proof of the resurrection is the rise of the early Church. Jesus was experienced as “alive”—then came the stories.This unexpressible reality( and we’ll never know what it was) needed structure, a concrete pictorial form—and boy have we got them! John’s dramatization of this reality is a little more fantastic than say Luke’s Emmaus.He is the last  gospel writer and this is exaggeration is expected. Tales always grow but the reality is simple—He is risen.The hopes of the apocalyptics of the Hebrew scripture of God’s intervention have come true..

Sadly in Catholic churches—and not only here—the stories are still taken for history. Wrong! The faith experience came  first—then the wonderful stories.



  1. 1

    Oh, brother! This is such outdated theology. You obviously stopped studying. What you needed to do back in the 70s was to study logic. You also needed to study the history of philosophy, paying special attention to Descartes, how this led to Hume, then to Kant, and how Kant led to Hegel, and how Hegel influenced German philosophical theology (sacred theology was reduced to philosophical theology, as a result of Hegelian logic). The problem with this philosophical theology was with Hegel, but you wouldn’t be able to see that without a careful study of the history of philosophy. It all began when Descartes confused logical being with real being. That spread to Kant, and to Hegel. What you have with German protestant theology influenced by Hegel is, to put it simply, a basic logical fallacy involving a hypothetical syllogism. An invalid form is “affirming the consequent”. This invalid form is what a hypothesis is about. We see the effect, we posit a hypothesis (i.e., c: cancer, hyp: high fat). The form is “affirming the consequent”, which is invalid, which is why science needs to test the hypothesis. It is only a probability, not a certainty. The wonderful thing about the scientific method is that it requires testing in order to move it from the level of a probability to a necessity. Form criticism is a very useful tool, but it involves “affirming the consequent”. It is hypothetical, only probable. It needs to be tested, but it cannot be tested. That’s the weakness of history. It is not a science. You can’t say the gospels are not history. Of course they are history, but they are history as seen through the eyes of faith. Their concern is not history as such, but a history as interpreted. It is “theology”. But you cannot conclude that this is not history. That’s just bad logic. Did Luke’s version of the Beatitudes correspond to what Jesus actually said? Probably not. But we don’t know for certain. History is already replete with uncertainty. It involves a lot of inferencing. But history as interpreted through the eyes of faith involves an entirely different hermeneutics, and so what happened in history is less important. It is “salvation history”. What is being asserted is not history, but a theological point, which is not always easy to determine. But to stand in front of a bunch of high school kids and tell them that the gospels are not history is poor logic, it is an oversimplification, and it is scandalous, thus profoundly imprudent. It probably made you feel so superior, so intellectual, so scholarly. But by the time you were teaching this, some of the most brilliant philosophers were showing what was wrong with this Hegelian inspired theology. You missed it, because like most Catholic teachers in the Catholic high schools, you were lazy and anti-intellectual. I mean, just consider the quality of these posts. They’re terrible. They are so nonchalant, they are so full of ideological presuppositions that you have not subjected to critical scrutiny. But it’s too late now. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, or as Jesus said, you can’t pour new wine into old wine skins. Later, FF. Hillard

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: