Literature in the News: Why Read?

There is a fascinating article in Dominicana, which is a student publication of one of the Dominican provinces; actually the one in the Northeast of the US, the St. Joseph Province.  The article should be of interest to we lovers of reading.  The article is called "Why Read?" by Br. Simon Teller, O.P.  You can read it here.

The article addresses the new nature of reading that the internet has created and then reflects on the implications of reading sacred scripture.  Brother Teller first brings up a quote from a Rhodes Scholar that characterizes this new reading culture:  "I don't read books ... I go to Google, and I can absorb relevant information quickly,” as quoted in The Shallows.

First in good Dominican fashion (per St. Thomas Aquinas), Br. Teller provides substance to the opposing argument:

To our Rhodes Scholar's point: power-reading has its advantages. Why waste time reading a book cover-to-cover, when the same information can be found by a few deft Google Books Searches? Does it really matter how we read, as long as we are coming away with the same information?

But to the good Brother of the Order of Preachers it does matter when it comes to reading sacred scripture.  Here he presents the counter argument, which is the thesis of his argument:

TO THE CONTRARY, "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them" (Dei Verbum, 21).

The way we relate to words matters, because God has chosen to reveal himself in writing. In a sense, God is "incarnate" in the words of Scripture.

I'm not going to quote the entire article, but I think Brother Teller's main thrust is this:

But God's revelation of himself through the Scriptures can't be reduced to the mere communication of data. Revelation doesn't just mean that God has told us about himself, but that God is inviting us into a personal relationship with him. When you read the inspired words with faith, you step into an ongoing dialogue. For God speaks to each of us personally through the Scriptures.

I completely agree with Brother Teller.  There is very little argument against his point when it pertains to sacred scripture.  I think we could all agree with that.  But frankly I think that Rhodes Scholar's point is preposterous.  To say one gets the same knowledge from a three page Wikipedia entry that one gets from a three hundred page book is obviously fallacious.  Just consider the context of the subject that isn't developed, the counter-arguments, secondary sources, and so on.  Because I read a Wikipedia entry (and I do rely on them and love them) does not mean I understand the full issue.  I've absorbed nuggets and nuggets without full context are like nuggets that are too small and will wash away through a sieve.  Yes, you may get some information, but it is not knowledge.  If this is what scholarship has evolved to, I'm flabbergasted. 

Kerstin on Goodreads Commented:

I don't think this Rhodes "Scholar" is much of a scholar. It looks like someone who has perfected the way of cutting corners. As you say, data collection doesn't equal knowledge. But this is how in a reductionist and materialist world our young people are taught to think. It is all part of simply consuming what others have written or presented without critically diving into the subject matter yourself. Being stuffed to the brim with only facts makes for a sorry human being when knowledge, wisdom, virtue and morals are missing.

My Reply to Kerstin:

I know. He isn't much of a scholar. I wonder how wide spread that is. I could see myself in college doing it too, but I wouldn't be bragging about it.

After I posted my original comment, I thought of a perfect example. Remember when we did the Divine Comedy last year? Now how could anyone get the same understanding of the work by just reading the Wikipedia entry? Yes, the internet summaries might help to enlighten on something that just didn't sink in, but you would never pass on the actual text and claim you read it and understood it

The Gospel of Luke: Comments and Observations, Part III

This is my final post on this read of Luke’s Gospel.  The previous two posts can be found here and here. 

On this post I turn my attention to chapter ten and break it down in detail.

I think chapter ten in Luke is another remarkable chapter.  It starts off with Christ sending off seventy (or seventy-two in some versions) disciples to preach and convert.  Let's look at His send off in more detail.

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy [-two] others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit. 2 He said to them, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest. 3 Go on your way; behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves. 4 Carry no money bag, no sack, no sandals; and greet no one along the way.

Why is He sending them like lambs to wolves?  Why no money or sack or sandals?  I guess it builds a trust in the Lord.  But why "greet no one along the way?"  That I find puzzling, especially since further down they are to go into houses of people.

5 Into whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this household.' 6 If a peaceful person lives there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay in the same house and eat and drink what is offered to you, for the laborer deserves his payment. Do not move about from one house to another.

Obviously the disciples are very active in this ministry, apparently working as well as preaching.  The word "peace" here carries more than the definition allows.  It carries a spiritual connectation, like a blessing.  [Side note: I love signing off notes with "peace."  It's almost like I'm blessing the person I'm writing to.  But I never thought about that peace returning to me if it doesn't settle on that person.]

And then Jesus comes to what I think is significant:

8 Whatever town you enter and they welcome you, eat what is set before you, 9 cure the sick in it and say to them, 'The kingdom of God is at hand for you.'

So the ministry is to work to help the community, preach, and cure the sick.  This is bringing "The Kingdom of God" here to Earth.  Luke more than any of the other Gospels seems to be concerned with the Kingdom of God on Earth.  Look at all the references: Luke 4:43, Luke 6:20, Luke 9:62, Luke 13:18-19, Luke 13:28, Luke 14:15, Luke 17:21, Luke 18:17, Luke 18:24-25, Luke 19:11, Luke 21:31.  Yes, the kingdom is also in heaven, but 17:20-21 makes clear:

20 Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he said in reply, "The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, 21 and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or, 'There it is.' For behold, the kingdom of God is among you."

Yes, there is a metaphysical element to it, but our work here on Earth is bringing the kingdom of God to fruition.  Now back to chapter ten, Jesus gets perturbed with the unrepentant.

10 Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, 11 'The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.' Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.

The next passage in the chapter (verses 13-16) Jesus continues on the unrepentant motif, but the passage after that the disciples come back with joy.

17 The seventy [-two] returned rejoicing, and said, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name." 18 Jesus said, "I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky. 19 Behold, I have given you the power 'to tread upon serpents' and scorpions and upon the full force of the enemy and nothing will harm you. 20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice because the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice because your names are written in heaven."

Their success is like casting Satan out of heaven.  Their success in bringing the kingdom of heaven to Earth brings them to heaven.  The next passage Jesus rejoices,

21 At that very moment he rejoiced [in] the holy Spirit and said, "I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and Earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.

And further:

23 Turning to the disciples in private he said, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. 24 For I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it."

The disciples have seen the Kingdom by working to bring it to Earth, and they have been blessed for it.  And then Jesus recounts to a lawyer the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which I don't need to quote.  It is a dramatization of what the Kingdom of God should look like on Earth.  It is the neighbor working to help the other, showing mercy to all.  And Jesus concludes that with "Go and do likewise."  Go and do likewise is a commandment to actively create the kingdom of God here on Earth.  This Protestant notion of "by faith alone" is nowhere substantiated in the Gospels.

And then Luke completely blows me away by concluding chapter ten with Jesus' visit to Mary and Martha, the famous dichotomy between the active and contemplative life.  Notice that Jesus enters a house just like he had his disciples enter at the beginning of the chapter.  Martha is caught up with serving the guests and complains that Mary is a slacker because she just sits listening to Jesus.  And Jesus seems to be rebuking Martha while upholding Mary.  So after this entire chapter of raising the active work of bringing the Kingdom to Earth, does Luke undermine his own argument with the opposite theme? 

Meister Eckhart, the great German, Dominican mystic, had a different take on this scene.  Remember Dominicans have the calling to be both active and contemplative, breathing with two lungs.  Eckhart believed that Jesus wasn't so much praising Mary, but acknowledging her limitations.  This was the best that Mary could do.  But Martha has the ability to do both.  Eckhart's reading seems like a bit of a stretch, and it's not one you will typically get in a homily.  But look carefully.  Christ is not rebuking Martha for being active.  He is rebuking her for being anxious and upset.  Martha is not at peace.  She doesn't have the "peace" that is mentioned earlier in the chapter, that the disciples are supposed to cast on those they minister. 

I don’t know if I’d make a good theologian—I only play one on the internet—but I think this was one of my better readings.  Feel free to disagree.  :)

The Gospel of Luke: Comments and Observations, Part II

Last week I posted my first entry on the Gospel of Luke.  You can find it here.  Allow me to continue.  Susan commented that many of the historians date the three Gospels after 70 AD, after the destruction of the temple.  But that has not always been the understanding, and Susan mentions how theologian Brad Pitre thinks otherwise.  I agreed with her and Pitre.

Manny Comment:

I completely agree Susan. The whole argument of the Gospels being written as late as recent scholars claim is solely based on the belief that they had to have been written after the temple's destruction. (1) Of course if Christ is God He could predict it. I can understand secular scholars relying on that argument, but you get the same nonsense from believing Catholic scholars. They have all bought into that argument. Before recent times, the Catholic Church did not support this argument, as I posted during the Gospel of Mark discussion last year. Thank God for a new generation of scholars like Pitre challenging the conventional wisdom. I think in time, sanity will prevail. (2) If you look at the actual Gospel readings, Jesus isn't even specific in what is being destroyed. He's talking about a general destruction of Jerusalem, an apocalyptic vision. Here are the passages side by side.  

Yes, the Temple is included in the destruction but frankly he's talking almost about an end of times scenario, or perhaps more of an end of the current status quo. If this was written in hindsight as a prophecy, the Gospel writers would have had him be way more specific.

⁑

Manny Comment:

I could highlight so many things in these first eight chapters. But they are probably things you might get from a homily at Mass. Here's something interesting that caught my eye for the first time. In chapter seven, Jesus is speaking about John the Baptist.

24 When the messengers of John had left, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John. "What did you go out to the desert to see-a reed swayed by the wind?

25 Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine garments? Those who dress luxuriously and live sumptuously are found in royal palaces.

26 Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.

27 This is the one about whom scripture says: 'Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, he will prepare your way before you.'

28 I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

29 l (All the people who listened, including the tax collectors, and who were baptized with the baptism of John, acknowledged the righteousness of God;

30 but the Pharisees and scholars of the law, who were not baptized by him, rejected the plan of God for themselves.)

31 "Then to what shall I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?

32 They are like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another, 'We played the flute for you, but you did not dance. We sang a dirge, but you did not weep.'

33 For John the Baptist came neither eating food nor drinking wine, and you said, 'He is possessed by a demon.'

34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you said, 'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'

35 But wisdom is vindicated by all her children."

It's interesting that John the Baptist doesn't eat bread nor drink wine, while Jesus does. Some Christian denominations make the claim you're not supposed to drink alcohol, and if you went strictly by John the Baptist, I could understand. But Jesus does eat and drink. Of course bread and wine become extremely important as Christ transforms them into His body and blood. But why does John refrain from them all? I don't have a good answer, other than to say that in preparation for Christ, John represents the strict asceticism as a preparation to holiness.

One other thing, I really like how Christ ends it with saying, "But wisdom is vindicated by all her children." Meaning that wisdom requires asceticism and enjoyment as a achieving the fullness of life. There is a time and place for both.

⁑

Manny Comment:

It's quite amazing how many scenes are in each of Luke's chapters.  Chapter Nine contains (1) Sending the Apostles out to preach and heal, (2) Herod being perplexed about Jesus, (3) the feeding of the five thousand, (4) Peter declaring that Jesus is the Christ, (5) Jesus stating that to follow Him requires denying oneself, (6) the Transfiguration scene, (7) Jesus heals a boy with a demon, (8) Jesus predicts His death, (9) Jesus resolves who is great, (10) Jesus rebukes John for forbidding a man for casting out demons in Jesus' name, (11) a Samaritan village rejects Jesus, (12) Jesus rebukes several men who make excuses about following Him.  A montage of twelve scenes in one chapter, and this is typical of the other chapters.  I put forth this again: does this not appear to be a collation of scenes that were individually documented and dispersed among the Christian communities?  No one puts narrative together in this way from his own understanding of a story, especially not a skilled writer such as Luke.

The transfiguration scene is worth looking at.  Luke's version is probably the most cursory of the three but Luke too chooses to repeat a key bit of language.

34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him."

Now turn back to the Annunciation scene (Chapter 1) and let me repeat this:

35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

"A cloud appeared and covered them" and "The power of the Most High will overshadow you."  Cloud covering and overshadowing are nearly the same thing.  I put to you Mary is undergoing her own transfiguration.  Now where does this notion of shadow and cloud covering come from?  Turn to Exodus Chapter 40.  In this chapter the Lord instructs Moses to create a tabernacle.  Once Moses follows the instructions, God enters the tabernacle.

34 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

35Moses could not enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

36 Whenever the cloud rose from the tabernacle, the Israelites would set out on their journey.

37 But if the cloud did not lift, they would not go forward; only when it lifted did they go forward.

38 The cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire in the cloud at night, in the sight of the whole house of Israel in all the stages of their journey.

Remember, the tabernacle is the Holiest of Holies.  Only the holiest priest could enter and under the pain of death if he did not maintain his holiness.  Mary is overshadowed just like at the tabernacle because the Blessed Mother is the new tabernacle, the holiest of holies, which will house Christ.  Is there a distinction between cloud and shadow?  Yes, the cloud causes the shadow.  The cloud is associated with God, and it has cast its shadow over the Blessed Virgin.

The Gospel of Luke: Comments and Observations, Part I

Last year the Catholic Thought Book Club read the Gospel of Mark.  It was the liturgical year B, so we thought it would help with the year’s Gospel readings if we read the entire Gospel in one stretch.  And it was great and learned a lot and I posted three times in this blog from my part of the discussion.  There is something to be said for reading entire chapters rather than listening to short segments.

This year we decided to read the Gospel of Luke, since we are in liturgical year C.  I’m going to post what I said here as well.  Let’s start with the very first chapter.

⁑

Manny Comment:

I am so fascinated by the introduction.  It's one sentence stretched to four verses. 

(1) Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, (2) just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, (3) I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, (4) so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

Let's parse this, because unless you read closely a lot will fly right by.  What does he mean "many have undertaken"?  How many?  There are three other Gospels and as far as I know everyone agrees that John's was the last to be written.  So there are at least two, Mark and Matthew, and we disputed which came first when we discussed Mark.  Setting that aside, I think most agree that Mark and Matthew came before Luke.  All the non-canonical Gospels I believe are all dated into at least the second century with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, but most also think that's a second century document.  There are speculations of "proto-Gospels," but how many?  Many in Luke's sentence to me implies a dozen perhaps, or certainly more than half a dozen.

In the discussion last year on Mark's Gospel I suggested there weren't many full Gospels but fragments of stories about Jesus and the events of His life all across the Roman Empire, perhaps hundreds of fragments.  Notice what Luke further says: "I too have decided...to write it down in an orderly sequence for you."  Putting it into an orderly sequence implies that the stories floated around haphazardly, uncoordinated.  If Luke was basing the gist of his work on Mark's Gospel, would he have considered Mark's Gospel not "orderly"?  I maintain that the Gospel writers did not copy off each other but collated all the different fragments that were handed about.  Sorry if I'm being controversial again.

Another interesting thing in that introduction is that Luke is writing for the "most excellent, Theophilus."  Was Theophilus a real person or was Luke just employing a rhetorical device?  Here I'm torn because there's logic to both arguments.  It would seem unlikely that someone would write twenty-four chapters on scrolls just to convince a single person.  But if that single person was a benefactor paying someone to write it, then that's more likely.  And if the intention of writing for the benefactor has the possibility that the written work will be open to the community at large, then the writer has a real motivation for a detailed work of considerable length and craft.  And that's essentially where I fall, though not as strongly as I tend to be on controversial topics.  ;) 

Wikipedia has an interesting entry under "Theophilus (biblical)."  It goes through the possibility that it's a generic title or a specific person.  It lists three possibilities for that person: St. Paul's lawyer in Rome, A Jewish priest, Theophilus ben Ananus, in Jerusalem, and Roman convert, Titus Flavius Sabinus.  It seems unlikely to me that a high priest of the Temple would be receiving this and distributing it around, but who knows.  I think it would also support that the Gospels were written before the Temple collapse as the Catholic Church historically holds, and which I hold. 

Another observation I can make from that first sentence is how balanced and syntactically complex it is.  I don't read the original Greek, but if it's a good translation then it reflects a skilled writer.  The stylistic textures of all the books in the Bible is something that gets glossed over.  That's one of the reason I don't like the Kings James Version.  It's one harmonious style throughout and yet there are many authors, each with their own style.  That initial sentence by Luke reveals to me a writer of considerable skill, someone who has written extensively beforehand.  This is not his first attempt at writing.  So if he's written beforehand, what did he write?  Unfortunately whatever it may have been, it's been lost to history.

⁑

The Magnificat

Manny Comment:

The Gospel of Luke has the fullest delineation of the Nativity events, and unlike Matthew's version, it's more centered from the perspective of the Blessed Mother. I find her acceptance of God's request to be so moving. Remember, as an unwed mother or even just an unwed pregnant girl, she faces potential stoning to death, and yet when God asks, she accepts.

31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,

33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

34 But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"

35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

And then possibly the greatest words ever uttered by a creature, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word."

I get so moved every time I read that. And I also get moved by the Beatles' song, "Let it Be," and yes despite what Paul says it most definitely is about Blessed Mary.

I also get moved further down in chapter 1 when Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth. When Elizabeth blesses Mary for acceptance of her divine impregnation, I just love Mary's response, what has been called The Canticle of Mary, or The Magnificat:

46 "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;

47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior.

48 For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.

49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him.

51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.b

52 He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly.

53 The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty.

54 He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy,

55 according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

Those that pray the Evening Prayer of the Divine Office pray that every night. If you don't, I recommend you keep it in your list of prayers, and pray it every so often. It is an honor to the blessed mother. Notice also in line 48, that from now on they will call her "blessed." I try to always refer to her as "blessed" in whatever title or name I choose for her. The Bible tells us so! 

The Gospel of Mark: Comments and Observations, Part III

This is a continuation of my comments and observations on the Gospel of Mark in a discussion at the Goodreads book club, Catholic Thought. 

Part I can be found here.  

Part II can be found here. 

Part I focused on the primacy of Mark’s or Matthew’s Gsopels.  Part II focused on modern scholarship and the dating of the Gospels.  Part III takes up all the other comments and observations.

⁑ On the Importance of the Sea in Mark ⁑

I found chapter 4 particularly striking for a few reasons.

First, I love it that Jesus climbs into a boat and preaches. Matthew has the sermon on the mount off a hill or mountainside, and Luke has him preach on the plains, I think. But Mark has Him preach off a boat! Herman Melville in Moby Dick has a famous sermon in a church with the pulpit shaped in the shape of a ship's bow. I think Melville is alluding to this scene in chapter 4.

It seems that Mark has Jesus by the sea more than the other Gospels. But that's an impression on my part. I haven't compared.

The other ting that strikes me about chapter 4 is that so much of the chapter is dedicated to the related sower and mustard seed parables. If you look at most of Mark's chapters, at least the early ones, they have about four or five short scenes, one leading to the next, sometimes in an unconnected fashion. (That's why I get the feeling that Mark is summarizing Matthew or something else in those short scenes.) Except for the calming of the sea at the end of the chapter, this is a very unified and focused chapter. And even the calming of the sea brings the chapter back to the beginning where Jesus is on a boat by the sea.

⁑ On Chapter 5 in Mark ⁑

I love chapter five. I think that is Mark at his best constructing a chapter. First you have the demoniac scene, led to Jairus coming to Jesus to save his sick daughter, and while on the way to the sick daughter, the woman with the continuous hemorrhage gets healed, which during the delay, the death of the Jairus’ daughter is announced, upon which Jesus goes to her and raises her from the dead.

That Gerasene Demonic scene has loaded and, in some cases, strange language. In line 2 the demon is referred to as “an unclean spirit,” singular but later we find out it multiple demons, maybe two thousand if there is at least one spirit to a swine. Isn’t it strange that when the spirit sees Jesus, he runs over and worships him (line 6)? Why would an unclean spirit worship Jesus? And the spirit in the next line cries out “What have you to do with me…” “Me” again being singular, but then we find out it’s not a single spirit but many. A Roman legion by the way consisted of anywhere from three to five thousand men. Isn’t it interesting that the two thousand spirits that went into the swine drowned? Spirits are not immortal? They can die? Also it’s fitting that unclean spirits enter swine, which would be unclean animals in Judaism.

Again the sea plays a role here in Mark that I don’t think plays in the other Gospels. Line 17 is another line that baffles me. After Jesus has cured the demoniac and killed the spirits, why do the townspeople “beg Jesus to depart from their neighborhood”? So Jesus gets into His boat and sails off to another harbor on the sea coast. That’s where He meets Jairus. Interesting that Jairus is one of the rulers of the synagogue. Jesus seems to be at odds with most of the Jewish rulers, but here Jairus begs him to cure his daughter.

The continuous hemorrhage on the woman is usually considered a non-stop menstrual problem, which like the spirits in the demoniac would make her unclean per the Jewish laws. There is a bathing ritual which Jewish women are supposed to go through after a menstrual cycle to become clean, but this woman has a continuous hemorrhage, which means she can never become clean. Her healing is along the lines of the demoniac who has been cleared of the uncleanliness.

It’s interesting also that young girl he raises from the dead is twelve, which probably makes her pre-menstrual but close in age to her first menstruation. And her being raised from the dead is the opposite of the unclean spirits and swine that go to their deaths.

Despite the questions I can’t answer, I find that a remarkable chapter.

⁑ On Chapter 10 in Mark ⁑

I love this little scene that Mark has in that 10th chapter:

13And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

14When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

15Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child* will not enter it.”

16Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.

That last sentence is so absolutely wonderful: "Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them." It's such a short scene and it has such minimal theological value, and no narrative value, but it's a wonderful little portrait of Jesus the man. Someone who knows ancient literature correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall ever children being expressively loved that way, even in the Old Testament.

Also Jesus rebukes the disciples. How many times has He done that in this Gospel? Jesus seems to always be rebuking in Mark, just like He rebuked the storm in chapter five. I wonder if Mark uses the word "rebuke" more often. Does anyone have access to one of those Bible word frequency software?

⁑ On the Mention of Children in Mark ⁑

There’s one particular passage in Chapter 9 that has special meaning for me. First let me post it, Mark 9:36-37.

36Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them,37“Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the One who sent me.

As some who have been in this book club a while may remember, I’ve mentioned that my wife and I adopted a child, our only child. I can’t remember exactly if that passage was read during Mass just before we went off to Kazakhstan to meet the child or in between trips after we had met the child that would be ours (we had to travel out twice) but sometime before Matthew officially became our child that was a Gospel reading. Funny how the Holy Spirit connects you to things. It has always stuck with me that taking in a child was in effect taking in Christ, and coming with the responsibility that goes with it. In many ways I see Christ in my child.

Also, I didn’t quote the entire passage, but let me now add the preceding lines.

33They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to ask them, “What were you arguing about on the way?” 34But they remained silent. They had been discussing among themselves on the way who was the greatest.35Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.

Later in chapter ten as mentioned above, Jesus says that “whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” So to enter heaven you have to be like a child, and to be first in heaven you have to accept children or you will be a servant in heaven. Well, as a parent, one does serve one’s child, and can be looked at as a “suffering servant.” So through care of your children is a means of salvation.

It also struck me that perhaps Mark makes use of children more so than the other Gospels. He recounts Jesus raising Tabitha and curing of demons more than one child. I don’t know if a concordance can add up the various children references. But it would be interesting to compare the uses of children between the Gospels.

The Gospel of Mark: Comments and Observations, Part II

This is a continuation of my comments and observations on the Gospel of Mark in a discussion at the Goodreads book club, Catholic Thought.  Part I can be found here.  

Part I focused on the primacy of Mark’s or Matthew’s Gsopels.  Part II focuses on modern scholarship and the dating of the Gospels.

⁑

Irene wrote: "Many of them are Catholic scholars who are very faith filled, even priests and bishops. Let's not denigrate these modern scholars by calling their faith into question. WE need to keep this conversation..."

Manny:

I'm not against anyone, believer or not, putting their opinions into the mix. But it can make a substantial difference in the way they read the texts. It comes down to the assumptions. A believer comes with different assumptions to the Gospels that a non-believer does.

Here's an example that happened to me while I was discussing that Canaanite Woman scene with someone who's forum nickname (this was not on Goodreads) is Manichean. I don't know if he's a believer or not, but the Manicheans were heretics, so we know his sympathies are not traditional. His claim was that Christ after calling the woman a dog and seeing her faith learned not to be prejudiced. Let me repeat that: Christ learned not to be a racist.

If you do not assume that Christ is God and all-knowing and sinless, then Manichean's reading is perfectly logical. Manichean's assumption is that Jesus is an ordinary man. But because we know that Christ knows how the woman will react and knows her heart and that Christ a priori cannot sin, then his reading is actually ludicrous.

Now if you believe that Matthew took from the Mark initial Gospel writing, then how did he rewrite the stories with additional information? He either had different information or he lied. Can a Gospel writer lie? A non-believer would say that is open to that assumption, and therefore he might see Mark as the first Gospel. A believer would say that for Matthew to lie is impossible because he is being guided by the Holy Spirit.

My point is assumptions are different for a believer and non-believer and they can radically shape the reading.

By the way, I still maintain that none of the synoptic Gospel writers were aware of each other's texts and that overlapping scenes are from scraps of texts that floated around from which they happen come across if they had the story and didn't if they didn't come across. Now I'm no scholar and I've never heard anyone put out this theory, so take it with a grain of salt.

⁑

Yikes, there's a ton to respond to and I probably won't get to it all. Let me address this that Irene stated:

"What I was reacting to was the claim that most who believe that Mark is the first Gospel to be written were secular scholars, those outside the faith."

I don't think I said that and if I implied it, it was not my intention. I fully acknowledge that Mark having primacy is the consensus opinion among scholars today, both within Catholicism and without. I admit, I am arguing counter to the conventional opinion.

To Francis: Yes, apparently Bishop Barron supports the consensus opinion.

To Susan: Thank you for pointing out no one was being disrespectful. I don't see my comments or anyone else’s as disrespectful.

To Kerstin: I agree, the Synoptic problem will never be fully answered. There are holes in all the established theories, including the one I've been pointing out.

With that I want to remind everyone of Joseph's comment, #45. Joseph is a seminary student in college right now. Here's his entire quote:

"I'm just going to jump in that this is hotly debated among professional scripture scholars. There are representatives of both schools at the seminary where I study and we won't know for sure which theory is right until we can ask the Evangelists themselves "So which of you wrote first?"

That is to say that while Mark may be the consensus opinion, it is not absolute. Frankly consensus opinions about ancient texts, not just Christian texts, have the half-life of an gnat's lifespan. Mark may be the consensus now, but in fifty years it's quite possible, if not probable, the "scholars" will move on to another opinion, maybe even go back to the opinion the Catholic Church had for almost two thousand years.

I did a search for those who support Matthew as primacy and found Taylor Marshall does:

I don't know who Christopher Fischer is, but he goes through the history as to why the Catholic Church chose Matthew as first and why he believes it is the first. It's a great read, here:

Let me just conclude, the reason the Catholic Church has long held that Matthew was first was because several of the Church Fathers claimed it, and they further claim that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and was later translated to Greek. Rhetorically it just seems to me that Mark is condensing Matthew, not Matthew elaborating on Mark.

⁑

Irene in her last comment above brought out the issue of dating the Gospels. Modern scholars have dated all the Gospels to be post destruction of the Temple which occurred in 70 AD. As far as I can see the sole reason is that Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple, and so the modernist assumption is that the Gospel writers had to wait until the destruction of the Temple in order to write in a prediction. Again this goes back to the assumptions. If Christ is truly God, then He should have been able to predict the future coming of the Temple's destruction.

In my research over this, I found the Catholic Church traditionally maintained that Matthew was written somewhere between 40-45 AD, not post Temple destruction, and that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (I had never known this, and my next reading of Matthew in its entirety I'm going to look for echoes that have been pointed out) and that Mark followed Matthew, which completely jives with the rhetorical constructions I'm seeing in Mark during this current read. Catholic Answers has a great layout of the traditional Catholic understanding of when and how the Gospels were written. It really behooves a close reading of it, here:

I think everyone should ask themselves this: If you support the dating of the Gospels to post Temple destruction, why are you doing so? If you are accepting the reason that the Gospel writers could not have known of the Temple's destruction until it happened, then you are unconsciously supporting the secularization of Jesus Christ.

⁑

Thanks Irene. I'll have to look into those language and cultural nuances that could effect dating. Dating by the Temple destruction is certainly not nuanced and so it’s a vivid mile marker, but perhaps there are more subtle methods that have gone on. I guess I've been scarred by post-modernist scholars when it comes to literature. I have a masters in English Literature and my engaging with professors and articles during school was definitely forming. The scholarship across the university system is so biased against western tradition and religion I learned that once you probe their assumptions, most of their arguments start falling apart. This is especially true with the post-modernist critics who have it as a mission to deconstruct - and by implication destroy established western norms and traditions, whether by intent or by following "the consensus." I've learned that consensus in scholarship means little to me.

As to theology, I've found this fantastic article on Crux, a Catholic online magazine, about how a current crop Catholic theologians - Scott Hahn, Brad Pitre, others - who are now "correcting" (I would have used the word, revising) the modernist scholars of this century. Like I said, "consensus" in ancient texts has a half-life of a gnat's life. Definitely another excellent read:

By the way, Brad Pitre is excellent. I read his Jewish Roots of the Eucharist and it's a wonderful read. Highly recommend it. Also, his new book "The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ" is on sale at Kindle for $1.99. I just bought it yesterday. It got a great write-up somewhere. I don't know how long it will stay at that price. Here:

Here's the concluding paragraph in the Crux article:

"Put simply, the skepticism of Bultmann, Borg, Crossan and Ehrman is out of date. New discoveries have pushed scholarship beyond their fanciful theories and dubious conclusions. The new wave of New Testament scholars readily accept the positive findings of a century’s worth of research, but in the spirit of true scholarship, they have also learned how to be critical of the critics."

So just because I'm in a minority voice, don't think that what I'm arguing is far afield. It's just not with the consensus.

⁑

Let me counter with two points. (1) The Catholic Church has always considered both Matthew to be first and Mark to have learned at the feet of Peter. There is nothing mutually exclusive about that. (2) We have all been formed by the modern scholar's timeline of the Gospel's all being post fall of the Temple. As far as I know the only reason for that is that Jesus predicts the fall of the Temple, and so the Gospels have to be after that. Well that's bogus if Christ is God because obviously God can know the future. (Irene above has argued it is more than just the fall of the Temple dating, but until I read that and am convinced, I'm sticking to the modern scholar's lack of faith in Christ.) Historically the Catholic Church argued that Matthew was written in in the early 40's, which would leave a good 25 years for Mark to then work with Peter to write his Gospel.