The Gospel of Mark: Comments and Observations, Part I

Back in October our Catholic Thought book club at Goodreads read the entire Gospel of Mark as a short read.  Short reads are defined as one to three week reads in between regular reads while we nominate, vote, and acquire our next book.  Kerstin, my co-moderator, picked the Gospel of Mark since we are heading into the “B” liturgical year where the Gospel of Mark is the primary source of the Gospel readings.  She thought it would be helpful to have read it in one stretch as a precursor.  I think her idea was brilliant.

One gets a different perspective reading the Gospel in one breath rather than the fragmentary excerpts one gets from Mass.  Both have their places, and this certainly wasn’t the first time I have read the Gospel comprehensively.  The fragmentary allows for deeper insight into a moment, sort of like in lectio divina.  Reading the entire Gospel at a stretch allows more for the reader to grasp the author’s intent.  For instance, we see in the curing of the paralytic at the beginning of Mark’s chapter 2.  We pay attention to the details of the scene, for instance the opening of the roof to lower the paralytic down, a very strange detail.  In the fragmentary reading we can focus on the detail, since the reading is only ten lines, and we can draw different conclusions from it.  Reading the Gospel through, one focuses on the bigger picture.  The bigger picture for all four Gospels is arriving at the conclusion of who was this man Jesus Christ, and that conclusion is that He was the Messiah prophesied, and the nature of that Messiah is that He is the divine son of God.  So there is a place for both fragmentary and comprehensive readings of the Gospels.

I’m providing my comments to the discussion, which will take up three posts, but in some cases I will include another person comments if my comment is in reply.  The total number of comments ran to 122, which was quite a conversation for a two week read.  We don’t always get that many for a six week read of a long work.  But the conversation got testy.  I brought up the notion that I no longer accepted the current scholarly notion that Mark is the first Gospel, and that proved controversial and drove a good part of the conversation.  But you can read the entire conversation here.  By the way, I hope this entices you to join our book club.  It costs nothing and members usually pick and choose which reads they participate in.

I’m dividing these posts in to three, organized with the first regarding the primacy of Matthew’s Gospel, the second regarding the dating of the Gospels, which resulted as part of which Gospel came first, and the third on all the other comments and observations I made.  So these are not necessarily in chronological order.  I also cleaned up some of the grammar in places and I put spacers between shifts in conversation.  So here is Part 1. 

⁑

The Catholic Church has historically believed that Matthew's Gospel was the first of the Gospels written - and so it's listed first - and the Gospel of Mark followed, but somewhere in 20th century I think scholars have been convinced that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and some other now lost texts as a basis for their Gospels.

It’s a little surprising that the NAB right up front endorses the scholar’s position. I don’t think the Catholic Church has officially endorsed it, though I have heard Bishops and priests endorse it as well in offhand comments. It’s kind of become a universal position.

I have to admit I was convinced too. Many years ago in college I studied the nature of folklore and how folkloric texts evolve. Now the texts are not folkloric – they are not oral, they are written, but you can think each Gospel as a snapshot of the oral transmission. Folklore, by the way, doesn’t mean the stories aren’t true. They can be true or fiction. It deals with the transmission of orally derived stories.

Now I put I was convinced in past tense, but as I’m reading the Gospel of Mark now it strikes me differently. Part of the reason why scholars think Mark is first is because Mark consolidates the events where as Matthew and Luke seem to expand on them. For instance, there is no birth story in Mark. If Mark followed Matthew, then why wouldn’t he include a birth story? The thought here is that folklore tends to expands. But folklore doesn’t always expand. Many times folklore contracts and siphons off material. If Mark were solely focused on getting to the nature of Jesus, then I could see him not including the nativity. He starts the Gospel with the initiation of Jesus’ ministry at the Baptism. Look at that first chapter. Mark starts with John the Baptist preaching, then Jesus comes to John and gets baptized, then Jesus is goes into the desert for His temptations, then Jesus starts His ministry in Galilee after John is arrested, then Jesus attracts disciples, performs a number of cures, and then moves out to the neighboring towns. That’s a lot of scenes for one chapter. Each scene is only a handful of lines. Mark is a minimalist. Surely he could have elaborated on each of the scenes. My point is that Mark appears to me to pare down, and if so then the rationale that he must precede Matthew falls apart.

I'm beginning to think the Catholic Church was correct putting Matthew ahead.

⁑

Irene:

My study of biblical exegesis, especially redaction criticism, has convinced me that the Gospel of Mark is most likely the first to be written down, sometime between 67 and 70 AD. That is what most contemporary Catholic and mainline Protestant biblical scholars think.

Manny:

Yes, I know that's what most scholars think and I did too. I said that. But I'm getting a different intuition on it this reading. Like I said in my comment above, the ordering seems to depend on whether you see Matthew as an expansion of Mark or Mark as a condensation of Matthew, or if not Matthew some other text or oral history. Yes, that would be redaction criticism. Who is redacted who? For me right now in this reading it feels like Mark is summarizing and reducing. It feels like a Hemingway-esk intentional underwriting, and so Mark is quite possible reducing to mere essentials the larger story.

Kerstin:

I am on the fence regarding the validity of Q (Q = Quelle, German word for source). Is there enough evidence for lost manuscripts or is it a cop-out? So far every time I've encountered it I haven't been fully persuaded.

Manny:

Yes, if he were basing it on Matthew. He could be basing it elsewhere. There's no proof that Q ever existed. Personally I think what people consider the proto Gospels were randomly written texts - and note the plural there - the equivalent of scraps of paper today where parts were on one and not the other. My intuition tells me there wasn't one "Q" but something like a dozen parts of a "Q" and the different evangelists had different parts. There was no formal scribing system then. Each partial "Q" was taken from a different oral statement and passed around. I don't know if Q was ever a synthesized text. If it were it would have been treasured and preserved…. And Church history has Mark second. It's actually amazing how often the Church turns up right on historical disputes. They preserved the history quite well. They may be wrong on this one but there are reasons why they may be right.

Irene:

"There is too much consistency between the "Q" material between Luke and Matthew for it to be coincidence in my humble opinion. The material Matthew and Luke have in common (which Mark does not have) is so similar that oral tradition alone does not seem to account for it. "

Manny:

Oh I didn't say there wasn't proto material available. What i said was it was in numerous texts rather than a unified single text. That would explain why there is material in Matthew and not in Luke and vice versa. The scholars also claim there are "M' source for Matthew and an "L" source for Luke. What I'm saying is that there weren't such comprehensive texts but maybe a dozen fragments (scraps of texts) which Matthew had some, Luke had some and Mark had some, and that some overlapped and some didn't. That would explain why some texts are in one of the three, others in two of the three, and still others in all three. It would also explain why the Church believed Mark came after Matthew.

Irene:

"But there are other reasons that I would find it easier to date Mark before Matthew, not just source criticism work. For example, Matthew has a far more developed ecclesiology than Mark. It implies greater time between Pentecost and its writing elapsed allowing for more church structure to develop. "

Manny:

Unless Mark wasn't interested in it. He apparently wasn't interested in a nativity scene. Certainly if even he wrote his Gospel in 67 AD, the nativity of Christ was known by then. The scholars presuppose that Mark wrote everything he knew or found in the proto texts. As I'm reading I'm sensing he is very deliberate and curt. He's a minimalist.

I admit, my opinion is not the prevailing opinion of the day. I'm using my understanding writing and rhetoric to arrive at an intuitive position.

⁑

I hate to beat a dead horse, but now that I’ve read the seventh and eighth chapters in Mark, I want to present what I think is the strongest evidence for the primacy of Matthew’s Gospel over Mark. Both Gospels have the story of the Syrophoenician Woman who pleads with Jesus to save her daughter. A comparison of the two versions I think lends insight on who came first. Here’s Mark’s version:

24 From that place he went off to the district of Tyre. He entered a house and wanted no one to know about it, but he could not escape notice. 25Soon a woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him. She came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth, and she begged him to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27He said to her, “Let the children be fed first.* For it is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.”28She replied and said to him, “Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.” 29Then he said to her, “For saying this, you may go. The demon has gone out of your daughter.” 30When the woman went home, she found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.

Now here’s Matthew’s version (Mat 15: 21-28):

21 Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.”23But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” 24 He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.”26He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.”27She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” 28 Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.

Notice how much more Matthew’s version has than Mark’s. Matthew tells us the situation happened in “Tyre and Sidon” not just in Tyre as Mark. (I don’t think there’s any relevance to Mark caller her Syrophoenician and Matthew calling her Canaanite.) Matthew has her beg in actual words while Mark has what’s called a narrative summary. Matthew has the disciples tell Jesus to “send her away,” while Mark doesn’t even mention the disciples. Both versions have Jesus use that derogatory phrase about the non-Jews being dogs and both versions have Jesus cure the daughter after the woman’s persistence, but Matthew has Jesus spell out that the woman’s faith was great while in Mark it’s rather ambiguous on what Jesus finds so admirable. In Mark’s version it seems like it’s the woman’s humility and not her faith that Jesus finds admirable.

So which version relied on the other? If Matthew relied on Mark as the current scholars claim, then where did Matthew get all that extra detail? Tyre and Sidon are two separate places, though contiguous. If Mark came first, why did Matthew add Sidon? Did he make it up? As a believer in the honesty of the Gospel writers, that would be a non-starter. If Matthew relied on Mark, why did he add the disciples trying to shoo her away and have her say “Lord help me?” Now flip that around and ponder if Mark relied on Matthew as the Church historically has claimed. Isn’t it more likely that Mark would drop what he considered extraneous detail if he were looking to consolidate? The key for me is that Mark jumps into narrative summary, which is a method of simplifying narrative. If Mark didn’t consider Matthew’s details of the addition of Sidon to the itinerary or the disciples’ reaction to the woman and the extra words the woman spoke important, then it seems natural for him to drop the details.

And then in chapter 8, there is the event of the blind man of Bethsaida. Here Mark is quite elaborate in his use of detail because he evidently finds this event very important. The town brought the blind man to Jesus to be cured and Jesus takes the blind man by the hand and leads him out of town. Now that is quite dramatic. To take him by the hand and walk out of town must have been at least an hour’s walk, if not much more. My father was blind by the way and I know firsthand it’s not the smoothest walk leading a blind man, especially if they don’t know each other’s walk habits. And once out of town Jesus puts spittle on the blind man’s eyes and he half sees and then touches the blind man again and he has vision. What a dramatic little scene.

Now this scene is not found in either Matthew or Luke. If Mark came first, and the other two relied on Mark, why would they leave out this dramatic scene? It really does not follow. The Mark primacy has a lot of holes in it.

⁑

Susan, I am glad you mentioned all that. I didn't know how much I should mention it myself. One of the reasons I've seen why Mark is so curt on various scenes is that he is not interested in providing a biography of Jesus. He leaves out all that biographical detail (notice no birth narrative) so that he can focus on the one question and this is the overriding question of the Gospel, Who is Jesus? So even the resurrection is not all that important, but the Messiah who cleans away the sins of the world through His sacrifice is the answer. Therefore we see the roughly put together last chapter. It comes across as a fill in afterwards. Now that doesn't mean Mark didn't write it. My theory on that last chapter is he wrote it after he had finished it as an add on.

Mark supposedly has a reputation as a bad writer. Supposedly he has grammatical errors in his Greek and it's supposedly of an inexperienced writer. Now that may be, I can't read ancient Greek, and because of that he was not thought of as a skilled craftsman of writing. Scholars have come to appreciate his story telling abilities, such as the triple scenes laid out side by side in a chapter. Chapter five as I went through in some detail up above is a perfect example of how skilled he can craft narrative. Mark's narrative doesn't necessarily move in a chronological manner, but in a thematic manner. Now only does he lay things out in triple scenes but he also repeats in doublets: two feeding of the thousands scene, two curing of blind men, two demoniac possessed people cured. The triplets and doublets are a fascinating way to tell a story.

Gospel of Matthew, Part 1

We are reading the Gospel of Matthew over at the Goodreads Catholic Thought book club in preparation for the Year A in the Mass readings.  This will begin a series of my thoughts and comments that I contributed.  First, you can get an introduction the Matthew’s Gospel at the United States Conference of Bishops website under Books of the Bible.  Here for the Gospel of Matthew.  

Comment #1:

There was a discussion on the genealogy in Matthew, and Madeleine noticed the four women Matthew includes.  Madeliene called them the “shady ladies.”

My Reply:

I've seen that too Madeleine. That seems to be standard reading of Matthew's genealogy. The "shady ladies" as you call them (LOL!) may suggest something about the Virgin birth. They are in contrast to the Blessed Mother, who is eternally pure, but in sympathy with them as well given the suspicions surrounding Christ's conception.

My Comment #2:

The book club read Pope BXVI's Infancy Narratives and I just went through the comments and didn't find much of a discussion on the genealogies. But we also read Scott Hahn's Joy to the World and we did discuss the genealogies there. If you want to see what was said, here's the link.

Comment #3:

I’ve wanted to contribute more to the discussion on the early chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, but unfortunately I’ve been busy all week.  But something must be said about the Sermon on the Mount.  It’s one of my favorite parts in the entire New Testament.

It probably wouldn’t hurt to describe the structure of the Sermon.  I see it as divided into six parts.

A. The introductory stage directions (5:1-2)

B. The Beatitudes (5:3-12)

C. The Similes (5:13-16)

D. The Teachings (5:17-7:23)

E. The Conclusion (7:24-27)

F. The concluding stage directions (7:28-29)

When I look at it in this summary way, I’m surprised to find that the Beatitudes are only nine lines.  For some reason it feels like a lot more.

That introductory stage direction (as I call it) has Jesus sitting.  I never really noticed that.  In my imagining of the scene I had Jesus standing.  Perhaps I got it from the movie, Jesus of Nazareth, where He is standing while delivering the sermon.  You can see it here.

Before Jesus gets to His teachings, which are the bulk of the sermon, he provides two similes to describe His followers.  Actually in the NAB translation they are not similes, they are metaphors.  He doesn’t say, “You are like salt.”  Nor “You are like light.”  Those are similes.  He says “You are salt” and “You are light.”  Those are metaphors. I especially like the “You are the light of the world” metaphor.  If you are a perfect follower of Christ, you just shine.

Then the teachings.  I count twenty-two teachings across the three chapters.  I think it’s worth listing them.

1. Teaching about the Old Testament law.

2. Teaching about anger.

3. Teaching about adultery.

4. Teaching about divorce.

5. Teaching about oaths.

6. Teaching about retaliation.

7. Teaching about your enemies.

8. Teaching about almsgiving.

9. Teaching about prayer.

10. Teaching about forgiveness.

11. Teaching about fasting.

12. Teaching about heaven.

13. Teaching about the eye as entry point of light.

14. Teaching about God and money.

15. Teaching about dependence on God.

16. Teaching about judging.

17. Teaching about the holy,

18. Teaching about prayers being answered.

19. Teaching about the golden rule.

20. Teaching about the narrow gate of heaven.

21. Teaching about false prophets.

22. Teaching about true discipleship.

If the beatitudes outline the ideal attributes of a follower of Christ, the teachings seem to show what one has to do to achieve those ideals.  And Jesus wraps it all up in a concluding section with “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock” (7:24).  It is wisdom to follow Christ, because following Christ is what leads to heaven.

Kerstin’s Reply:

What I noticed reading it this time around, is how quickly in the Gospel of Matthew we get to these teachings. It is in the 5th chapter out of 28. No need for a big preamble, let's get to it!

My Reply to Kerstin:

Yes, Matthew simplifies the narrative. Now here's the controversy on which Gospel came first, Mark or Matthew. Of the stories that are in both Mark and Matthew, Mark has more detail and are longer. If Mark came first, which is what modern scholars believe, Matthew compressed Mark's stories. If Matthew came first, which is the original Church position, then Mark expanded on Matthew's stories. Which is more likely, to expand on stories or to contract stories? For me, if Christ was the son of God, why would I eliminate any detail from a story? I would keep everything. So to me, it seems much more likely that Matthew came first.

When we did the Gospel of Mark two years ago, we got into a little argument over this. Maybe my position is more clear now. But to be up front, most scholars believe Mark came first.

Comment #4:

Christine posted this article on Matthew's Gospel by Edward Sri from the St. Paul Center in a different thread. It should be discussed here. It's very insightful. 

I don't think I ever realized this, but Sri makes a profound point toward the end. Let me quote it.

So when we look upon Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, we must remember we are encountering the face of God. Indeed, the story in Matthew’s Gospel is the story of the God who is with us in his Son, Jesus Christ. At the start of the Gospel, Jesus is introduced as “Emmanuel.” And the kingdom that Jesus is establishing throughout the Gospel of Matthew is all about bringing people back into union with God—not just the faithful Jews of his day but also the sinners, the outcasts, the suffering, and even the gentiles, the non-Jewish people from all the other nations. God will be with his people again through Christ’s kingdom that is breaking down the barriers, going out to the peripheries, calling people to repentance, and reconciling all humanity to the Father.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that we’ll see this theme again at the very close of Matthew’s Gospel. After his death and Resurrection, Jesus commissions the apostles to go make disciples of all nations and he promises, “I am with you always, even to the close of the age” (Matt 28:20). So from beginning to end, the theme of Emmanuel—the theme of God with us—radiates through Matthew’s Gospel in the kingdom Jesus is building.

So God with us at the beginning of the Gospel is still God with us at the end of the Gospel and Matthew projects God with us for eternity. The Gospel is nicely framed that way.

Here's an interesting question. In chapter one, Matthew writes, " “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” (Matt 1:23). But he's not named Emmanuel. He's named Jesus, which means "God Saves." I would have to look it up in Pope BXVI's Infancy Narrative or Scott Hahn's Joy to the World, but I'm at a loss to explain how they can be the same thing. I bet it's mentioned in both books, but I can't remember.

Jesús Replied:

Benedict XVI explains the question on "Emmanuel" (Is 7,14), in chapter 2.4 (Conception and birth of Jesus according to Matthew) of Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. On his point of view, basically 2 possibilities: it is an "on-hold word", an unfulfilled prophecy so far, because a historical correspondence cannot be found. Or it is a promise fulfilled in Christ. Christ always is the Emmanuel, the"God with us".

My Reply to Jesús:

Thanks Jesús. I would say the latter of the two options makes the most sense.

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.

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.