po18guy
Well-known member
Excellent point. This speaks against the Calvinistic teaching of “irresistible grace”
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
(A little aside: our pet dog has just died. We really appreciate your prayers.)
Yet another unimportant observation: Matthew really likes dialogue. In some places where Mark has narration, Matthew has a direct dialogue. I’ll give some examples later.
Yet another unimportant observation: Matthew really likes dialogue. In some places where Mark has narration, Matthew has a direct dialogue. I’ll give some examples later.
po18guy
Well-known member
Prayers ascending.
P
patrick457
Guest
Thank you very much.Prayers ascending.
P
patrick457
Guest
(Mark 3:1-6) Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.
(Matthew 12:9-1) He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
===
(Mark 4:10) And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables.
(Matthew 13:10) Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”
===
(Mark 6:48b-50) And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, for they all saw him and were terrified.
(Matthew 14:25-26) And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.”
===
(Mark 8:31-33) And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
(Matthew 16:21-23) From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
===
(Mark 14:1) It was now two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
(Matthew 26:1-2) When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”
===
(Mark 14:10-11) Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. And when they heard it, they were glad and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him.
(Matthew 26:14-16) Then one of the twelve, whose name was Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.
This isn’t of course a hard-and-fast rule. There are also instances where Matthew will have narration where Mark has dialogue.
P
patrick457
Guest
Bump for nothing.
C
Christ_is_Risen
Guest
You didn’t bump for nothing. I was lucky enough to stumble upon this thread (bizarrely another thread focusing on Mark and Matthew’s gospels was shut down or disappeared or something right as I was trying to post. 
)
Great stuff. I am a huge supporter of looking in depth at how and when the gospels were written. It is pretty clear that the weight of evidence supports the Gospel of Mark being written first, and the differences between the two show this.
To assume Matthew was written first puts Mark in the role of redactor, removing a large amount of teachings and content from Matthew, and assumes that this redaction included a “dumbing down” of the Apostles’ knowledge of Our Lord, and adds in geographic improbilities that Matthew already had written correctly. Mark 7:31 and Mark 10:46, 11:1-11
The only real evidence I see for Matthew being written first is that it solves the “Q problem.” If we assume Mark as a redactor, Q simply becomes the content in Matthew not used by Mark, but retained in Luke. I tend to think Q was more of a set of oral traditions that were still oral when Luke and Matthew wrote them, or the very nature of a written “sayings collection” lent itself to two authors using the sayings in different contexts.
Either way great posts. All knowledge about this topic enriches our understanding of the first witnesses to the Gospel, how their information was taught and transmitted, and how they understood our Savior.
)Great stuff. I am a huge supporter of looking in depth at how and when the gospels were written. It is pretty clear that the weight of evidence supports the Gospel of Mark being written first, and the differences between the two show this.
To assume Matthew was written first puts Mark in the role of redactor, removing a large amount of teachings and content from Matthew, and assumes that this redaction included a “dumbing down” of the Apostles’ knowledge of Our Lord, and adds in geographic improbilities that Matthew already had written correctly. Mark 7:31 and Mark 10:46, 11:1-11
The only real evidence I see for Matthew being written first is that it solves the “Q problem.” If we assume Mark as a redactor, Q simply becomes the content in Matthew not used by Mark, but retained in Luke. I tend to think Q was more of a set of oral traditions that were still oral when Luke and Matthew wrote them, or the very nature of a written “sayings collection” lent itself to two authors using the sayings in different contexts.
Either way great posts. All knowledge about this topic enriches our understanding of the first witnesses to the Gospel, how their information was taught and transmitted, and how they understood our Savior.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yeah, what happened there?You didn’t bump for nothing. I was lucky enough to stumble upon this thread (bizarrely another thread focusing on Mark and Matthew’s gospels was shut down or disappeared or something right as I was trying to post.
Anyway…patrick457, you should stop goofing off and study the scriptures!
Just kidding, thanks for the hard work and effort conveying your good passion for the word of God.
Michael
po18guy
Well-known member
Yet, we cannot assume that each of the 12 was of equal intelligence, education, literacy or perceptive capabilities. As well, not all were present at all times during Christ’s life, and some were likely martyred or in foreign lands when the Gospels were drafted. They preached orally, and the written records are clearly in synopsis form. I find it strange that there was no such problem with the Gospels for 1,800-1,900 years before they were suddenly full of holes and subject to be called into question. Frankly, I smell a rat.
Again, there was no “Q” problem for 1,800 years. And, as this line of contemporary theological thinking calls the Gospels into question, it completely dismisses the Oral Apostolic Tradition upon which Christ founded His Church, and upon which the Gospels were written.
If there was truly a problem with provenance, dating, content (or lack thereof), do modern theologians truly believe that, over the course of 2,000 years, such as Saint Jerome, Saint Thomas Aquinas and innumerable others blew right past it, waiting for those sharpies in the 20th century to note all of the discrepancies?
I must, at this late date in Church history, dismiss these modern theories as speculative nonsense.
C
Christ_is_Risen
Guest
I respect your opinion, but understand that what is being discussed isn’t nonsense, it is a form of literary criticism (read: analysis) that didn’t exist as a discipline when the notable Church fathers you mentioned lived.
To ignore the modern tools we have to dig deeper into our quest to understand how the Gospels were written from the original oral teachings of Christ plays into the hands of critics that reject religion as inherently illogical and inflexible to any attempts to think objectively about that which can be examined by the rational mind, like the formation of our Canon literature.
IMO, to see the seams is to understand the garment, to recognize the differences allows pin-point focus on the Universal Truth that is proclaimed.
po18guy
Well-known member
I note that the end result of much of this modern criticism is de-construction of scripture > the faith. How is that an advantage in seeking the truth? Does that not risk criticism of the Church that went before as unenlightened, ignorant or worse? The scriptures have been preserved at the price of blood. At this late date, I fail to see the merit of poking holes in the scriptures, or calling them into question. This runs counter to the catechism teaching that the scriptures are to be venerated. A critical eye does not venerate - it questions. But, then again, I could simply be an ignorant rube.
C
Christ_is_Risen
Guest
I suppose it comes down to different people having different perspectives. I have never had my faith weakened by examining Scripture with a critical eye. On the contrary what I see is the Truth of our Faith and our Church on full display. I am of the opinion that God works through not only the mysterious and unseen, but also through what is observable to our human senses.
The end result is no less inspired or miraculous to me, in fact I see the opposite, that there exists a universal Truth underlying all of these texts that transcends the ability of any of them as individuals. In their own pursuits of transmitting the Word of God and teachings of the Church, they constructed a body of Scripture that stands the test of time and is worth believing in to the point of our own sacrafice. None of the attention paid to the process is boasting of what humans have done, but rather of what God has done for us. I only wish to understand as much as I can about how this came about.
I don’t see your position as ignorant in the least. The Church father’s teachings you accept are the starting point for any good examination of how the NT was formed. They are closer in time to the events and had more direct knowledge than we do. I am in the process now of reading about the formation of our Canon, and the reliance on the Church fathers in determining which Gospels reveal the Truth and which are in error. I guess I just take it a bit further and use modern ways of examining the texts too.
po18guy
Well-known member
An admirable view.
You appear to have the ability to see beyond the worst of modern “criticism” which is a very good trait to possess.
I have a rather jaundiced view of modern scholarship, since I became Catholic just when the “Jesus Seminar” was using the historical-critical method to explain away the miracles, and the divinity of Christ. Hard to overcome that. Modern scholarship (perhaps the worst of it) is also responsible for the very nebulous notes and intros in the NAB/NABRE. Compare those with the notes and intros in the bibles which preceded the NAB (D-R and Confraternity) and you will see a huge difference. The earlier notes are solid, assured, confidence inspiring. The new ones are cloudy, doubtful. The NAB was translated and notes/intros compiled during the worst of the “spirit of Vatican II” period.
I note that the worst of the Church’s problems also developed contemporaneously. What I note is that nothing we can possibly know today adds a single thing to public revelation. Some of it has striven to actually take away.
1 John 4:1 is all you need to know in this regard.
G
gus
Guest
Mark if based on the homilies of Peter give incite to the humility possessed by this Apostle.
Peter goes out of the way to diminish himself.
He is far and away my favorite.
Matthew, Luke, and John clearly give testimony to his stutus.
I laugh at discussion of his role at the meeting in Jerusalem.
He unilaterally made the two most important discisions on the future of the Christains.
Acceptance of non Jews and Apostolic succecession.
He played the pastoral role in Jerusalem like a good father(Papa)guiding two children
to settle a disbute by themselves.
P
patrick457
Guest
The Jesus Seminar is about as good as a representative of modern biblical scholarship as Bin Laden is of Islam or Jack T. Chick or the Westboro Baptist Church are of Christianity.
po18guy
Well-known member
That is true, and there is certainly excellent modern scholarship, but when it begins to question or conflict with Tradition, that raises a huge caution flag.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m reminded of what Maimonides had said about religion. Commenting on the book of Job, he believed that Job’s friends (the three - Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar - plus Elihu) represent a specific school of thought regarding God. In his view, the view exemplified by Elihu - that one should critically examine one’s own beliefs - is the correct one. For Maimonides, Job at first practiced a habit religion - which is just accepting the ideas and going through the motions without examining and understanding them. He was pious, yes, but his fault is that he was too uncritical and thus, unwise. One has to practice ‘rational religion’, i.e. looking deep into one’s beliefs in order to fully appreciate it and make it a genuine part of one’s life.
Having thus described their prosperity he addresses his opponents, and says to them: “Granted that as you think, the children of this prosperous atheist will perish after his death, and their memory will be blotted out, what harm will the fate of his family cause him after his death? For what pleasure hath he in his house after him, when the number of his months is cut off in the midst?” (ibid. 21). Job then explains that there is no hope after death, so that the cause [of the misfortune of the righteous man] is nothing else but entire neglect on the part of God. He is therefore surprised that God has not abandoned the creation of man altogether; and that after having created him, He does not take any notice of him. He says in his surprise: “Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese?” etc. (ibid. x. 10, seq.). This is one of the different views held by some thinkers on Providence. Our Sages (B. T. Baba B. 16a) condemned this view of Job as mischievous, and expressed their feeling in words like the following: “dust should have filled the mouth of Job”; “Job wished to upset the dish”; “Job denied the resurrection of the dead”; “He commenced to blaspheme.” When, however, God said to Eliphaz and his colleagues, “You have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath” (xlii. 7), our Sages assume as the cause of this rebuke, the maxim “Man is not punished for that which he utters in his pain”; and that God ignored the sin of Job [in his utterances], because of the acuteness of his suffering. But this explanation does not agree with the object of the whole allegory. The words of God are justified, as I will show, by the fact that Job abandoned his first very erroneous opinion, and himself proved that it was an error. It is the opinion which suggests itself as plausible at first thought, especially in the minds of those who meet with mishaps, well knowing that they have not merited them through sins. This is admitted by all, and therefore this opinion was assigned to Job. But he is represented to hold this view only so long as he was without wisdom, and knew God only by tradition, in the same manner as religious people generally know Him. As soon as he had acquired a true knowledge of God, he confessed that there is undoubtedly true felicity in the knowledge of God; it is attained by all who acquire that knowledge, and no earthly trouble can disturb it. So long as Job’s knowledge of God was based on tradition and communication, and not on research, he believed that such imaginary good as is possessed in health, riches, and children, was the utmost that men can attain: this was the reason why he was in perplexity, and why he uttered the above-mentioned opinions, and this is also the meaning of his words: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent because of dust and ashes” (xlii. 5, 6); that is to say he abhorred all that he had desired before, and that he was sorry that he had been in dust and ashes; comp. “and he sat down among the ashes” (ii. 8). On account of this last utterance, which implies true perception, it is said afterwards in reference to him, “for you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”
C
Christ_is_Risen
Guest
Yes, yes, if the Jesus Seminar is your experience with modern critical analysis, then you are right to be skeptical. They went far beyond trying to understand the interrelationships between the various Gospels and the source knowledge that existed in the 1st century and branched out into pure speculation about the life of Jesus. The end result is clearly a false gospel.
Gus,
Mark’s Gospel is my favorite to read as well. There is great detail and richness in the miracle stories, and the message that faith precedes miracles is very prominent. I don’t discount the Johnian understanding that miracles are also signs to show Jesus’ divinity and cause people to believe, but my experience is that with faith all things are possible. We are called to Christ. When we accept this and have faith in his message, our lives are transformed.
C
Christ_is_Risen
Guest
I haven’t read the Book of Job in a very long time. Time to put it back on the reading list. So much to learn, so little time. Thanks for the post.
po18guy
Well-known member
I try to base my opinion on the totality of the circumstances. The Jesus Seminar largely fizzled, as is appropriate. More concerning is blurred direction of the Church is the past 40-50 years, much of this driven by the modernist theology that drove the weakness of the NAB translation. I find it far easier to defend Catholic doctrine using the KJV - why is that? Combine this with the NAB’s rather horrid modernist notes and introductions, the modernist theology that has seeped into Catholic higher education, lackluster seminary formation that has resulted in weak homilies and flaccid moral teaching, and, it becomes easier to see why the Church has suffered so profoundly.
As I mentioned, simply pick up a used D-R or Confraternity bible and compare the translation, intros and notes with the NAB. There is substantial - some might say stark - difference. As a practical matter, the Church has survived just fine through the millennia with theology settled long ago. I am very wary of innovation in theology or scholarship, especially in light of scriptural warnings against false teachers leading even the elect astray. We must always and everywhere test the spirits.
- Status