Is Mary Magdalene's gosple real?

[Erich]

That’s one opinion/theory, but it’s not required by the Catholic faith to agree with it (and the majority of Catholic scholars think the Gospels were all written after Peter’s death). Catholics are free to agree with that theory or not.

Actually, they’re not. For 2000 years the Church has taught that two Apostles, who had lived with Christ wrote gospels and two men, who knew some of the Apostles, wrote another two. All four should be treated as reliable historical documents.

In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued Dei Verbum as a Doctrinal Constitution. In this the Church restated her teaching, as may be seen from reading an extract from Sections 7. The following is as translated by Walter Abbott, S.J. and published in: ‘The Documents of Vatican II’ of the same year (and is the same as the English translation on the Vatican website):

“This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by ordinances, handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing”.

CCC 76 states:

In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

—orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received—whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;

—in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.”

and CCC 126 reproduces nearly the whole of paragraph 19 of Dei Verbum. This
includes such phrases as, ‘whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms; ‘what Jesus … really did and taught …; ‘told us the honest truth about Jesus`.

Popes Pius XII and Paul VI had urged the use of modern methods of biblical study but they never endorsed the Markan priority theory. Unfortunately, Dei Verbum was ignored and replaced with Markan priority (I know… because Markan priority is what I was taught in high school). Hope existed at the time, in some circles, that unpressured discussion of the Markan priority hypothesis would lead to establishing the truth… but what we ended up with instead was a bunch of Catholic scholars who (mistakenly) think the Gospels were all written after Peter’s death.

The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with both Dei Verbum and the Catechism; Catholics are not free to agree with it!

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m aware of Dei Verbum and the Catechism passages. Catholics are free to believe Markan priority or not, it doesn’t contradict Dei Verbum. Catholics are free to believe, for instance, that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, or one of his disciples (aka “other men associated with the apostles”) wrote the Gospel.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission acknowledges that the Markan priority theory is acceptable (not required, of course, to be believed…but not contradictory to the faith either). ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

And in section III of that teaching, under formation of the canon, the PBC says “…the conviction that the writings of the New Testament were a genuine reflection of the apostolic preaching (which does not imply that they were all composed by the apostles themselves)…”

Dei Verbum and the Catechism simply don’t require the interpretations you suggest. We have to believe the Bible is inspired, that the New Testament is of apostolic origin, that it’s true, that God is the author…and so on. But not the more specific issues like which Gospel was written first, or who the human author was that physically put a given book to writing.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Bible contains all the books it should contain. Period.

I just noticed you are Orthodox. Assuming we are talking about the Catholic Bible, how do you square your statement with the fact that the Catholic Bible does not contain books found in the larger Orthodox canon?

 

[Erich]

I’m aware of Dei Verbum and the Catechism passages. Catholics are free to believe Markan priority or not, it doesn’t contradict Dei Verbum. Catholics are free to believe, for instance, that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, or one of his disciples (aka “other men associated with the apostles”) wrote the Gospel.

Markan priority holds that the Gospel of Mark was written first and then used as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. One version of Markan priority, the two-source hypothesis, proposes that the authors of Matthew and Luke drew on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus known as “Q”. However, occasions where Luke and Matthew agree with each other against Mark suggest that Luke and Matthew were not independent of each other, and thus argue against the two-source hypothesis.

Of course, the two-source hypothesis requires a hypothetical document, Q, the existence of which is not attested in any way, either by existing fragments (and a great many fragments of early Christian documents do exist) or by early Church tradition. The minor agreements – i.e. those points where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (for example, the mocking question at the beating of Jesus, “Who is it that struck you?”, found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark) – are also evidence of the non-existence of, or rather the non-necessity for, Q: if Matthew and Luke have passages which are missing in Mark, this demonstrates only that Matthew is quoting Luke or vice-versa.

Either way… Mark was not one of the eyewitness Apostles (and neither was Luke). Matthew (an eyewitness Apostle) would not have borrowed from a non-eyewitness when forming the basis of his account, so (according to Markan priority) this indicates that Matthew the Apostle did not write the Gospel named after him. It must have been composed by an unknown person at a later date, using Mark`s Gospel as a basis and adding additional material from Q. Similarly (according to Markan priority), as Luke also improved on Greek of Mark, he must also have written late. This means he could not have been a companion of Paul. These findings of modern literary analysis show that the ancient historians (i.e. the ones who wrote that Matthew wrote first) were in error and are not therefore a reliable source for the historical claim that the fourth Gospel was by John the Apostle, eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus… in other words, none of the Apostles wrote a single Gospel.

Obviously this contradicts Dei Verbum!

 

[Erich]

The Pontifical Biblical Commission acknowledges that the Markan priority theory is acceptable (not required, of course, to be believed…but not contradictory to the faith either). ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

The only thing your referenced document says about Markan priority is the following (under “History of the [Historical-Critical] Method”):

In similar fashion, to explain both the agreements and disagreements between the three synoptic Gospels, scholars had recourse to the “two source” hypothesis. According to this, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed out of two principal sources: on the one hand, the Gospel of Mark and, on the other, a collection of the sayings of Jesus (called Q, from the German word <quelle,> meaning “source”). In their essential features, these two hypotheses retain their prominence in scientific exegesis today—though they are also under challenge.

Nothing about the Markan priority theory being acceptable, just that the theory exists and “retains priminence”.

 

[Erich]

And in section III of that teaching, under formation of the canon, the PBC says “…the conviction that the writings of the New Testament were a genuine reflection of the apostolic preaching (which does not imply that they were all composed by the apostles themselves)…”

The Church never taught that the writings of the New Testament were "all composed by the apostles themselves"… unless of course I missed the part about Luke and Mark having gotten a “battlefield promotion.” This paragraph doesn’t say what you think it says!

Regardless, I see you didn’t quote the second paragraph in section III which states, “What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places itself within the living tradition of the church, whose first concern is fidelity to the revelation attested by the Bible” (i.e. the same living tradition which teaches that it was "Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing").

BTW, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was a teaching organ of the Church with binding authority only from 1902 to 1971 (during which time it consistently and firmly opposed the Markan priority theory). In 1971 the PBC became merely a consultative body.

From The Authors of the Gospels (beginning on page 103):

1. In 1994 the Pontifical Biblical Commission, now a purely advisory body, issued: ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church`. The critical-historical method was encouraged as a valuable tool but, as the document was mainly concerned with the Old Testament, it added little to the subject of this booklet ((PBCB)).

1. In May 1996 Cardinal Ratzinger, at a meeting with CELAM in Mexico, observed that

‘Relativism has thus become in fact the fundamental problem for faith in our time. He identified the underlying source of this faith–dissolving relativism as a combination of Kantian Philosophy and powerful trends in modern biblical exegesis`. ((LT Jan 1997)).

1. The 1998 Encyclical: Faith and Reason, section 55, warned Scripture scholars:

‘Moreover, one should not underestimate the danger inherent in seeking to derive the truth of Sacred Scripture from the use of one method alone, ignoring the need for a more comprehensive exegesis which enables the exegete, together with the whole Church, to arrive at the full sense of the texts. Those who devote themselves to the study of Sacred Scripture should always remember that the various hermeneutical [interpretive] approaches have their own philosophical underpinnings, which need to be carefully evaluated before they are applied to the sacred texts`. In the same section we read a warning against fideism: ((JPFR)).

The Catholic Encyclopaedia explains that: `Fideism owes its origin to distrust in human reason and follows from the logical sequence of such an attitude as scepticism. It is often based on the separation of reason and belief, between science and religion. Fideism is rejected by the Catholic Church, which upholds both reason and belief. ((CE fideism)).

 

[Erich]

And, further down,

During the hundred years prior to the second Vatican Council held in the 1960s, there had been a massive increase in educational levels and the circulation of literature. The Church had been at the forefront of this development and the bishops at the Council recognised that Catholics were now prepared for a greater intellectual freedom and more open discussion on a wide range of subjects.

The Markans saw an opportunity in this atmosphere to persuade the bishops to leave open the question of Gospel historicity. Although unsuccessful, they did influence the tone of Dei Verbum. The essential traditions of the Church were upheld, but were not expressed as clearly as many bishops would have liked. In order to grasp the full meaning of some passages, it is necessary to refer to the footnotes, or to clarifications made at the time by the Theological Commission. Even so, on the key issue of historicity the Markans had been defeated at the Council.

But, as Brian Harrison has explained in his: ‘Pope Paul VI and the Truth of Sacred Scripture’, chapter IV (a) including note 16, the following year they won a momentous Public Relations victory. In June 1961 a Monitum (warning) had been issued against trends questioning the historicity of the Gospels. In the September of that year, two professors were suspended from their teaching posts because of their attempts to undermine the historicity of the Gospels. When Cardinal Montini was elected Pope Paul VI, the Council was still in progress, and he was keen to continue in the spirit of intellectual openness. So, when persuaded that the two men had been victims of reactionary prejudice, he arranged for them to be reinstated.

Cardinal König, at the time a member of the PBC, later commented: The re-establishment of the two Jesuits, Lyonnet and Zerwick, caused much astonishment at that time and was understood by witnesses that Paul VI did not agree with the decisions of the Holy Office. It appeared that the Pope was granting permission for the acceptance of Markan priority over the head of the PBC ((LT Jan 1997)).

The de facto message sent around the world and spread by means of the modern media was that actions speak louder than words. So, regardless of what was being said officially by Rome and the Council, many exegetes considered that they were now free to hold and propagate whatever they wished.

The media did not report that the return of the two professors to their posts appeared to be conditional. They never taught or published their views again.

It should be noted that Pope Paul consistently treated the Gospels as historical ((LT Jan 1997)). It was he who had insisted on the revisions to the draft of paragraph 19 of Dei Verbum showing he had no sympathy for Markan priority.

 

[Erich]

Dei Verbum and the Catechism simply don’t require the interpretations you suggest. We have to believe the Bible is inspired, that the New Testament is of apostolic origin, that it’s true, that God is the author…and so on. But not the more specific issues like which Gospel was written first, or who the human author was that physically put a given book to writing.

We also have to believe that some of the Apostles themselves committed the message to writing.

 

[Victorious]

Okay, nice try but we all know that the bible has only a few of the many books that it should contain!

So, then, I guess the Holy Spirit blew it.

 

[AndyF]

“Peter said to Mary, ‘Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of the women.

I doubt Peter would have said this. He would have known Jesus plays no favorites among women, and even James, whom Jesus loved, was not set upon some pedestal better than others.

I forget where in NT I read this, but there was one episode where Jesus was told his brothers and sisters were waiting for him, but he said the world was his brother and sisters, so why would she be loved greater than any other woman? Besides if he were to love some woman more it would be his Mother.

I love it when solutions are found at the outset.

Problem solved.

Andy

 

[elts1956]

What is the definition of gnostic? Do you know?

xxx zundrah xxx

From the small amount I have managed to glean, Gnosticism is an inner personal revelation in which the individual strives for higher spiritual knowlege. The search for this knowlege in order to know and be a part of the immortal creator is the crux of the beliefs. There is also another aspect to the gnostic religions in that all material creation is evil. ie. the body etc. I haven’t delved much in this area.

 

[Zundrah]

So, then, I guess the Holy Spirit blew it.

…very funny…

Some of the bible could have been lost when it was in its original form (that rice paper that they wrote on in the past). The bible consisited of sheets of rice paper all rolled up and kept in slots on walls. It was under secrecy because the people in that place at that time wanted to destroy it becuase they didn’t believe that christ was the son, but he was just a prophet. The gospel was constantly hidden along with the rest of the bible.

Did you ever have classes on the history of the bibles making?

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[Zundrah]

From the small amount I have managed to glean, Gnosticism is an inner personal revelation in which the individual strives for higher spiritual knowlege. The search for this knowlege in order to know and be a part of the immortal creator is the crux of the beliefs. There is also another aspect to the gnostic religions in that all material creation is evil. ie. the body etc. I haven’t delved much in this area.

That sounds a bit like muslim beliefs, y’know the “acheive inlightenment” stuff…

xxx zundrah xxx

The gnostic gospels were apparently found in a desert weren’t they?

 

[Zundrah]

God controls everything? Does he control your free will? He knows what will happen, but He doesn’t control your choices. He doesn’t control the rapist or murderer, does he? Does he control the person who commits any kind of sin. No. I don’t understand the phrase “controlled the accorance”… I think I don’t know what accorance means. Could you mean occurance? Probably not. You were talking about the Book of Mormon on another thread…did God control that? Nope.

The book of mormon… yes he did in a way control that too!

People are born with a God shaped hole in their hearts. When they cannot find God in their hearts they just tend to try to fit something else in its place. Hence the OCCURANCE of the book of mormon AND the gnostic gosples. Poeple search for the father and the son and the holy spirit, but they take the wrong path some times…

…I am on a different computer and the spell checker isn’t working ( I can’t figure out how to put it on ).

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[patrick457]

…very funny…

Some of the bible could have been lost when it was in its original form (that rice paper that they wrote on in the past). The bible consisited of sheets of rice paper all rolled up and kept in slots on walls. It was under secrecy because the people in that place at that time wanted to destroy it becuase they didn’t believe that christ was the son, but he was just a prophet. The gospel was constantly hidden along with the rest of the bible.

Did you ever have classes on the history of the bibles making?

xxx zundrah xxx

To correct you a bit there:
It’s not really “rice paper” but papyrus (made from the papyrus plant). And yes, the main media back used in early days were scrolls.
Codexes first saw widespread use during the early centuries AD - some think that Christians helped popularize this medium, since most surviving early Christian literature we have are in the form of codexes instead of scrolls.

Now, in early days they never had a “Bible” in our modern sense (with all 73 or more books in a single volume). However there were, of course, literature that were already grouped together under a single scroll or codex (say, one or more books).

Finally, I wonder where you got the part “hiding the scrolls” from. Can you please clarify?

 

[patrick457]

The gnostic gospels were apparently found in a desert weren’t they?

Ah, the so-called Nag Hammadi library. Yes, the codexes comprising this were found inside a sealed earthenware jar hidden in one of the limestone caves near Hamrah Dawm in Upper Egypt. Other fragments of gospels, both canonical and no, were also found in the “rubbish mounds” of Oxyrhynchus (also in Egypt).

 

[Zundrah]

To correct you a bit there:

It’s not really “rice paper” but papyrus

 

[patrick457]

Now, as for what Gnosticism is:
Gnosticism is a term encompassing diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems that share some common beliefs with each other (so there is technically not a ‘Gnosticism’, but ‘GnosticismS’). These beliefs are generally:

• Matter, in fact anything physical, is imperfect and evil.
• The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. The physical world is imperfect because the one who created the universe (usually referred to as the Demiurge) is an inferior god, himself a flawed being. Some sects, meanwhile, identify this Demiurge with the God of the Old Testament - which they hold to be separate from the far superior and remote true God - usually termed the Monad.
• Humans were originally divine souls who are trapped in their physical bodies, in this material world, by the evil Demiurge.
• Humans are by default ignorant of the “divine spark” present within them, due to the influence of the Demiurge and his subordinates. What can liberate mankind from this slavery, is the hidden gnosis (knowledge).
• Gnostics believe that the true God had time and again sent messengers to assist and teach humans in their quest to attain this secret knowledge, this gnosis. Gnostics therefore do not seek liberation from “sin”, but freedom from this ignorance of which “sin” is only a consequence - thus being ‘enlightened’ is very important.

 

[Zundrah]

Ah, the so-called Nag Hammadi library. Yes, the codexes comprising this were found inside a sealed earthenware jar hidden in one of the limestone caves near Hamrah Dawm in Upper Egypt. Other fragments of gospels, both canonical and no, were also found in the “rubbish mounds” of Oxyrhynchus (also in Egypt).

That’s interesting, but why were they in Egypt?

 

[beonthelevel]

I think there is always a possibility that some books were left out because they did not fit with what the early Church was teaching. They had the power to remove them and they did. Something to ponder: no where in the bible do we hear the names of Mary’s parents. Yet we know their names, we call them St. Joachim and St. Anne. How would their names be known unless they were read in the gnostic gospels?