Authors Of The Gospel

[INRIWarrior3]

No, but I had been discerning for 2 years but I've found out that I am to remain with my girlfriend and marry her after or during grad school. What seminary are you in?

I'm just a theology major. I'll specialize in the Early Fathers and History of the Church in grad school and be a doctor of Church History. Will you be a diocesan preist or a religious priest?

Edited November 5, 2003 by INRIWarrior3

[Theologian in Training]

No, but I had been discerning for 2 years but I've found out that I am to remain with my girlfriend and marry her after or during grad school.  What seminary are you in?

I'm just a theology major.  I'll specialize in the Early Fathers and History of the Church in grad school and be a doctor of Church History.  Will you be a diocesan preist or a religious priest?

Studying for the diocesan priesthood. I don't give out the information on where for the protection of the seminary, diocese, and bishop, at least publicly. If you would like to know, feel free to drop me an email.

God Bless

[Aloysius]

is it 100% that Mark was first?

cuz from what i've heard the only reason they think that is that Matthew goes kiiinda verse for verse but has more elaboration in there.

but i think it's just as possible that Mark could've gotten a hold of Matthew and cut down on some stuff to make it more fast-paced for the society of the city of Rome.

?

[INRIWarrior3]

Your right if your talking pre-17th (please correct me if I'm wrong) century scripture exegesis. German scholars are responsible for the advances in Scripture scholarship in the 17th century. Modern Scripture scholarship (post 17th Cen.) puts Mark first because:

1) Matthew and Luke are extremely common.

A) Both use Mark as a source.

a) The footnotes in the New American Bible attest to this: "Matthew's

Marcan source" and "Luke has transposed to the beginning of Jesus'

ministry an incident from his Marcan source."

B) It was held by the Church that Matthew was the first Gospel based

upon an early tradition in the late second century that Matthew was

the first written.

-so how could Mt. be first if he used Mark as his primary source. (Mark

had St. Peter as his primary source.)

B) But they deviate from Mark in two ways with one source in common and

two sources independent of each other.

a) The common source is called "Q" (from German "Quelle" which

means "source" in English) because they don't have any record of

the name of the specific source itself or the source. "Q" contains the

stories similar between Matthew and Luke exclusively e.g., the

Sermon on the Mount (Mt.) and Sermon on the Plain (Lk), the Our

Father in both but with different petitions, the Parable of the Wedding

Feast.

B) The source that is exclusive to Matthew is "M," named for the same

reason "Q" was. "M" is Matthew's private source exclusive to

himself, e.g., the Walking on the Water, Parable of the Ten Virgins

c) The source exclusive to Luke is called "L" for the same reason. It

contains the info. exclusive to Luke, e.g., The Infancy Narrative, the

Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Parable of the Lost Coin and

The Prodigal Son.

Mark's is held as the first Gospel (68-70 AD) (the NAB also states this at the beginning of the Gospel intoduction.

Hope this crash course in the Synoptic Gospels helped. God bless.

INRIWarrior3

[cmotherofpirl]

Okay forget everything i said about Mark 13.  I was wrong (please forgive me cmom).  It's late, I've been doing philosophy all evening so my mind is drained theologically.  But I will let theWord vindicate me here.  It is in Matthew's gospel that Matthew just barely hints at the past destruction of the Temple (Mt 23) though he writes obviously in the present tense.  Matthew wrote his gospel between 85 and 95 A.D. (my dating was off 5 years both ways earlier in my posts, again forgive me its late) so the destruction has happened already.  This particular parable is from  the Q ("Quelle" German, "Source" English) source , i.e., the material Luke and Matthew have in common.  Matthew is a Jewish Levite tax collector prior to his disciplship so it is only fitting that he would slightly address (because by this time Christians felt no connection to the Temple becuase the Old Covenant had been fulfilled in Christ) the destruction of the Temple because his target audience is Jews, his ethnic people.  Here's the foot note:

This parable is from Q.  It has been given many allegorical traits by Matthew, e.g., the burning of the city of the guests who refused the invitation, which corresponds to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. (NAB on Mt 22)

New American Bible.  Thomas Nelson Inc. 1987

Once again I'm sorry for my error and would be ashamed of myself but I am human and it certaintly is late.  My apologies cmom.  Peace.

INRIWarrior3

In Matthew 23 Jesus is yelling at the Pharisees again; the so called "Woe unto you "section.

He also laments over Jersusalem as he leaves the temple area to go to Mount Olive where he (Matthew 24) again predicts the fall of Jerusalem.

However just because he predicts it, one must NOT conclude it already happened.

Again Q is simply a convenient hypothesis, not a fact.

I do my best to avoid the NAB because of its misleading footnotes.

Like I said, I'll stick with my Catholic Bibles.

[cmotherofpirl]

Okay forget everything i said about Mark 13.  I was wrong (please forgive me cmom).  It's late, I've been doing philosophy all evening so my mind is drained theologically.  But I will let theWord vindicate me here.  It is in Matthew's gospel that Matthew just barely hints at the past destruction of the Temple (Mt 23) though he writes obviously in the present tense.  Matthew wrote his gospel between 85 and 95 A.D. (my dating was off 5 years both ways earlier in my posts, again forgive me its late) so the destruction has happened already.  This particular parable is from  the Q ("Quelle" German, "Source" English) source , i.e., the material Luke and Matthew have in common.  Matthew is a Jewish Levite tax collector prior to his disciplship so it is only fitting that he would slightly address (because by this time Christians felt no connection to the Temple becuase the Old Covenant had been fulfilled in Christ) the destruction of the Temple because his target audience is Jews, his ethnic people.  Here's the foot note:

This parable is from Q.  It has been given many allegorical traits by Matthew, e.g., the burning of the city of the guests who refused the invitation, which corresponds to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. (NAB on Mt 22)

New American Bible.  Thomas Nelson Inc. 1987

Once again I'm sorry for my error and would be ashamed of myself but I am human and it certaintly is late.  My apologies cmom.  Peace.

INRIWarrior3

Warrior I did theology in the 70's back in college.

We studied "Q" theory, worshipped Bultman et al, and used the hereitcal Dutch catechism as our bible. If a theologian said it, it must be true. But nobody ever looked at actual Church documents, just all the current theological darlings. My teachers were all confident women would be ordained because we were finally catching up with the real world. No one really sinned, because the fundamental option would save us in the end. Jesus was our good buddy.

I learned purgatory was a myth, everybody was going to heaven, and Jesus had no clue who he was until he was on the cross, if then.

We also learned the New Testament was 2nd century writings written by communities, reflecting what they wanted to beleive , rather than actual accounts of the life and times of Jesus. The later the gospels were written, the more likely they did not reflect the actual word of God.

Paul was considered the de facto founder of the Chuch, which is different one that what Jeus left behind. This weakened the notion of papal authority, valid succession etc. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, it supports the the validity of the notion that we could not know anything about Jesus a all.

It was the popular search for historical Jesus.

And this was Catholic higher education.

I left the Church at this point because all this carp convinced me the Church had no real foundation. Many of my friends left for the same reasons. I did continue to say the Office, which was probably my saving grace.

Eventually (providentally) I was challenged on these notions by evangelical protestants, and several Catholics who had the blessing of not attending catholic higher education, and started reading.

Surprise! Theological speculation and opinions from popular thelogian-types (Brown, Kung, Rahner, McBrien, Merton and Co) are NOT the teachings of the Church. THank God.

THey are the cause of mass defections, confused ethics, and cafeteria Catholics who have no clue to the teachings of the Church.

So anything out of the mouth of a "theologian" is suspect until proven true. I and my generation have learned the hard way. about wolves in sheep's clothing.

[BLAZEr]

Warrior I did theology in the 70's back in college.

We studied "Q" theory, worshipped Bultman et al, and used the hereitcal Dutch catechism as our bible.  If a theologian said it, it must be true. But nobody ever looked at actual Church documents, just all the current theological darlings.  My teachers were all confident women would be ordained because we were finally  catching  up with the real world. No one really sinned, because the fundamental option would save us in the end. Jesus was our good buddy.

I learned purgatory was a myth, everybody was going to heaven, and Jesus had no clue who he was until he was on the cross, if then.

We also learned the New Testament was  2nd century writings written by communities, reflecting what they wanted to beleive , rather than actual accounts of the life and times of Jesus. The later the gospels were written, the more likely they did not reflect the actual word of God.

Paul was considered the de facto founder of the Chuch, which is different one that  what Jeus left behind. This weakened the notion of papal authority, valid succession etc. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, it supports the the validity of the notion that we could not know anything about Jesus a all.

It was the popular search for historical Jesus.

And this was Catholic higher education.

I left  the Church at this point because all this carp convinced me the Church had no real foundation. Many of my friends left for the same reasons. I did continue to say the Office, which was probably my saving grace.

Eventually (providentally) I was challenged on these notions by evangelical protestants, and several Catholics  who had the blessing of not attending catholic higher education, and started reading.

Surprise! Theological speculation and opinions from popular thelogian-types (Brown, Kung, Rahner, McBrien, Merton and Co) are NOT the teachings of the Church. THank God.

THey are the cause of mass defections, confused ethics, and cafeteria Catholics who have no clue to the teachings of the Church.

So anything out of the mouth of a "theologian" is suspect until proven true. I and my generation have learned the hard way. about wolves in sheep's clothing.

Amen Mama!!!

I did theology, oh two years ago at Notre Dame and it seems like most of academia is still full of this historo-critical method of Biblical scholarship . . . I think it has something to OFFER but it is not the way the Bible should be read, or prayed with, or even learned. I know more Seminarians and priests who talk about the "Q Source" and this or that theory about where certain passages come from or what they mean, but they have a hard time finding certain passages in the Bible. Too much time is spent, especially during Priestly formation, on this historo-critical bible study . . .

It left my appreciation for the Bible quite dead. It's the most boring, uninspiring, insipid understanding of scripture I have ever encountered. Luckily a very good Theologian (Fr. Brian Daley, SJ) showed me that it wasn't the only way, or even a sufficient way to read the scriptures . . . he introduced me to the Eastern and Latin Fathers . . . an BAM! . . . the Bible became a real living breathing Word to me.

Why can't we read the scriptures like Jerome or Athanasius or Cyril or ANY of the Fathers??? What's more is that many faithful, orthodox Catholic Biblical Scholars dispute these less than traditional methods, not the least among them are Fr. John Echert, Dr. Scott Hahn, and the entire faculty of the University of Navarre!!

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Exegesis . . . http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm

Edited November 6, 2003 by BLAZEr

[Theologian in Training]

I went to Omaha for a spirituality program this past summer, and got to meet many seminarians from all over the United States, as well as all over the globe. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the historical-critical method IS the way ALL Scripture classes are taught in the seminary. That is how it is taught in my seminary, that is how it is taught in other seminaries as well. When I had to write a paper, from the historical critical point of view on the Wedding Feast at Cana, it took me a very long time to even want to read it again. The historical critical method seems to de-supernaturalize all that the bible entails, and its only purpose is to discover authorship, intent, environment, etc. with regard to a certain book of the bible.

In one sense, it is a very damaging method to use, yet in another very vague sense it does help at the same time. The way it helps is by showing how common misconceptions can result when you read the bible only one way. In fact, I have learned a lot about certain arguments many Protestants and ill informed Catholics pose and their counter, as a result of my teaching. The ABC special is a great example of this.

Granted, the historical critical method itself leaves much to be desired, and the fact that most, if not all in the class have difficulty in staying awake only attests to practice of abandoning a methodological approach to Scripture in light of the Fathers for a method that makes extensive use of Protestant and Catholic (some of which seem to be Protestant) scholars alike.

In those situations, you learn to discern, with the help of the Holy Spirit, what is good and what is bad, take the good, and hope you have left the bad. As far as I can see mothing more can be done than that.

God Bless

[cmotherofpirl]

It depends on how the historical -critical method is used. If it is used as a tool to provide some insight into the writings of the Church it can be useful. But if is treated as an end and not the means, and you go beyond it and treat speculation as dogma, you risk straying out of the Church.

Its a confusion of ends vs means.

Evolution is the same type of deal: as a method of scientific study on how the universe was made it is fine. But accepting it as a philosophy leads to error.

Evolution is how, God is why.

[BLAZEr]

Yeah . . . that's why I say that it (historo-critical) has something to offer, but that in the Mind of the Church, it is only part of Biblical Study . . . unfortunately from most seminarians I know, its the only part they get very intensively in Seminary. I think it needs to be taught, but I think it needs to be taught in addition to a more full biblical study.

If you read the insipid commentaries on the Gospels written by most modern biblical scholars and compare them to anything St. Jerome wrote, they seem devoid of any spiritual insight and complete understanding.

It used to drive me NUTS NUTS NUTS in Old Testament Scriptures class that I was constantly being told "You can't read that verse as foreshadowing Christ because that's not how the Jews would have understood it." I'm sorry, but some Jews did (John the Baptist, Paul, Jesus) and I'm not a Jew! I'm a Christian who can't help but look at the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of the New Testament.

[cmotherofpirl]

Which is exactly how we are to view the Old Testament.

THe Jews might not have realized exactly what something meant or would mean in the future, but they did realize they were participting in the great covanant with the Lord God.

Just like us.

[INRIWarrior3]

Warrior I did theology in the 70's back in college.

We studied "Q" theory, worshipped Bultman et al, and used the hereitcal Dutch catechism as our bible. If a theologian said it, it must be true. But nobody ever looked at actual Church documents, just all the current theological darlings. My teachers were all confident women would be ordained because we were finally catching up with the real world. No one really sinned, because the fundamental option would save us in the end. Jesus was our good buddy.

I learned purgatory was a myth, everybody was going to heaven, and Jesus had no clue who he was until he was on the cross, if then.

We also learned the New Testament was 2nd century writings written by communities, reflecting what they wanted to beleive , rather than actual accounts of the life and times of Jesus. The later the gospels were written, the more likely they did not reflect the actual word of God.

Paul was considered the de facto founder of the Chuch, which is different one that what Jeus left behind. This weakened the notion of papal authority, valid succession etc. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, it supports the the validity of the notion that we could not know anything about Jesus a all.

It was the popular search for historical Jesus.

And this was Catholic higher education.

I left the Church at this point because all this carp convinced me the Church had no real foundation. Many of my friends left for the same reasons. I did continue to say the Office, which was probably my saving grace.

Eventually (providentally) I was challenged on these notions by evangelical protestants, and several Catholics who had the blessing of not attending catholic higher education, and started reading.

Surprise! Theological speculation and opinions from popular thelogian-types (Brown, Kung, Rahner, McBrien, Merton and Co) are NOT the teachings of the Church. THank God.

THey are the cause of mass defections, confused ethics, and cafeteria Catholics who have no clue to the teachings of the Church.

So anything out of the mouth of a "theologian" is suspect until proven true. I and my generation have learned the hard way. about wolves in sheep's clothing.

Thats fine, but just because you were taught heresey and Q happened to be a part of your so called theological studies (no offense against you as I clearly see the heresey taught) doesn't mean that it's incorrect. The historical critical method is concerned strictly with authorship and not spirituality. Remember God wrote through men using their own talents, not by dictating to each author which is what Protestants believe. Even Theo. in Training confirms the widespread use of this "theory" in the seminaries and I'll attest to its use in the private Catholic University I attend (I go to the Univ. of St. Thomas which is extremely orthodox because it was founded and is still ran by the Basilian Fathers). Just because you were taught by so called "theologians" (who sound obviously secular by the way)doesn't mean that because I'm taught by the Basilian Fathers, Franciscan sisters, and sisters of The Order of the Sacred Heart and Blessed Sacrament that I'm being taught something that isn't blatantly obivious in the scripture scolarship itself and that is not worth noting and studying. I sense a little holier-than-thou attitude in your remarks. You need to update your knowledge of academia and what is being explored, endorsed, denounced, etc. by major scholars. By the way, just because Scott Hahn has a problem with the Q source doesn't mean that it's worthless and not noteworthy. Contrary to popular belief, Scott Hanh doesn't know everything. Please don't take offense but your comments are obviously driven by a subjective experience due to secular or libertine, i.e., nobody is accountable for anything therefore everyone is going to heaven, professors. Once again, Theo. in Training stated the purpose for the historical critical method:

The historical critical method seems to de-supernaturalize all that the bible entails, and its only purpose is to discover authorship, intent, environment, etc. with regard to a certain book of the bible.

This is the purpose, not to de-spiritualize the text itself. Like I said, God wrote through the human talents of men. People that didn't know Jesus first hand (Mark, Luke) had to have some source for their writings. Do you think God just zapped it into their minds word for word? Please keep debating the topic so we can all grow from this. Peace.

INRIWarrior3

Edited November 6, 2003 by INRIWarrior3

[cmotherofpirl]

I way taught by Catholic priests and nuns in a Catholic college.

If you had read the other emails you would notice that I said the method had its place.

I never mentioned Scott Hahn anywhere. I had difficulties with Q long before Professor Hahn turned Catholic. I understand that some sources were necessary for the synoptic gospels to be so intertwined.

I am simply pointing out what the academics have done with their theories and where it has taken a large part of the Catholic population I grew up with. I have lived with the results for over 30 years, you have yet to experience it.