Catholic Thought discussion
Bible Study
>
The Gospel According to Mark
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Before Jesus we are exposed to our very essence and that pulls us out of our comfort zone. And it should. Our ultimate goal is salvation. When I look at the "prosperity gospel," for example, this is really a "domesticating" of Jesus, as Bishop Barron puts it. It keeps folks inside their comfort zones with a heavy dose of feel-good emotionalism. Jesus didn't enter history to make us feel good, but to save us.
Mod
Manny, I don't want to revisit prior disagreement, but this is where I hear the voice of Peter, the impulsive, active fisherman, who spoke first, acted first, but repented and loved with all his heart.
EDIT: Ooops. I guess I should have read all of the new posts before posting this.
Yes read all the posts. 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.
Read my Comment #72 and read the link to the Catholic Answers timeline. It makes a lot of sense.
Mod
32 And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; and they were amazed and afraid.
Bishop R..."
I love this little scene that Mark has in that 10th chapter:
13
f And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.g
14
When 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.
15
Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child* will not enter it.”h
16
Then 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?
Mod
Mod
It is.
When people react to children this way, they have a radiance about them. How much more amplified it must have been with Jesus. To be enveloped with such as love, isn't this what we all seek?
Mod
Thank you for looking that up Kerstin. For the life of me I couldn't remember the word "concordance." Interesting Luke has it more often. Next time I read Luke I'll have to look for it.
Mod
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.
Manny wrote: "(2) We have all been formed by the modern scholar's timeline of the Gospel's all being post fall of the Temple."Perhaps I am just lucky starting my Bible Study with Navarre and Ignatius, but I have always found the modern approach to be informed by a hermeneutic of unbelief. I refuse to take this approach. As you say, the argument is made, well the Gospels have Jesus predicting the fall of Jerusalem, therefor they must have been written after the fall. Besides being written from a position of disbelief, they imply that the apostolic writers are liars because they don't mention the fall of Jerusalem and treat it as false prediction. If this is true, then it seems to me that the writers are trying to deceive and the works they have written are unworthy of belief. For me, if you grant the modern scholars their supposition, then the whole thing collapses and nothing in scripture is reliable. I chose to approach scripture with a hermeneutic of belief.
Kerstin wrote: "I think ultimately the synoptic problem will never be fully answered. The issue will remain fluid to some extend where the various proponents delineate their key arguments. I have to wonder whether..."This. And more. My faith is based on my encounter with the living God. I read and accept the Gospels because of my faith, not the other way around. There are three possibilities (at least): Mark wrote first and Matthew (and Luke) wrote after him and used him as a resource; Matthew wrote first and Mark summarized him; or Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote separately from each other, using common source material floating around at the time. This last makes the most sense to me. But it matters not at all to me who wrote first.
As far as the dating issue, while there may be a lot of subtlety in the totality of the arguments made, the ones I've seen have been built around the argument that Manny notes, essentially: the Evangelists have Jesus predict the fall of Jerusalem, therefore they cannot have written earlier than 70. Implicit in this argument is an assumption that Jesus could not have foreseen the fall of Jerusalem, and that therefore the Evangelists are either making it up, or relying on unreliable source material. I have problems with that approach to exegesis.
Mod
Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote separately from each other, using common source material floating around at the time. This last makes the most sense to me. But it matters not at all to me who wrote first."
I've been arguing that too. The Catholic Answers website I believe has Mark reading Matthew and selecting what he wants to select out of it and adding his own, which could be drawn from his relationship with Peter. That is a solid possibility too.
Mod
Perhaps I am just lucky starting my Bible Study with Navarre and Igna...
If this is true, then it seems to me that the writers are trying to deceive and the works they have written are unworthy of belief. For me, if you grant the modern scholars their supposition, then the whole thing collapses and nothing in scripture is reliable. I chose to approach scripture with a hermeneutic of belief. "
Yes, one comment I made above roughly stated if you believe the Gospels were written post Temple destruction, then you have to decide why you believe that. There may be other reasons, but if your decision rests solely on the Temple destruction dating, then you are in effect denying the divinity of Christ.
John wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "I think ultimately the synoptic problem will never be fully answered. The issue will remain fluid to some extend where the various proponents delineate their key arguments. I have t..."John, If what you have read use the fall of Jerusalem as the primary or exclusive reason for the dating of the Gospels, I strongly suggest that you might want to expand your reading. Anyone who is resting their dating on this single historical event is not representative of the best of contemporary Catholic biblical scholarship and is doing their audience a disservice.
Also, as I posted above, I take issue with any suggestion that contemporary Catholic biblical scholars who date Mark earlier than Matthew or Luke are coming from a place of unbelief. Faith-filled bishops, priests, sisters and laity are among the outstanding scholars in this field who hold this opinion. To presume that they are not approaching the text through the interpretive lens of an encounter with the Living God is judgmental at best and disrespectful at worse.
Irene wrote: "John, If what you have read use the fall of Jerusalem as the primary or exclusive reason for the dating of the Gospels, I strongly suggest that you might want to expand your reading. Anyone who is resting their dating on this single historical event is not representative of the best of contemporary Catholic biblical scholarship and is doing their audience a disservice. Maybe. I read pretty broadly.
Also, as I posted above, I take issue with any suggestion that contemporary Catholic biblical scholars who date Mark earlier than Matthew or Luke are coming from a place of unbelief.
I don't believe I said or suggested anything of the sort.
Faith-filled bishops, priests, sisters and laity are among the outstanding scholars in this field who hold this opinion. To presume that they are not approaching the text through the interpretive lens of an encounter with the Living God is judgmental at best and disrespectful at worse. "
I think you should re-read what I wrote more carefully. My reference to an encounter with the Living God was given to explain why I don't really care whether Mark wrote first or whether Matthew wrote first. To build from this that I am presumptuous, judgmental and disrespectful is quite breathtaking.
Mod
One has to then assume Acts was written prior to Peter and Paul's martyrdom.
The late dating of the Gospels is a modern calculation, however it's derived. And it is full of holes.
John, I was reacting to your labeling the approach of modern biblical scholars who date Mark as the earliest written Gospel as coming from "a hermeneutic of unbelief". Further, you wrote:Besides being written from a position of disbelief, they imply that the apostolic writers are liars because they don't mention the fall of Jerusalem and treat it as false prediction.
I take offense at the claim that this approach is written from a position of disbelief. I do not see any evidence that these numerous bishops, priests, scholars, etc are calling the apostolic writers "liars". And, yes, I do feel that to imply that these men and women of great commitment to the Church, these bishops who are set as our teachers, are coming from a position of disbelief or implying that the apostolic writers are liars, is far from respectful of their work, their personal faith and their position in the Church.
Mod
Irene,I do not think that is a correct summary of what I said. While I am not sure how or why I have offended you, it appears that I have. Please forgive me.
I am done with this discussion and I think I´ll take a little break.
God bless.
John, Thank you. I am sure that you did not intend to offend.Manny, It is not easy not to take offense when an entire school of thought, to which good people of great faith, is consistently characterized as coming from a position of disbelief or being mostly those who do not even believe in Christianity. Although I do not think Matthew is the oldest Gospel, I have never posted a negative thing about those who promote that line of thought. I never claimed that they were largely unbelieving, arguing from a single piece of evidence, ignorant or anything else. In fact, I said that I would not say anything in defense of a particular dating in post #15 and I have kept to that. From your response in post #16, I mistakenly thought that the conversation was done, but you reintroduced it later on. I do not care which order anyone thinks the Gospels were written in. I do care if an entire group of Catholic biblical scholars are misrepresented. A case should be able to be made for a particular point of view in this question without negating the faith of the opposing view. As you say, it is difficult to be exact in one's language given this format. However, people are reading the comments, no matter how eloquently they are stated. If someone with little familiarity with this debate were to read the comments on this thread, they would come away with the impression that those who support an early dating of Mark are primarily from secular academia, non-Christian, coming from a position or hermeneutic of unbelief and implying that the apostolic writers were liars. I am uncomfortable with such a gross negative portrayal of an entire group, made up of priests, bishops and lay Catholic scholars standing unchallenged. Maybe rather than instructing members of this group to be silent if they are offended, we might be better reminded to consider whether our words might unfairly speak ill of another.
Mod
Manny, It is not easy not to take offense when an entire school of thought, to which good people of great faith, is consistently chara..."
Irene, I understand. Let's be clear that no one here that I know of is a theologian with a degree, let alone with a PhD. So everything discussed here and everywhere on Catholic Thought (I can only speak for this, but it applies to almost all forums) should be taken with a grain of salt and is not definitive, no matter how authoritative a person sounds when he is writing. Me especially! None of us are scholars on the subject, we just play one on the internet. ;)
Let me speak for where I may have disparaged a school of scholars. I was not speaking for a particular school or group of scholars when I criticized "the modern scholars." I was lumping all of today's scholars that work in the contemporary environment that we live in. If I had to be more precise with my words I would say it's not the scholars who are working in bad faith. I accept that most are in good faith, but the environment, the world view that has been established in the last hundred plus years (since Nietzsche declared God dead? earlier to the French enlightenment?) leads scholars into directions that is dislocated from those with a more traditionally Catholic view, whether they are conscious or not of that shaping to their thoughts. Does that make sense?
I'm not stopping anyone from making the counter argument. Please do. I can't make it, because (a) I don't in my heart believe it and (b) according to you I don't fully understand it because I'm assuming the Temple destruction as the sole time orientation. I would love to understand the more subtle points of Gospel dating, if there is more to it than the Temple destruction.
To repeat, everyone reading, take what I say or what anyone else says with a grain of salt. It is not authoritative.
Sure, to the extent that Western culture is more secular today than it was prior to the French Revolution and that the larger culture influences university dialogue, including theological departments, to a greater or lesser extent, I agree with you. And, I am willing to accept that you and everyone else on this thread may have no intension to negatively characterize any Catholic theologian or school of thought. But, as you say, I also thing that many who see these comments, both those who actively participate and those who lurk, have little formal study in biblical scholarship or other areas of theology. Therefore, a strongly worded comment that disparages those who present another opinion (I am not talking about heresy, but an opinion held by the majority of U.S. Bishops) are likely to take it on face value and draw the conclusion that to entertain that view is somehow less than fully orthodox or pius. BTW, although my MA is not in biblical theology, it is in Catholic theology with a number of courses in Scripture. No, I am not an expert in the field, but I am not coming from a hunch or feeling either.
Mod
Catholic Thought
Books mentioned in this topic
Catholic Bible Dictionary (other topics)Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries (other topics)
"Now that's unsettling." This made me think...
There was always awe and fear towards God growing up in the Catholic faith as a kid...and then it really seems to have been pushed aside...all this push to see Jesus as merely a really chill, kind, "best friend" who is 100% "mercy" and nothing else; "No judging!!" (even by many very high in the Catholic Church)....talk about Russian "disinformation" and fake news....how un-"Truth"ful and damaging has this shift been?
Everyone seems to be scared to say that we should "fear" God - I think they are misunderstanding the fear. It is an awesome fear, an appropriate, prudent fear as God is pure justice and all-mighty and powerful... He doesn't do anything to be mean for goodness sakes....pure justice just 'is' - it is what it is - it 'can't' be any other way, can it? Now God can see into our hearts and souls and certainly can see things about a person that is not always ascertainable from the outside, so we can not judge ultimate consequences of any individual person, that is always left to God...but justice will be done.......is that not the point of the whole thing???
Although God was loving and merciful and offered us salvation through His grace (undeserved)....justice still had to be done - it can not be thwarted, "He would never be so mean!"....;
otherwise why would He send His only Son to die?? To me, everything just falls apart if one shifts the balance of exactly who God really is.....there should be awe and fear towards God - I don't see it as an OT thing. Jesus helps us have a more full, balanced view of God, a deeper understanding; but this NT view can seem to be just as slanted, just in the opposite direction...
"Who do people say I am?"
(Feel free to delete this if this is not the place for such a comment - it is hard for me not to apply what is in the Bible or our readings, because I think that is the whole point of reading them, to understand life and live it well...but from a moderator point of view it may need to be deleted :) )