|
The ChurchinHistory Information Centre www.churchinhistory.org
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
Part 4
CHAPTER XVII FUNDAMENTALISM; ECUMENISM; TWO AUDIENCES; THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION FUNDAMENTALISM Many Markans picture themselves in the forefront of opposition to `Fundamentalism`. But recent history does not support their claim. During the last decades of the 19th century Markan priority took hold of much of the Protestant world and, in response, modern `Fundamentalism` was launched at a 1895 American Congress. This movement aimed to uphold the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith against Markan priorist attacks. The method they adopted was to accept every word in both the old and new testaments, in a literal manner. They would have been more correct if they had named themselves as `Literalists`. Only a part of the Protestant world chose to go down the literalist road. Much of the remainder found itself lacking clear biblical guidelines as to what should be considered as the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. In this manner modern non-doctrinal liberalism was born. For over half a century the Pontifical Biblical Commission protected the Catholic world from these developments. But from the mid-60s, as Markan priority came to be tolerated, a small movement of Catholics towards fundamentalist sects was noticeable. Markan priority has not provided a defence against `Fundamentalism`. It caused its birth and is the major reason for its growth and persistence. The internationally known Scripture scholar and author, Eta Linnemann, illustrates a similar reaction in Germany, where she had studied under Bultmann. She came to realise that for years she had been teaching unsupported assertions and circular arguments. It was only after a period of spiritual anguish that she regained her faith in the Word of God. But now she seems to reject the historical-critical method itself and has gone from Bultmannism to a form of Fundamentalism. ((EL 9-15 and 209-210)). Discussion of the Old Testament is outside the scope of this booklet, but Catholics recognise that the earliest books were composed in pre-history. The authors used the literary conventions of their times, adapting existing legends to teach religious truths about the relationship between God and mankind. Authors of later books in the Old Testament also wrote according to the conventions of their respective periods. R.E.Brown was haunted by a fear of Catholic youth being captured by Fundamentalist sects. He believed a rich liturgy; a firm Catechesis and marvellous personal devotions would be of little avail if the study of the Bible was ignored. ((RB 44-47)). We can agree with him and agree that he was correct in stating that this should be based on modern methods (Not forgetting the guidance of the Church). His mistake was to equate it with Markan priority. As the New Testament was written in historical times, we should read it according to the conventions of its day. It is unscientific to transfer literary conventions from one age to another. Michael Wrenn in 1985 pointed out this error: “There is a strange tendency which abuses comparisons with the Old Testament in order to depreciate the history of Salvation, especially Gospel history” ((RL page x)). For Catholics the fundamental doctrines of Christianity were reaffirmed in the 1994 Catechism, while rejecting the use of fundamentalist/ literalist methods of exegesis. ((CCC 126, 375-390)). ECUMENISM Markans claim their work has produced the beneficial effect of bringing Protestant and Catholic scholars together. But this is of little value if they have come together in error. According to liberal Christians, Christ came to earth, preached, died and ascended into heaven. But, although highly intelligent, he made no provision, in either a Protestant or Catholic way, for future generations to know with certainty why he lived and what he taught. Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Christians have much in common when combating `liberal` Christianity, and the Clementine tradition has a long history of ecumenical co-operation. Henry Owen, the pioneer in modern times, was an Anglican, while Griesbach, developer of the synoptic method, was an Evangelical Lutheran. Chapman and Butler, who did much to sustain opposition to Markan priority, were both Catholics. In America it was a Methodist professor, W. R. Farmer, who in 1964 challenged the North American world. It was also he who highlighted the influence of 19th Century German politics on biblical studies. In 1987 Harold Riley as an Anglican, jointly produced a book with Bernard Orchard, a Catholic, which challenged the Markan consensus in England. John Robinson, who concluded that all the Gospels were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, came from a life-long background of liberal Anglicanism. Thied the papyrologist is an Anglican co-operating with Jose O`Callaghan a Catholic. Meijboom, a Dutch Calvinist, led the rebuttal of Markan priority in 1866. When Kiwiet, a Baptist professor of theology translated Meijboom`s work in 1993, he was assisted by a Presbyterian, two Catholics and a Wesleyan. The researchers mentioned in chapter VI and gathered around A.J.Mc Nichol and D.B. Peabody are not of one church affiliation. We could go on, but this is enough to show that research into the Clementine and Jerome traditions is not a problem for ecumenism. In fact, it presents a marvellous opportunity for all Christians to work together to rebuild confidence in the Word of God in the face of doubt and disbelief. TWO AUDIENCES The Catholic Church claims she has the God given authority to decide which writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and should therefore be included in the New Testament. She claims that this authority may be proved from a study of the New Testament. At first sight it may appear she is arguing in a circle. That is: The Church authenticates the New Testament and The New Testament authenticates the Church. But this is not so. Catholics claim that the information in the Gospels, when treated as normal history, shows that Christ founded a visible organisation (now known as the Catholic Church based at Rome), which he promised to protect from teaching doctrinal error. On the basis of this claim, this Church has used her authority to pronounce that the Gospels are not mere historical records, but the inspired word of God. This means that when the Church makes a statement on this subject she has to be aware of two audiences. In order to maintain that the Gospels are reliable historical documents, and so protect the basis of her position, she encourages research on the basis of scientific method and open debate, without wishing to pre-judge the a scientific debate. But most Church members accept her claims for reasons not dependent on the historicity of the Gospels. So for their instruction she makes known her firm traditional teaching that: `two apostles and other men associated with the apostles`, wrote the four Gospels ((DV Paragraph 7)). Catholic exegetes use reason (scientific knowledge and early history) to establish the historicity of the Gospels. But as Catholic exegetes they posses some knowledge through faith, and this enables them to see when a particular scientific theory is leading to error. A Catholic does not accept doctrines as true because he judges the Bible to say so, but because his Church says they are the teachings of Christ. He studies and ponders scripture in order to deepen his understanding. A Protestant approaches the Bible in a different frame of mind and this needs to be remembered when studying together. THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION (PBC) Pope Leo XIII established this Commission 1902 and Pope Pius X issued `Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae` in 1907. A slightly amended version of this was published in 1910 and includes the passage:
A detailed explanation and analysis of the purpose and work of the Commission is provided on pages 67-75 of the 1953 Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Pius X had made the rulings of the Commission part of the normal teaching of the Church. This was acknowledged in 1993 when Cardinal Ratzinger contributed the preface to `The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church`. He wrote:
Raymond Brown was a member of this new advisory body, constituted in 1971. He acknowledged that his membership did not mean papal approval for his ideas ((RB 27)). It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the relationship of the original PBC to the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The original Commission was cautious. For example it did not say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but that arguments put forward against his authorship were not strong enough to justify teaching that he was not the author. The Commission was facing a difficult problem. Deists were using `scientific findings` to challenge what the Church had always maintained regarding the historicity of the New Testament. Catholics and other Christians were confident that answers would be found but, in the meantime, the Commission had the task of keeping false theories from being taught in Catholic educational establishments. In 1907 the President of the Commission wrote that its duty was:
An exegete could privately disagree with the statements of the Commission but not oppose them publicly while the Church was waiting for the problem to be solved. It was hoped it would not take long to explain the evidence being put forward by the Deists in another way. Unfortunately it was not till the second half of the 20th Century that Farmer, Tresmontant, Riley, Orchard and others were successful. By then many Catholic, and nearly all Protestant, exegetes had embraced the Deist interpretations and many had become modernists. In the confusion following the second Vatican Council this Modernism spread deeply into Catholic Educational Institutions. While Catholic exegetes had had a greater degree of freedom of expression since the middle of the 20th century, Markan priorists often exaggerate this freedom. `Divino Afflante Spiritu` of 1943 encouraged the use of the new methods of research which had been developed, but it also praised `Providentissimus Deus` and insisted that the basic Catholic principles set out by the Biblical Commission had not been revised. Followers of Brown sometimes claim that in 1954 `the Secretary of the PBC announced, that Catholics now had complete freedom with regard to those earlier responses of the Commission, except where they touched faith and morals` ((RB 34 and 59)). Yet the `announcement`, which did not include the words `complete freedom`, was not made on behalf of the Commission. An anonymous individual contributing his personal views to a book signed himself: `AM`. As the secretary of the PBC at the time was Fr. A Miller many presumed he was the contributor. He may have been responsible, but as his article was not published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), it was not an official document, merely the personal opinion of `AM` ((LT July 2001, pages 1-9)).
CHAPTER XVIII THE EVENTS FALL INTO PLACE When the evidence provided by the ancient historians is re-examined, in the light of the Clementine tradition, we find many problems faced by scripture scholars may be resolved. My suggestions are given below. 1. Two Editions of Mark Clement of Alexandria tells us: “The audience, which was numerous, begged Mark …to write down the things he [Peter] had said. And he did so …”. Mark, as Peter’s secretary, would have had a team of scribes. So he would have been able to quickly publish this short record of Peter’s words. We are told that Peter showed little interest but, from another book by Clement, we know that when Peter became aware of its favourable reception, he approved it for use in the churches. This indicates that Mark’s short Gospel was published in two editions – an unauthorized informal one and a second endorsed by Peter for use in the churches. Clement informs us that Mark issued the words of Peter while Peter was still alive, yet Irenaeus says that Mark published after the death of Peter. This again points to there having been two editions. Luke, a newcomer recently arrived in Rome, would have taken longer to gather together a team of scribes to copy his full scroll length gospel. So it would have been published after Mark’s first edition but before the second edition. Mark’s team would have been busy following the death of Peter so delaying publication of Mark’s second edition Librarians in the churches would have filed the Gospels side by side in pigeonholes. Some would have quickly received Mark’s first edition, others obtained the second edition after Luke’s gospel. This would explain how the Matthew-Mark-Luke tradition came into existence in some churches and the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John in others. The existence of two traditions would have caused discussion and explain why Clement had to clarify which gospels were first: He stated that: “…the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies.” He didn’t mention the order of their publication. When Jerome wrote his ‘Prologue to the Four Gospels’, he did not say they were written in the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence, but that they had been published [adidit] in this order. So the statements of Clement and Jerome do not conflict. 2. The Last Verses of Mark Mark`s Gospel breaks off abruptly at 16: 8, before continuing with twelve more verses. This break involves ending with an enclitic form of Greek grammar, and this is inappropriate for the ending of a paragraph, never mind a book. Many suggestions have been put forward in explanation of these additional verses. As mentioned in our Chapter VII, Orchard suggested that they might have been notes for a further talk which was not delivered. My suggestion is as follows: The audience listening to Peter would have already known the information provided in Matthew’s Gospel. But for most of them the gospel of Luke contained new material. As Orchard has pointed out, Peter stopped at the point his personal eyewitness of the earthly life of Christ ended ((RO 271-8)). Also, Peter had not commented on all the new interesting pieces of information provided by Luke. So I suggest that the audience would have asked questions, and these last verses record the answers supplied by Peter. To illustrate: As the ‘he’ of verse 9 does not refer to the young man in verse 5, one would have expected to read ‘Jesus’. But if the name of the Lord had been contained in a question, the use of ‘he’ would be correct. Matthew in 28: 1-10 says that Mary Magdalene was, with another woman, the first to see Jesus, and Luke 24: 10 confirms this. But earlier Luke had mentioned a woman of the same name, ‘a Mary who is called Magdalene’, who had been possessed by seven devils (Luke 8: 2). We should not be surprised if someone, noting her history, asked if this was the same person. Peter replies that it was (Mark 16: 9). He then confirms that Luke was also correct when he wrote that it was she who told the Apostles. Matthew had not reported that Christ had appeared to two men walking, but Luke gives this incident much space (Luke 24: 13-31). Should the audience accept this story as true? As Peter was not one of the two, he was unable to confirm all the details, but he does confirm that Christ did appear to two disciples walking in the countryside (Mark 16: 12). Luke then tells the story of Christ appearing to the eleven (24: 33-36). Yet Matthew has not mentioned this. Was it true? Peter, being there, is able to confirm that it was (Mark 16: 14). Matthew says followers of Christ were to teach and baptise (28: 19), but Luke says they are to preach penance and forgiveness (Luke 24: 47). Was there a discrepancy here? Peter explains how baptism follows on from successful preaching (Mark 15: 15-16). In his second volume, Luke says that Paul was able to cast out a devil (Acts 16: 18). There was no mention of this power in Matthew. So was it true? Peter, not being present at the incident, could not confirm it, but gives it credibility by saying Christ had foretold that such happenings would occur (Mark 16: 17). In Acts 2: 4 and 10: 46, Luke reports Peter as having been present on two occasions when speaking in tongues had taken place. Matthew had not reported these events. Peter is able to confirm them in his response to the question about casting out the devils (Mark 16: 17). The audience had read in Acts 28: 5, that Paul was impervious to the poison of a snake. Matthew had not recorded such an incident. Could it be true? Not being present at the incident, all Peter can do is again refer to the words of Christ. We then read of a similar question regarding the laying on of hands. He answers (Mark 16: 18) in the same way. Luke in 24: 51 and Acts 1: 9 describes how Christ ascended to heaven. As Matthew had not described this, the audience would have found it of great interest. Peter, having been an eyewitness, was able to confirm and slightly embellish the account of Luke. (Mark 16: 19). A person’s style of speaking will be different when answering questions from when he is giving a talk. The different style of these final verses has often been noted. We often see a copy of a talk circulated without the answers to questions. Then, after a time, an edition including the answers is published. Sometimes it is the first issue which has the answers but they are omitted in the second 3. Two Editions I suggest that the second edition of Mark’s Gospel was published with/without the answers. Some early copies of Mark’s Gospel have been found with the twelve verses missing. Peter approved both editions and the one including the answers became part of the bible we use today. If the above suggestions are accepted it points to Acts, as well as Luke’s gospel, having been seen by some of the audience prior to or during the period of the talks. In addition to Mark, the audience is likely to have included Paul, his guard, Luke, Linus, Cletus, Clement of Rome, Alexander, Rufus and Hermas. 4. The Poor Greek Of Mark The foundation-stone of the Markan priority theory is the alleged inability of Mark (chosen to be the secretary of the bishop of Rome) to write in good Greek But if we accept Orchard and the Clementine tradition, an alternative explanation comes to mind. Extremists among the Judaizing Party would not have been pleased at the acceptance by Peter of Luke’s Gentile gospel. We know today that when a religious or political leader makes a statement on a disputed subject, some in the losing party will be suspicious that their leader has been misquoted. They will demand to know exactly what the leader has said. I suggest that diehard members of the Judaic party would have wanted to read an unedited verbatim record of the exact words of Peter. An edited, `improved` version would not have been acceptable. Scriptual misquotation and poor grammar had to be left unchanged in the published document. The early Christian communities already had two long carefully designed gospels. So the literary style of a transcript of a series of talks, would not have be seen as of great importance or an embarrassment for the Church. The problem of the poor Greek of Mark is more acute for the upholders of Markan priority. They claim it was the only gospel in existence for 20 or more years. As the key document of the new dynamic religion, it would have presented a very negative portrait of the intelligence, education and capability of its leaders. So why did the Christian Community leave the obvious misquotations and grammatical errors uncorrected? 5. The Source of the Gospel according to Mark.Those upholding the Jerome sequence, often assume that Mark, when writing his gospel, used words he had heard Peter preach over many years. But if we accept the view of Orchard and others, a fresh look at the evidence is required. John the Apostle and Papias report that Mark had the intention of not leaving out anything he had heard. `Nothing was left out` ((EH 3: 39, 15)). Yet we cannot accept that Mark's Gospel contains everything Peter preached over twenty or more years. The words of Papias would more accurately describe Mark reporting word for word a talk, or a limited series of talks. Clement of Alexandria says Mark was begged to produce a record of what Peter had preached to a specific audience including Caesar’s knights. Later he says Peter’s hearers were not satisfied with a ‘once only’ hearing. ((EH 2:15, 1)). Yet the Christians in Rome must have heard Peter preaching on many occasions. So the words of Clement again suggest a once only delivery of something special. Clement says: “the audience, which was numerous”, [or in another translation, “the many who had been present”]. ((EH 6: 14, 7)). The word ‘audience’ is in the singular so again points to one talk or a set series of talks. It does not suggest many different audiences spread over many years. The word ‘numerous’ would be superfluous unless Clement is referring to one well attended event. The opening words of `The Muratorian Fragment` indicate that the author of what was listed as the second Gospel, `was present` at some event. These reports confirm that the Gospel of Mark was composed due to a once only special event, consisting of a talk or series of talks by Peter. 6. The Acts of the Apostles If Peter answered questions regarding `Acts`, he would be granting it tacit approval and copies would have been made and distributed. Luke would have then been unlikely to add anything once the book had been given this approval. If Luke had accompanied Paul to Spain he might have decided to compose another book. But there is no hint in tradition that he went with Paul, or that he wrote a third book. The Acts of Luke, stopping where it does, is consistent with the Clementine / Orchard tradition. 7.The Spanish Mission Orchard has suggested that Paul asked Peter to endorse the writing of Luke as a sign of the equality of Jew and Gentile within the Church. It would also officially recognise the mission of Paul to the Gentiles ((RO 250-254)). I would like to suggest that while this is correct, there may have also been an immediate need for this endorsement. As explained in chapter XII, Paul used Rome as a place to prepare his team of missionaries destined for work in Spain. Up until this time, when Christian missionaries arrived in a new town, they would go first to a synagogue to preach the Good News to the Jews (Acts chapters 13-19). The Gospel of Matthew, with its emphasis on explaining the fulfilment of Jewish prophecies, was of central importance in gaining a first nucleus of converts. This method would not have been useable in Spain where there were few, if any, synagogues ((MP 134)). The Gospel of Luke, written with Gentiles in mind, would be likely to be more effective. I suggest his impending departure for Spain, could have been an immediate cause of Paul asking Peter to endorse Luke’s Gospel. 8. The Epistle To The Hebrews The psychological blow suffered by every Jew when God permitted the Temple sacrifice to cease forever, cannot be exaggerated. Christians could claim they had been vindicated. It showed that God wanted the new sacrifice of the Eucharist to replace that of animals. I suggest that Paul asked Luke to translate a recent letter of his to Jerusalem (The Epistle to the Hebrews) into Greek. Clement of Alexandria says it was Luke who translated this epistle ((EH 6: 14, 2)). I suggest that the now redundant introductory and closing words were omitted, so transforming the letter into something like a sermon. Many today consider it reads like a sermon. I would also suggest that the Christian community would have been keen to publish a commentary on the events of 70AD. Yet, if we do not accept this course of events, there is no evidence of any attempt to do this. 9. The Last Chapter of John In chapter XII, it was explained that the most of this Gospel was written before 70 AD and the last chapter added about 96 AD. The contemporary situation may explain the addition. Nineteen of the twenty-five new verses refer to Peter who had been dead for thirty years. Three bishops ordained by Peter had succeeded to his Roman bishopric: Linus in 65 AD, Cletus in 81 AD and Clement from about 93 ((EH 3: 13, 1)). According to archaeological finds and legends, Clement was sent to the stone quarries in the Crimea, where he was martyred in 100 or101 AD ((BC 214-5 and 234)). His exile would have produced a vacuum in leadership and a constitutional crisis in the Church. Christ had promised to appoint the Apostles as leaders of his Church under the headship of Peter (Mt. 16: 18-20). The Gospel records Christ actually commissioning the apostles as a group (Mt. 28: 16-20), but does not report the formal commissioning of Peter in his special position. The long enforced absence of Peter would have raised two questions. Firstly, could the successors of the Apostles (the bishops) replace a successor of Peter without obtaining his agreement? Secondly, if John was not going to die, why not elect him? At this point John intervenes. He informs his readers of the words used by Christ when he did in fact commission Peter (John 21: 15-17). John is thereby supporting the position that Clement was not dependent on the continuing approval of the bishops. He then says there is no foundation for the rumour about him not dying. This would be another example of John supplementing and clarifying. 10. The Greek version of Matthew gospel We will probably never know who translated Matthew’s Gospel into Greek But it would seem most likely to me that once a Hebrew version came into circulation, Greek speakers would have requested a copy in their own language. Matthew would have prepared this himself or overseen an assistant. This could have been done in a short period of time. CHAPTER XIX THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH As the Gospels were originally written on separate scrolls and stored in pigeonholes, church librarians placed them in whichever order they wished. This could have been in the order in which they were acquired, by frequency of use or by honour. In Egypt it appears that John, as `a pillar of the Church` (Gal. 2: 90), took precedence, followed by Matthew (another Apostle), Mark (recorder of Peter) and then Luke. In the Greek speaking Eastern part of the Church the order was Matthew-Mark-Luke and John. When translations were made into Latin for the West, the normal order was Matthew-John-Luke-Mark. But whichever sequence was adopted, Matthew was invariably placed prior to Mark. As explained in chapter II, Clement of Alexandria gives the earliest specific information regarding the order in which the gospels were composed. He wrote that Matthew and Luke were the first to write. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian, a generation earlier, had used this same `Clementine sequence` of Matthew-Luke-Mark ((See Our Chapter IIc and i)). As also explained in Chapter II, Jerome`s Vulgate translation was made the official version of the New Testament at the end of the 4th century. Although the older versions were still in use during the following centuries there is no trace of academic discussion regarding the order of composition. But we do know that Sedulius Scottus, an Irish monk of the 9th.century, upheld the Clementine Tradition in his `Explanatiuncula`. ((DBP 53)). In 1546, during the 4th session of the Council of Trent under Paul III, the following decree dated 8th April, was issued:
The Council used the normally accepted titles, authorship and order when decreeing that they were Sacred. This does not mean there was an intention to attribute doctrinally the authorship of any book. But it does illustrate the tradition held at that time. It was Dr. Henry Owen, Rector of St. Olave in Hart Street, London, who shattered the long silence regarding the order in which the Gospels were written. In a small 1764 book, he proposed the hypothesis that Mark used material from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke ((HO 62)). Owen devoted most of his time to pastoral work in North London, so his book was not noticed in England. But J.J.Griesbach purchased a copy and published an expanded version in Germany. It became known as `The Griesbach Hypothesis`, and caused controversy in the German academic world. Griesbach had to face the opposition of those upholding the Jerome tradition. It asserted that as `The Fathers of The Church` (i.e. The early historians and theologians) had accepted the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John order, it was not to be questioned. Unfortunately Griesbach did not challenge this historical evidence to see if there was an alternative tradition. He accepted the assertion of the conservatives and said that as his new theory was correct, the historical writings must be, `worthless fables`. It was Griesbach who, in the world of biblical debate, set `Science` against `History`, an antagonism soon to be copied by Markan priorists. During this period Deism, under the cloak of `The Enlightenment`, was appearing in the Universities. Deists believed in God but rejected Christianity. They also rejected the possibility of miracles, prophecies and of being able to know what Christ had taught. In 1760 Herman Reimarus wrote to Gotthold Lessing: “Our task is completely to separate what the Apostles presented in their writings (i.e. in the Gospels) from what Jesus himself actually said and taught during his lifetime“ ((WGK 89)). During 1792 Evanson, an English Deist, argued that John was not the author of the fourth Gospel ((CCHS 777a)). The German Lutheran Church was the first to suffer from the arguments of the Deists. Most of the fathers of German atheism, like Feuerbach, began life as Lutheran theological students ((PT 149)). But one of them, Friedrich Schleiermacher, while accepting the modern theories, also wished to be religious. He took the position that religion is not knowledge, creeds, doctrines or sacred books. Nor did it need philosophical reflection. It has been said: `For Schleiermacher, the essence of religion was piety and piety was feeling. With him every essential of modernism had arrived. Radical biblical scholarship destroys belief and there follows a desperate attempt to construct a gimcrack religious shelter out of the ruins with the help of some form of modern philosophical subjectivism. … Schleiermacher is the real founder father of modernism` ((PT17: 150-151)). In 1838 Christian Weisse proposed that Mark had been written prior to both Matthew and Luke ((JJK 12)). This would place the Gospels at such a late date that they could not have been written by any of the Apostles or their secretaries. The theory would also destroy the reliability of the ancient historians and therefore also of the dating of the Gospel according to John. This was the perfect argument the Deists were looking for. They were a ready-made pressure group eager to provide Weisse with support. Weisse had provided these anti-Christians with a powerful motive to become exegetes of Scripture. And so began the tradition of anti-Christians, supported by university funds, acting as `experts` in Biblical Studies. These experts could wreak havoc by appearing to be dedicated Christians searching for the real Jesus. It is interesting that Lessing admitted this tactic in writing. He was financially dependent on his father, a Lutheran minister, so concealed his hatred of Christianity. ((EL 12)). He wrote to a friend that all he could do to overthrow, `this hateful edifice of nonsense …was to hide behind the pretence of furnishing new bases for it`. ((EL 40)). In 1863 H.J.Holtzmann published a further development of the Markan priority theory. But three years later Hajo Uden Meijboom, exposed the unscientific character of Holzmann`s work ((JJK xxv)). Under the criticism of free and scholarly debate the Markan priority theory may have disappeared, but the Deists kept it alive until politics intervened in a major way. Bismarck, the nationalist and anti-Catholic Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany, came to power in 1870. He aimed to destroy the independence of the Catholic Church and her educational system. During Bismarck`s campaign, known as the `Kulturkampf` [the culture war], the Catholic Centre Party expanded. When the Socialists gained more seats in the Protestant areas, Bismarck needed Centre Party support in order to remain in power. In 1887, under this political pressure he lifted the threat to Catholic schools, while personally remaining bitterly anti-Catholic. During this Kulturkampf period the Catholics had used quotations, mainly from the Gospel of Matthew, to maintain their God-given right to maintain schools for Catholic children. So the Markan priority hypothesis, which held that the Gospel of Matthew was a late anonymous non-eyewitness composition, became of great interest to Bismarck. The universities in Germany were government controlled and in 1874, at the height of the Kulturkampf, the young patriotic and nationalist Holtzmann was appointed to the prestigious position of head of New Testament Studies at Strasbourg University. ((WRFB 2478)). His 1863 book was widely seen as the reason for this sudden promotion. Deists and ambitious lecturers, including a few liberal Catholics, saw their opportunity to gain promotion ahead of more independent minded colleagues. A person upholding the priority of Matthew was seen as pro-Catholic and unpatriotic at a time of nationalist fervour. `… any German scholar who would openly question the Markan hypothesis … would be perceived as endangering “the foundations of the state”`. ((WRFB 2493)). Within a generation, the Markan priority theory dominated the Scripture departments of the German Universities. Evangelicals were not indifferent to this development, and many of their professors, such as Adolf Hilgenfeld, held to their principles and suffered alongside pro-papal Catholics ((WRFB 2492)). During the 1870 Vatican Council, the decree of Trent regarding the extent of Sacred Scripture was endorsed as part of the section on `Revelation`, paragraphs 5 and 6 ((VAT)). At the turn of the century, English academic circles became aware of the teachings in the German universities and presumed that these had emerged due to unbiased extensive research and open debate. Accepting the Germans as their academic superiors in this subject, English scholars led by B.H.Streeter, adopted the Markan priority hypothesis as: “The assured results of modern scholarship”. ((RO 3)). Holtzmann could be called: ‘The farther of Markan priority’. Yet in later life, while continuing to maintain Markan priority, he accepted that Luke had used the gospel of Matthew. Streeter refused to accept this because in his opinion it destroyed the need for ‘Q’ ((AJM xi)). In this manner Markan priority and ‘Q’ came to extensively permeate England and provide a basis for the growth of liberal theology within the Anglican Communion. By now Rome had become alarmed. In 1893 Pope Leo wrote in Section 17, of 'Providentissimus Deus'.
Then in 1902 he established the Pontifical Biblical Commission aiming to guide teachers at all levels. Its function was to procure that holy Writ should be preserved ‘not only from any breath of error’, but also ‘from all rash opinions’. ((CCHS 47b)). This defensive aim and ethos expressed itself in a policy of caution, prudence, ‘playing safe’ and suspicion of innovation. In 1909 Pope Pius X established the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome as a centre of advanced scriptural studies ((DAS 9)). In 1911, amongst other things, the PBC reaffirmed that the apostle Matthew authored the Gospel to which his name was attached. It said that there was adequate supporting tradition to form the view that it was the first to be written, and had been composed in the native language of Palestine prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. In 1912 it said it was not permissible to depart from the opinion that Matthew, Mark and Luke were composed in that order ((CCHS 50 a-l)). Scholars were allowed to privately disagree with this ruling, but not teach an alternative to the official opinion. It is noteworthy that the statement endorses the priority of Matthew as Catholic `tradition`, while the chronological order of Mark and Luke was treated as an `opinion`. But while intended to prevent the spread of Markan priority, it had the unfortunate side effect of hindering the open advocacy of the Clementine `opinion`. In doing so, it contributed to the delay in solving of the problem quickly. But it needs to be recognised that the guidance provided in 1911 and 1912, on a wide range of issues concerning the New Testament, provided the urgently needed steadying effect required at that time. The priorities of Rome, thinking of the schools, were different to those of the exegetes. This was expressed by Pius XII in 1943:
In the first half of the 20th century, the Protestant world came to accept that `Science` had shown the early Christian historians to be in error. This is why early Christian history is so often neglected today. At the same time the historical tradition was taught in Catholic establishments as if it was part of unchangeable Church doctrine. In this polarisation of the intellectual atmosphere, most young students chose `Science` rather than `History`and eventually produced a generation of frustrated Catholic biblical students. In 1933, Pius XI built the St. Jerome monastery in Rome with a richly endowed library, to specialise in biblical work ((DAS 11)). The 1943 Encyclical `Divino Afflante Spiritu` by Pius XII accepted that literary analysis, which in 1893 had been used in an arbitrary manner and with preconceived opinions, had now achieved such stability and sureness of principles that it had become an excellent tool for research ((DAS 23 and 24)). It also called on everyone to continue with the one secure method prescribed by Leo XIII which had stood the test of experience ((DAS 15)). Two Catholics, J. Chapman in 1937 and B.C. Butler in 1951, wrote books successfully challenging Markan priority. But by adhering to the Jerome sequence they were unable to convincingly offer an alternative. It is interesting to reflect that if they had been `cradle Catholics`, they would almost certainly not have had the knowledge to challenge the Markans. They had learnt literary analysis and the arguments associated with the subject during their early years as Anglican clerics. On the other hand, the Radical Protestants Martin Dibelius and Ralph Bultmann led a campaign to `demythologise` the Gospels. Bultmann (1884-1976) claimed amongst other things that the words of Jesus were not recorded in the Gospels, but were created by preachers speaking in his name.
On 11th October 1962 the Second Vatican Council was opened with the aim of renewing the Church so as to make her more effective in proclaiming Christ to the modern world. The Biblical Commission issued a short letter of guidance for the use of the bishops. As the bishops were about to formulate the wording of `Dei Verbum` [The Word of God], it was deliberately ambiguous and became redundant with the passing of the decrees of the Council. Yet some today quote from it as if it is authoritative, while ignoring `Dei Verbum` itself, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Devine Revelation. In April 1964 the PBC issued, `An Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels`. This was a more substantial document and the Commission was still a teaching organ of the Church with binding authority. A few excerpts will indicate its tone:
The Council was seen as primarily a pastoral council examining ways to converse with the modern world, but two Doctrinal Constitutions were also issued. One of these, `Dei Verbum`, reiterated traditional teaching, as the following makes clear:
Section 18 then refers the reader to Adversus Haereses 3: 11, 8 by Irenaeus, which opens:
Section 19 continued:
When section 19 was being drafted, it was suggested that, `believed and continues to believe`, should replace `held and continues to hold`, since this was a truth always accepted in the Church through an act of faith. But a revision was not made because the historicity of the gospels was a truth which could be accessed both by faith and reason, and not just by faith alone ((TMH 7)). Chapter XVII of this booklet touched on this aspect. [The words: ‘held’ and ‘hold’ may be translated as ‘maintained’ and ‘maintain’]. An early draft of another part of section 19 read: `they always tell us true and sincere things about Jesus`. But Pope Paul on the 18th October 1965, informed the theological Commission that it did not `guarantee the real historicity of the gospels; and on this point, as is obvious, the Holy Father could not approve a formula which would leave the slightest doubt about the historicity of these most holy books`. The Commission proposed the phrase `whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms`, and the Council approved this. ((GC 228ff and TMH 28)). The words in this section which explain HOW the Gospels were composed, are not inconsistent with the teaching of WHO composed them. This Doctrinal Constitution as revised was agreed overwhelmingly by the bishops and promulgated on the 18th of November 1965. It is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It may be noted that the rejected drafts were not advocating Church acceptance of the Markan Priority theory but, if used, could have raised doubt of the historical character of the Gospels. It should be noticed that the wording was agreed after extensive discussion so as to find words to convey a precise meaning. This background, together with the words being part of a Dogmatic Constitution, means that these words must be read with great attention. Quotations have been taken from the English translation on www.vatican.va/Click on English, then Site Map, then B, then Bible, then Docs of II Vat Council. Nearly identical wording is to be found in ‘The Documents of Vatican II’, edited by Walter Abbott, 1965. A less accurate translation is to be found in: ‘Vatican Council II’, edited by Austin Flannery, 1975. The important differences in the translations are explained in our separate leaflet: [What does Section 7 of Dei Verbum teach?]. THE CONSISTENCY OF ROME The mind of the Church, as expressed in her official statements and in the words of her representatives at the highest level, has consistently adhered to the teaching of the 1965 Council. There are many examples of this: 1. In April 1971 the Sacred Congregation of the Clergy issued `The General Catechetical Directory`.
2. In October 1979 Pope John Paul II issued `Catechesi Tradendae`. We read:
3. In 1983 Cardinal Ratzinger, Head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, said the mentality behind many of the current hypotheses about the `Christ of Faith` etc:
4. In 1984 the same Cardinal pointed out that the form of `Liberation Theology`, which was corrupting the Christian message in the third world, did not originate there. He said this theology was a creation of European and North American intellectuals combining Bultmann`s exegesis, of an historical Jesus separated from the Christ of Faith, with a Marxist interpretation of history. His complete statement, implicating false exegesis as one of the roots of a false `Liberation Theology`, may be seen elsewhere ((JRA 174-186 or on the web at JRLT)). 5. Cardinal Ratzinger gave an interview in August 1984. An English translation, 'The Ratzinger Report' was published in 1985. ((JRA)). In one place the Cardinal says:
A longer extract is available on the "Christendom Awake" web site. See ((TMM [29])). 6. During the same year Ratzinger wrote a Preface to a book by R. Laurentin
[It is noteworthy that he saw the thought patterns of `The Enlightenment`, as promoted by the Deists, to be the source of modern problems]. 7.In the same book, Laurentin expressed his own judgement:
8. At the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, Cardinal William Baum, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, dedicated almost his entire report to the grave situation in many Catholic seminaries and universities resulting from widespread trends in exegesis:
9. At this time the Markans were claiming credit for the upsurge in biblical activity. But much of this upsurge was being deformed by them as they promote their own agendas. Both the 1985 Synod of Bishops ((ESB section B, a, 1, and in a CTS pamphlet)), and the Pope on 8th April 1986, ((LOR)), said Dei Verbum had been neglected for twenty years ((TMM [2], web ca)). 10. The 1986 Encyclical, `Dominum et Vivificantem`, Part 1; 3, reads:
11.Section 12 of the 1987 Encyclical `Redemptoris Mater` reads:
12. During 1988 Monsignor Michael Wrenn, the leading Catechetical authority in the diocese of New York, translated Carmanac's 1987 book and praised the work of John Robinson. Both were dating the four Gospels as pre-70 AD. He also publicly supported the judgement of Tresmontant that John wrote his Gospel prior to 70 AD. ((CTG 2)). Wrenn also quoted, with approval, an observation made by Carmanac:
While Tresmontant does not appear to have taken a public stand regarding the ‘Order of the Synoptics’, on one page of his writings he refers to them four times in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark ((CTG 14)). 13. On 27th January 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger gave a lecture entitled: ‘Biblical Interpretation in Crisis’. In his opening paragraphs he said:
14. The Apostolic Exhortation, `Redemptoris Custos` of 1989 accepts the historicity of the narrative stories in the two Gospels.
15.The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 76, reads:
A footnote refers the reader to Dei Verbum, paragraph 7. So the Catechism is reaffirming that some of the apostles themselves committed the message to writing.
When the English edition of the Catechism was published, a footnote to item 1864 referred to the gospels in the order of Mark, Matthew and Luke. In 1997, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith corrected this by placing them in the traditional sequence. ((CCCC)). 16. In 1994 the Pontifical Biblical Commission, now a purely advisory body, issued:
17. In May 1996 Cardinal Ratzinger, at a meeting with CELAM in Mexico, observed that
18. The 1998 Encyclical: `Faith and Reason`, section 55, warned Scripture scholars:
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)). 19. The Rev. Dom Bernard Orchard O.S.B., who used both literary analysis and early history to vindicate the Matthew-Luke-Mark order, was at the forefront of Scriptural Study for over half a century. He was editor of the 1953, `A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture`, Chairman of the Editorial Committee of the 1969 ‘A New Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture` and joint editor of the RSV Bible (Catholic edition). 20. In this booklet there have been several references to Irenaeus. His name is not well known today because the Markans say his history is unreliable. But the great esteem Irenaeus has in the eyes of the Church may be judged from the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, where he is the most quoted author apart from Augustine of Hippo. In, ‘The Catechism of The Catholic Church`, quotations from his writings are only exceeded by Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. 21. On 9th October 2002, Cardinal Ratzinger, celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Catechism, reported that it had been widely welcomed. But he then quoted the critics:
The Cardinal continued:
Interestingly the strongest attacks on the Catechism had come from biblical scholars. 22. Archbishop (Later Cardinal) Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith spoke on 10th October 2005, at the opening of the academic year of the Athenaeum of St. Anselm. He complained of inaccurate translations of Dei Verbum, such as Flannery’s rendering of Section 12. He confirmed that Abbott’s original translation had reflected the authentic meaning. ADDENDUM We may ask how the Markan Priority theory achieved such prominence in Catholic Institutions. Brian Harrison has researched this period and his findings form the basis for the following outline. When, in the first half of the twentieth century, the Protestant World accepted Markan Priority and late dating, many Catholic exegetes privately accepted the same `scientific findings`. Whether every aspect of the workings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission was perfect is open for discussion, but it must be given credit for preventing the teaching of the Markan priority theory in Catholic educational establishments for over fifty years. 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:
It appeared that the Pope was granting permission for the acceptance of Markan priority over the head of the PBC ((LT Jan 1997, IVa)). 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. To understand why this one small disciplinary case caused such widespread confusion, it is necessary to remember that many leading Catholic exegetes considered that they had been frustrated in their biblical research by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. They had been prevented from accepting the findings of `Science`. Their embarrassment when meeting Deist and Protestant exegetes produced a feeling of inferiority and of resentment towards Rome. They felt justified in opposing the PBC because in their eyes it was refusing to accept scientific facts. In their eyes the PBC was preventing the Church from being accepted by the modern world and stood in the way of ecumenical biblical dialogue. The moment it appeared that they no lomger had to obey the words of the PBC, they rushed out with zeal to bring Catholics ‘up to date’. Orchard has also observed that hope existed at the time, in some circles, that unpressured discussion of the Markan priority hypothesis would lead to establishing the truth ((BOD 8)). ADDENDUM TO THE ADDENDUM An example of methods used by Markan priorists, to have their views tolerated within the Catholic Community, emerged with the publication of the 1989 `New Jerome Biblical Commentary`. The authors were Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and Roland Murphy. They were the three leading Catholic Markan priorists in America. It contained a vast volume of informative and interesting details, but a review by John Young led him to write:
The book boasted three `Nihil Obstats`, meaning that three church censors had declared it to be free of doctrinal error. It claimed it was being published in memory of Pope Pius XII, ‘The great promoter of Catholic biblical studies`, and of Pope Paul VI, ‘Who defended and solidified progress in these studies`. One of the two `Forewards` was by Cardinal Bea. But Young pointed out that the three censors of this book by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and Roland Murphy, were Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer and Roland Murphy !!! The writers had judged themselves to be free from error. ((TW fourth paragraph)). The two Popes mentioned were strong upholders of the historicity of the Gospels and, as mentioned above, Paul VI had gone to great lengths to ensure the wording of Dei Verbum would leave no ambiguity. The three authors had no right to imply that the Popes, if they had still been alive, would have been pleased to read the theories and claims made in their Commentary. These two Popes had urged the use of modern methods of biblical study but never endorsed the Markan priority theory. Cardinal Bea had written the Foreward to the 1968 `Jerome Biblical Commentary` but, according to the rear cover of the new paperback edition, the 1989 version was `almost two-thirds new`. As the book was greatly changed, what right had the authors to use the old ‘Foreword’ to promote a book propagating their personal theories, twenty years after the Cardinal had died?
|