|
1). Poster/Leaflet is available on the www.churchinhistory.org web site. 2) Why Four Gospels? By David Allan Black, ISBN 0825420709 (2001). The author of this book is a leading Baptist professor of Greek at South Eastern Baptist University. Black agrees with Orchard’s theories and, while the book presents Black’s own convictions, it provides a good popular digest of Orchard’s ideas. 3). Authors of the Gospels (According to the Clementine Tradition)(html & pdf ) by Dennis Barton, (2004). As well as providing a detailed explanation of Orchard’s ideas, the author includes quotations from the early Christian historians. He also provides recent research regarding the early history of the Gospels from other reliable sources. The author suggests that by accepting Orchard’s ideas, the way is opened to solving other Scriptural problems. The effect Markan Priority has had on Catholic Catechetics and in dividing Protestants into Fundamentalists and Liberals is also discussed. This 120-page booklet is available free in html and pdf at: www.churchinhistory.org It has associated leaflets and one showing why it is important to use a reliable translation of Dei Verbum, such as that available on the Vatican web site. In the early Church, Clement of Alexandria declared that Matthew and Luke were the first to write Gospels. The author has used: ‘The Clementine Tradition’ as an umbrella description to cover all theories which support the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence. 4). The International Institute for Gospel Study (The 2gh Research Group). As mentioned above, 2gh was founded in 1982 to promote the theory that Mark’s Gospel was based on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But within a few years Dom Bernard found his approach differed from the other members. Orchard placed great value on the evidence provided by early Christian historians and the teaching of the Church. But most 2gh members were American Protestants who knew that most fellow Protestants would accept internal evidence only. The 2gh researchers have continued to make the case for the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence based on the interior evidence within the Gospels alone. They are making steady progress, as shown in their publications. Their web site is: www.Colby.edu/rel/2gh/ 5). Archbishop [Later Cardinal] Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, opened the 2005-6 academic year at the Athenaeum of St.Anselm. He took the opportunity to call for a more accurate translation of Dei Verbum. Comment: When published, this may provide an opportune moment for Rome to bring the teaching of Scripture, back to the traditional acceptance of the historicity of the Gospels. For those Catholics who have been taught to see Fundamentalism as the only alternative to the ‘Scientific’ Markan Priority theory, this could be difficult to accept. 6). Scripture– A book by Ronald D. Witherup (2006) –is part of the ‘Rediscovering Vatican II’ series of books. Comment: A critique of this Markan priority view of Dei Verbum, is available. 7). A Book: Trustworthy and True- The Gospels beyond 2000 by Adrian Graffy (2001). A review of this book is available.
9). Following the 2010 Synod: The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church, Pope Benedict XVI issued the Post-Synod Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini. Part of the section Tradition and Scripture reads as follows: As the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum reminds us, Jesus Christ himself “commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel – promised beforehand by the prophets, fulfilled in his own person and promulgated by his own lips … This was faithfully carried out, it was carried out by the Apostles who handed on, by oral preaching, by their example, by their ordinances, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or by coming to know it through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, it was carried out by those Apostles and others associated with them who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”. [Highlighting added]. COMMENT: Although this is a paraphrased new translation, it basically follows the Abbott translation of 1965 and that used by the Vatican web site over the recent decades. It clearly states that Apostles who were with Christ committed His message to writing. The others associated with them, traditionally referred to as: “apostolic men”, have always been seen as distinct from the Apostles. This was because, not being eye witnesses of Christ’s life, they (Mark and Luke), used second-hand materials. If, as claimed by advocates of Markan Priority, all the writers depended on second hand materials, why are the writers divided into two categories? For comments on other supporting passages in Dei Verbum, please see page 97 of our main booklet [Ref: G210], on www.churchinhistory.org
e-mail: Feedback Version: 28th December 2010 |