FOR POPE FRANCIS (VICAR OF CHRIST), THE THEOLOGIAN ISN'T JUST A SIMPLE SCHOLAR OF GOD, BUT RATHER MUCH MORE. HE OR SHE IS A SCHOLAR AT THE SERVICE OF A PEOPLE, THE CHURCH, TO WHICH HE OR SHE BELONGS AND IS NURTURED BY. THERE'S NO ROOM FOR INDIVIDUALIST THEOLOGIANS WHO COMPETE AMONGST THEMSELVES TO SEE WHO KNOWS MORE.
HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS (VICAR OF CHRIST),
"A THEOLOGY THAT HELPS EVERY CHRISTIAN PROCLAIM AND SHOW IS NECESSARY; ABOVE ALL, THE SAVING FACE OF GOD OF THE MERCIFUL GOD, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF SOME UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES THE HUMAN BEING FACES TODAY."
POPE FRANCIS MET WITH THE ORGANIZATION IN HONOR OF ITS 50TH ANNIVERSARY. THE ASSOCIATION WAS CREATED WITH THE GOAL OF HELPING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. - ROMEREPORTS.COM DECEMBER 29, 2017 -
THEOLOGY? ISN'T THAT THE STUDY OF RELIGION? SO, WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH ME? ISN'T IT CONCERN PRIESTS, THEOLOGIANS AND THE VATICAN?
THEOLOGY HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH ME, HASN'T IT?
Most of us think that theology is the concern of specialists, an academic subject that has little to do with lay person. Yet, the Christian theology that we accept today has its roots in the faith experiences of the Hebrews' search for God, their reflection on those experiences and their response to Him.
As Rev. Fr. Michael Amaladoss SJ, the Assistant to Father General Peter-Hans Kolvenbach SJ, responsible for Dialogue and Ecumenism (May 1992-...) puts it, "Faith looks, not only backward to God's saving and powerful presence in history, but also to the future that God invites us to create in the power of the Word and of the Spirit. Theology is therefore not an abstract philosophical elaboration of eternal verities reserved to a few expert professionals. It is a discerning search for God in the here and now of history that is the concern of everyone".
In this sense, theology must be the concern of every Christian and more so of every Christian in Malaysia.
It is the recognition of the Malaysian situation, specifically that of Saint Francis Xavier's Church (Petaling Jaya, Selangor.), that has prompted the central argument in Theology of Shoes-off, an initial effort on the part of Rev. Fr. Joseph (Jojo) Fung SJ to identify the elements that could form our very own Malaysian Theology.
Rev. Fr. Amaladoss SJ has this to say about Theology of Shoes-off. The flowering of local theology is a sign of the rootedness and maturity of a particular Church. So I am glad to welcome and introduce this pioneering effort by Rev. Fr. Joseph (Jojo) Fung SJ to develop a Malaysian theology of "Shoes-off".
BY REV. FR. JOSEPH MATTHEW FUNG JEE VUI ( JOJO ) SJ, was the Parish Priest of SFX Church (Petaling Jaya, Selangor.) from 1988 to 1992.
HENCE, I EARNESTLY AND PROFOUNDLY BELIEVED THAT AS FAR AS SPIRITUALITY IS CONCERN. IT CAN ONLY COME FROM GOD, THE AUTHOR. THUS, THERE IS NO SUCH THING, AS COPYRIGHT, OR IT IS PRODUCED OR WRITTEN BY ME OR IT IS MINE; THE WORD OF GOD, THE SACRED SCRIPTURE/HOLY BIBLE.
I STILL HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY TO YOU BUT THEY WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU NOW. BUT WHEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH, SINCE HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING AS FROM HIMSELF, BUT WILL SAY ONLY WHAT HE HAS LEARNT; AND HE WILL TELL YOU OF THE THINGS TO COME.
HE WILL GLORIFY ME, SINCE ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; THAT IS WHY I SAID: ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. - JOHN 16:12-15 -
ALL WRITERS, PERTAINING TO SPIRITUALITY WERE DEFINITELY QUOTED OR TAKE FROM HERE AND THERE, WHICH MAY BE ON AND FROM SOME OTHER WRITERS ARTICLES, BOOKS, BLOGS, OR SITES, ESPECIALLY THE "WORD OF GOD" THE SACRED SCRIPTURE/HOLY BIBLE. BUT IN REALITY, IT IS FIRST USED ALREADY, PERHAPS, LONG, LONG TIME AGO.
THIS DISCIPLE IS THE ONE WHO VOUCHES FOR THESE THINGS AND HAS WRITTEN THEM DOWN, AND WE KNOW THAT HIS TESTIMONY IS TRUE. THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST DID; IF ALL WERE WRITTEN DOWN, THE WORLD ITSELF, I SUPPOSE, WOULD NOT HOLD ALL THE BOOKS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WRITTEN. - JOHN 21:24-25 -
JUST AS GOD ORIGINALLY INSPIRED THE SACRED SCRIPTURE/HOLY BIBLE. GOD HAS USED THIS MEANS TO PRESERVE HIS 'WORD' FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. BUT BEHIND THE WRITING LAY PERIODS OF TIME WHEN THESE MESSAGES WERE CIRCULATED IN SPOKEN FORM. (ORAL TRADITION) THE STORIES OF THE PATRIARCHS WERE PASSED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION BY WORD OF MOUTH BEFORE THEY WERE WRITTEN. (WRITTEN TRADITION)
THE MESSAGES OF THE PROPHETS WERE DELIVERED ORALLY BEFORE THEY WERE FIXED IN WRITING. NARRATIVES OF THE LIFE AND MINISTRY OF CHRIST JESUS WERE REPEATED ORALLY FOR TWO OR THREE DECADES BEFORE THEY WERE FIXED IN WRITING.
THEREFORE, SACRED SCRIPTURE/HOLY BIBLE QUOTATION, THAT IS, HOW ANYONE AND I PUT WORD OF GOD INTO SENTENCES OR PUT WORDS INTO SENTENCES. REMEMBER ALWAYS! NO MATTER HOW THE "WORD OF GOD" AND WORDS PUT INTO SENTENCES, IN TRUTH, EVERYONE STARTED AND TOOK IT FROM THE MAIN SOURCE, THAT IS, FROM THE WITNESSES AND FROM THE SACRED SCRIPTURE/HOLY BIBLE; "WORD OF GOD."
"IT IS TRUE, GOD SENT HIS WORD TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, AND IT WAS TO THEM THAT THE GOOD NEWS OF PEACE WAS BROUGHT BY JESUS CHRIST - BUT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD OF ALL MEN.
YOU MUST HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE RECENT HAPPENINGS IN JUDAEA; ABOUT JESUS OF NAZARETH AND HOW HE BEGAN IN GALILEE, AFTER JOHN THE BAPTIST HAD BEEN PREACHING BAPTISM. GOD HAD ANOINTED HIM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND WITH POWER, AND BECAUSE GOD WAS WITH HIM, JESUS WENT ABOUT DOING GOOD AND CURING ALL WHO HAD FALLEN INTO THE POWER OF THE DEVIL.
NOW I, ( SIMON PETER / PETER ) AND THOSE WITH ME, CAN WITNESS TO EVERYTHING JESUS DID THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRYSIDE OF JUDAEA AND IN JERUSALEM ITSELF; AND ALSO TO THE FACT THAT THEY KILLED HIM BY HANGING HIM ON A TREE, YET THREE DAYS AFTERWARDS GOD RAISED HIM TO LIFE AND ALLOWED HIM TO BE SEEN, NOT BY THE WHOLE PEOPLE BUT ONLY BY CERTAIN WITNESSES GOD HAD CHOSEN BEFOREHAND.
NOW WE ARE THOSE WITNESSES - WE HAVE EATEN AND DRUNK WITH HIM AFTER HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD - AND JESUS CHRIST HAS ORDERED US TO PROCLAIM THIS TO HIS PEOPLE AND TO TELL THEM THAT GOD HAS APPOINTED HIM TO JUDGE EVERYONE, ALIVE AND DEAD.
IT IS TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST THAT ALL THE PROPHETS BEAR THIS WITNESS: THAT ALL WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS WILL HAVE THEIR SINS FORGIVEN THROUGH HIS NAME." - ACTS 10:36-43 -
NOW YOU TOGETHER ARE CHRIST'S BODY; BUT EACH OF YOU IS A DIFFERENT PART OF IT. IN THE CHURCH, GOD HAS GIVEN THE FIRST PLACE TO APOSTLES, THE SECOND TO PROPHETS, THE THIRD TO TEACHERS; AFTER THEM, MIRACLES, AND AFTER THEM THE GIFT OF HEALING; HELPERS, GOOD LEADERS, THOSE WITH MANY LANGUAGES. - 1 CORINTHIANS 12:27-28 -
Introducing To The Synoptic Gospels (Good News)
The Gospel According To Saints/Apostles Matthew, Mark, and Luke
Of the four canonical books that record the "Good News" (evangelium, gospel) brought by Jesus Christ, the first three are so alike that they can, in many passages, be placed side by side and viewed as it were at a glance: for this reason they are called "synoptic" ("with one eye").
Tradition dating from the 2nd century assigns them respectively to Saints/Apostles Matthew, Mark and Luke. According to the same ecclesiastical [Christian Church] tradition, Matthew the publican, himself one of the apostles - Matt. 9:9, 10:3 - was the first to write; he wrote his gospel in Palestine for Christians converted from Judaism. His work, composed in "the Hebrew tongue", that is, in Aramaic, was then translated into Greek. John Mark, a disciple or an apostle from Jerusalem - Acts. 12:12 - who assisted Apostle Paul/Saul in his apostolic work - Acts. 12:25' 13:5,13; Phm. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11 - and Apostle Barnabas his cousin - Acts 15:37,39; Col. 4:10; 1 Peter 5:13 - whose "interpreter" he was, put Apostle Peter's preaching down in writing at Rome.
Another disciple/apostle, Luke, a medical man - Col. 4:14 - and unlike Apostles Matthew and Mark, of pagan origin - Col. 4:10-14 - born at Antioch according to some authorities, accompanied Apostle Paul/Saul on the latter's second - Acts 16:10f - and third - Acts 20:5f - missionary journeys and was with him during his two Roman captives - Acts. 27:1f; 2 Tim. 4:11 -
For this reason his gospel, the third to be written, could claim the authority of Apostle Paul (cf. perhaps, 2 Cor. 8:18) as that to be written, could claim the authority of Apostle Peter. Apostle Luke composed also a second work - 'The Acts Of The Apostles'. The original language of the second and third gospels is Greek.
These traditional data are confirmed and amplified by an internal examination of the three gospels; but before going on with this, it is necessary to say something about the problem of the literary relations between these gospels, that is, "The Synoptic Problem."
All the many solutions offered so far prove inadequate if taken separately, though each contributes an element of truth to the complete solution. In the first place it is highly probable, even certain, that a common oral tradition was committed to writing by each of the three Synoptics independently, and consequently with variations. By itself this tradition would never have been able to account for the many striking similarities which exist not only between details in the text but also in the sequence of passages, resemblances which cannot be explained even by the extraordinary memory of people in the ancient Middle East.
As for a written tradition, in one or many forms, this would be a far better explanation. But even supposing the three evangelists did draw independently on some such written source or sources, that could never explain passages where these likenesses and divergencies show that the evangelists were aware of each other, as is obvious from the fact that at times they copy or correct each other.
There must have been some direct interdependence and it is clear that Apostle Luke depends on Apostle Mark. It is not so clear, however, that Apostle Mark depends on Apostle Matthew: though this was held for a long time, a number of indications now suggest the reverse. As for Apostle Matthew and Apostle Luke, no direct dependence in either direction can be considered probable, and the non-Marcan [Saint/Apostle Mark] passages common to these two probably have their common source or sources outside the second gospel.
Starting from these textual considerations modern critics have worked out a 'Two Source Theory' according to which these sources are: ( 1 ) Mark, on whom Matthew and Luke depend for their narrative sections; ( 2 ) a source the existence of which is inferred purely from the textual evidence, and which is called 'Q' (initial of the German word Quelle, source). From Q, both the first and third gospels draw the 'Sayings' or discourses of Jesus ('Logia') which is Mark are reduced to a minimum. This hypothesis is a step towards the solution but it involves some grave difficulties. ( 1 ) It abandons the traditional belief in the Aramaic origin of the first gospel and in its priority over Mark.
Moreover, it does not take sufficient account of textual facts which confirm this tradition, facts which suggests that Matthew is not entirely dependent, even in narrative sections, on Mark and that there are times when Matthew appears to represent an even more primitive text than Mark. ( 2 ) As for Q, it is hard to see how such a document could have existed at all (at least in any of the many forms suggested) and if it did it would never have accounted sufficiently for all the complicated relationships that can be established between the first and third gospels.
Particularly in Catholic circles, recent criticism has attempted to answer these two difficulties (evidence of an Aramaic original and the inadequacy of Q.) It maintains: -1- that a primitive form of the first gospel in Aramaic existed as distinct from its latest Greek form: this, it is claimed, is a far better explanation of the complicated relationship between Matthew and Mark, because it allows Matthew Greek to depend on Mark, and Mark to depend on Matthew Aramaic, which explains how the first gospel which usually follows Mark, sometimes deserts him and seems to retain a more primitive flavour - the reason being that Matthew Greek is in these cases closer than Mark to Matthew Aramaic, their common source;
-2- that Q is an inadequate hypothesis and to help to supply for this inadequacy, in a way that does not conflict with the literary data, it is necessary to distinguish two different sources for the Logia common to Matthew and Luke, (a) Matthew Aramaic which, besides narrative matter, contained Logia (of which omitted the greater part) and was therefore a gospel in the true sense of the word; (b) the Supplementary Collection of Logia: supplementary, that is, to Matthew Aramaic, because it was meant either to preserve matter omitted from that gospel or to preserve in some different and more desirable from matter which that gospel already contained.
To these two sources, both Matthew Greek and Luke are indebted; they are drawing from Matthew Aramaic when the narrative context in which the Logia are grouped is the same in each gospel, and they are drawing from the Supplementary Collection when each makes use of the Logia in its own characteristic way; Luke, keeping them together, inserts them in blocks in his 'great intercalation' - Luke 9:51-18:14 - Matthew splits them up and distributes them throughout his gospel in his five main sections.
One notable result of this complicated literary process is what are called 'doublets': that is, the same saying or group of sayings occurs twice in Matthew or in Luke because on each occasion they are quoted from the two different sources, that is, Matthew Aramaic (either immediately or through the medium of Mark) and the Collection. It should be noticed that both Matthew and Luke would have used these two sources not in their primitive Aramaic but in two different Greek translations, which would sometimes agree with each other and sometimes not; this would explain why the parallel texts of the first and third gospels are at times extraordinarily alike, at other times markedly unlike.
Having stated the purely literary considerations of this view, it is now possible to describe each of the steps in the formation of the first three gospels. This can be done with some degree of probability, but not with complete certainty.
At the heart of the oral preaching of the apostles lies the 'Kerygma' proclaiming the redemptive death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter's discourses in the Acts of the Apostles provide us with typical summaries of this apostolic preaching which would in practice have included more detailed narratives: principally the story of the Passion which must have assumed its stereotyped pattern very early, as the close similarity of the four gospel accounts shows, but also many anecdotes taken from the Master's life, and throwing light on his person, his mission and his power, or else illustrating his teaching by means of some well-remembered episode, saying, miracle, pronouncement or parable, etc.
In addition to the apostles themselves there were professional narrators like the evangelists (those who enjoyed a special charisma not limited to the writers of the four gospels; cf. Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5), who tended to stereotype the anecdotes by constant repetition. Before long, and particularly when the witnesses who had been in touch with the events themselves began to disappear, measures would have been taken to commit this oral tradition to writing. Episodes originally narrated separately and independently of each other would naturally be grouped together either chronologically (for example, Mark 1:16-39 - the Day of Capernaum) or logically (for examples, Mark 2:1-3:6, the Five Disputes); the groupings would be small at first, but would later grow into more extensive collections. This was the stage at which an author intervened who, according to tradition, which there is no reason to doubt, was Matthew the apostle.
Matthew was the first to compose a 'gospel' which drew together Christ's deeds and words into a continuous narrative covering the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ from baptism to resurrection. Shortly afterwards a 'Collection', of unknown authorship, appeared side by side with this early gospel; it purpose was to preserve sayings of the Lord Jesus Christ which were either not contained in Matthew Aramaic, or were presented there in a different form.
This early gospel and this Collection, both written in Aramaic, were soon put into Greek, and eventually various forms of these translations came to exist. Now Peter's preaching of the catechesis (or 'instruction') was probably based on the same Palestinian tradition that Matthew had committed to writing.
Consequently, when Peter's disciple Mark set himself to record this catechesis, it was most natural that he should make use of Matthew Aramaic in whatever Greek translation was familiar to him. This would not have prevented Mark from putting into his narratives some of the vivid realism that had come to him from the preaching of his master Peter, which was itself full of that living quality that comes from personal experience of events. It is this realism, loaded with picturesque and true-to-life detail, which endears Mark's narratives to us in spite of his rough Greek style. True to his purpose (of which we shall speak later) Mark decided to put in very few of the Sayings. Mark shortened or omitted the ones in the early gospel and passed over in silence those in the Collection of which, presumably, he knew nothing.
This silence of Mark was to be remedied by two new gospel editions (though which of them preceded the other it is difficult to say). An anonymous editor, Matthew Greek, decided to rewrite the first Aramaic gospel, which was known to him in one of its Greek translations. This he filled out and made more detailed, using for his narrative parts of the work of Mark his predecessor, to which he added one thing only of importance, that is, the two chapters of the Infancy Narrative.
In general, Matthew Greek corrected and followed Mark's text, but at times he went back to the earlier gospel and on these occasions his style, unlike anything in Mark, becomes both original and archaic. For the Sayings, he referred to the earlier gospel in order to record many that Mark omitted, adding to them from the wealth of Sayings in the Supplementary Collection. Hence, the impressive blocks of material, each built round some central theme, which make his gospel the remarkable thing it is. But these were not his only sources.
The author had access to some information not so generally available, and this is not for his narratives but also for the Sayings: this accounts for the material which is peculiarly his own, notably in the narrative of the Infancy. By setting out to supplement the primitive Aramaic gospel, Matthew Greek clearly did not aim at being a mere translation of it, but at the same time he only developed it according to its own spirit and purposes. The Church has recognised that his work was inspired by accepting his Greek gospel as canonical.
Luke undertook something similar but used a completely different approach. There are three points to notice: - 1 - Like Matthew he also took from the primitive gospel tradition many Sayings that Mark omits, though unlike Matthew he preferred to omit Sayings that would have little interest for his readers who were pagans by birth; moreover, since the Sayings in Luke are derived through channels independent of Matthew Greek they often assume forms in the gospel noticeably different from those they assume in Matthew's.
- 2 - Luke is more careful than Matthew to preserve the order given by his sources: thus, side by side with 'Marcan' sections, in which he follows the second gospel almost exactly - Luke 4:31-6:19, 8:4-9:50, 18:15-21:38 - he places the Supplementary Collection which he inserts en bloc in a special section that he presents as an ascent to Jerusalem. - Luke 9:51-18:14 - Luke resembles Matthew since, like him, he also has drawn on special sources but he has done this to a greater extent.
These special sources of his he discovered by careful enquiry - Luke 1:3 - to them he owes not only his narrative of the Infancy but many passages that enrich the gospel: the good Samaritan, Martha and Mary, the parables of the prodigal son, of the Pharisee and the publican, etc, which occur for the most part in Luke's Central Section - Luke 9:51-18:14 - and it is not impossible that this combination of the Collection with the material he has been at pains to find for himself was a stage of Luke's editorial activity independent of, and perhaps prior to, his use of Mark.
The literary process just outlined respects and makes use of the broad data from tradition but is able to fill in details. It does not however make it possible, any more than tradition does, to assign an exact date to each of the Synoptics with complete certainty: at a guess however, the intervals required for the development of the oral tradition would make it probable that the primitive Aramaic gospel and the later Supplementary Collection were composed between the years 40 and 50. This early date would be definite if it could be proved that Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians, written about 51-52, made use of the first gospel's Apocalyptic Discourse.
If Mark wrote towards the end of Peter's life (according to Clement of Alexandria) or shortly after Peter's death (according to Irenaeus) the date of his gospel would be c.64; in any case it should be dated before 70 as it does not seem from this gospel that Jerusalem has yet been destroyed. Matthew Greek and Luke are later than Mark but their precise date is more difficult to determine. The existence of Luke's gospel is presupposed by the Acts - Acts 1:1 - but the date of Acts is itself uncertain (cf. Introduction to Acts) and can provide no criterion. It is true that neither Matthew Greek nor Luke suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem has already taken place (not even - Luke 19:42-44, 21:20-24 - which employ cliches from the prophetical books to describe an event that cannot have been hard to foresee) but this is not decisive.
If neither of them knew of the destruction, then they would have to put before 70, but if they deliberately aimed at scrupulously preserving the archaic quality of their respective literary sources, then their works might quite well have been composed after the destruction, say about A.D. 80. In any case, the apostolic origin, direct or indirect, together with their involved literary formation confirm the historical value of the Synoptics, and not only that but at the same time help us to understand the nature of that historical value, and since the gospels stem from an oral preaching that goes back to the beginnings of the primitive community, their guarantee in this way would ultimately rest on eyewitness.
Neither the apostles themselves, however, nor any of the other preachers of the gospel message and tellers of the gospel story ever aimed at writing or teaching history in the modern technical sense of that word; their concern was sacred and theological: they preached to convert and edify, to infuse faith, to enlighten it and defend it against its opponents. For this purpose they could and did appeal to solid evidence that could be checked, and this appeal was demanded quite as much by their own sincerity as by their anxiety not to leave any loopholes for hostile argument.
Those who finally composed the gospels, collecting the evidence and putting it into writing, had the same objective fidelity, and equal respect for their sources of information as it suggested by the simple and archaic quality of their work. In this there are no theological developments characteristic of subsequent decades (cf. Paul for example) much less is there any trace of the sort of extravagant legends that are frequent in the apocryphal gospels. The three Synoptics may not be history books but they do set out to give us historical fact.
The author had access to some information not so generally available, and this is not for his narratives but also for the Sayings: this accounts for the material which is peculiarly his own, notably in the narrative of the Infancy. By setting out to supplement the primitive Aramaic gospel, Matthew Greek clearly did not aim at being a mere translation of it, but at the same time he only developed it according to its own spirit and purposes. The Church has recognised that his work was inspired by accepting his Greek gospel as canonical.
Luke undertook something similar but used a completely different approach. There are three points to notice: - 1 - Like Matthew he also took from the primitive gospel tradition many Sayings that Mark omits, though unlike Matthew he preferred to omit Sayings that would have little interest for his readers who were pagans by birth; moreover, since the Sayings in Luke are derived through channels independent of Matthew Greek they often assume forms in the gospel noticeably different from those they assume in Matthew's.
- 2 - Luke is more careful than Matthew to preserve the order given by his sources: thus, side by side with 'Marcan' sections, in which he follows the second gospel almost exactly - Luke 4:31-6:19, 8:4-9:50, 18:15-21:38 - he places the Supplementary Collection which he inserts en bloc in a special section that he presents as an ascent to Jerusalem. - Luke 9:51-18:14 - Luke resembles Matthew since, like him, he also has drawn on special sources but he has done this to a greater extent.
These special sources of his he discovered by careful enquiry - Luke 1:3 - to them he owes not only his narrative of the Infancy but many passages that enrich the gospel: the good Samaritan, Martha and Mary, the parables of the prodigal son, of the Pharisee and the publican, etc, which occur for the most part in Luke's Central Section - Luke 9:51-18:14 - and it is not impossible that this combination of the Collection with the material he has been at pains to find for himself was a stage of Luke's editorial activity independent of, and perhaps prior to, his use of Mark.
The literary process just outlined respects and makes use of the broad data from tradition but is able to fill in details. It does not however make it possible, any more than tradition does, to assign an exact date to each of the Synoptics with complete certainty: at a guess however, the intervals required for the development of the oral tradition would make it probable that the primitive Aramaic gospel and the later Supplementary Collection were composed between the years 40 and 50. This early date would be definite if it could be proved that Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians, written about 51-52, made use of the first gospel's Apocalyptic Discourse.
If Mark wrote towards the end of Peter's life (according to Clement of Alexandria) or shortly after Peter's death (according to Irenaeus) the date of his gospel would be c.64; in any case it should be dated before 70 as it does not seem from this gospel that Jerusalem has yet been destroyed. Matthew Greek and Luke are later than Mark but their precise date is more difficult to determine. The existence of Luke's gospel is presupposed by the Acts - Acts 1:1 - but the date of Acts is itself uncertain (cf. Introduction to Acts) and can provide no criterion. It is true that neither Matthew Greek nor Luke suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem has already taken place (not even - Luke 19:42-44, 21:20-24 - which employ cliches from the prophetical books to describe an event that cannot have been hard to foresee) but this is not decisive.
If neither of them knew of the destruction, then they would have to put before 70, but if they deliberately aimed at scrupulously preserving the archaic quality of their respective literary sources, then their works might quite well have been composed after the destruction, say about A.D. 80. In any case, the apostolic origin, direct or indirect, together with their involved literary formation confirm the historical value of the Synoptics, and not only that but at the same time help us to understand the nature of that historical value, and since the gospels stem from an oral preaching that goes back to the beginnings of the primitive community, their guarantee in this way would ultimately rest on eyewitness.
Neither the apostles themselves, however, nor any of the other preachers of the gospel message and tellers of the gospel story ever aimed at writing or teaching history in the modern technical sense of that word; their concern was sacred and theological: they preached to convert and edify, to infuse faith, to enlighten it and defend it against its opponents. For this purpose they could and did appeal to solid evidence that could be checked, and this appeal was demanded quite as much by their own sincerity as by their anxiety not to leave any loopholes for hostile argument.
Those who finally composed the gospels, collecting the evidence and putting it into writing, had the same objective fidelity, and equal respect for their sources of information as it suggested by the simple and archaic quality of their work. In this there are no theological developments characteristic of subsequent decades (cf. Paul for example) much less is there any trace of the sort of extravagant legends that are frequent in the apocryphal gospels. The three Synoptics may not be history books but they do set out to give us historical fact.
This does not mean that each of the events or discourses which they record corresponds exactly to what in fact took place. The laws governing witnesses and the spread of evidence warn us against looking for that material sort of precision. Obvious examples can be found in the gospels themselves where the same events or the same discourses are sometimes recorded in different ways.
This is true not only of the content of some episodes, but it is even truer of the order in which these episodes are arranged, which is not the same order in each gospel. This is only to be expected in view of their complex origins.
Their components parts, which at first existed separately, were only gradually collected together into groups; and these groups were later joined together or split up more for reasons for logic or neatness than for anything to do with chronology. In this way many of the gospel events or Sayings have been shifted from their proper time or place. For this reason it is often impossible to take editorial connective phrases like 'then', 'after this', 'on that day', 'at that time', etc., in their literal sense.
The belief of Christians in the authority of these inspired books is not of course affected by this. That there was no perfect agreement in detail among those chosen by the Holy Spirit to speak for him merely implies that he attaches no importance, in the sphere of faith, to that sort of material exactitude; it suggests indeed he actually willed this difference of evidence.
Heraclitus said, 'Implicit agreements are worth more than explicit ones' and it is obvious that a fact which comes to us by a variety of discordant traditions (for example, the apparitions after the resurrection) appears more real and probable than it would if vouched for by witnesses whose evidence was identical in both detail and vocabulary. It is a further advantage when these discrepancies occur, not just accidentally and unavoidably, but as the result of deliberate correction.
It is certain that the gospel writers often presented their material in deliberately different ways, and in any case the earlier oral tradition which they inherited did not only hand down reminiscences of the gospel story passively, but at the same time both interpreted them and adapted them in all sorts of ways to the actual requirements of the living faith they taught. This intervention by the community in forming the tradition was directed by responsible members of that community: there is no reason, therefore, to suspect the fidelity of the tradition.
On the positive side, this intervention is instructive: since the community was the Church, its intervention shows how the Magisterium was exercised from the beginning. Before inspiring the authors of the gospels, the Holy Spirit supervised the preparation of the material, adapted it to the diffusion of the faith and also secured its inerrancy - that is, guaranteed as inerrant, no so much the facts and the precise circumstances in which facts occurred, but rather the spiritual meaning conveyed by those facts.
All this work of the Holy Spirit was only concerned with the provision of food for the spirit in a form that could be digested by the faithful. In particular it was to the writers of the synoptic gospels that he gave the gift of expressing in completely personal terms the message to all three of them.
The Gospel According To Apostle/Saint Matthew is not the only one of the three Synoptics to make use of arguments from the Old Testament, but even apart from the fact that they might have been copying Matthew Aramaic in this, Matthew relies so heavily on this arguments that he has made it one of the chief characteristics of his gospel. Remembering this and recalling the gospel's systematic structure, the work can be aptly described as the great charter of the new order which, in Christ's completes God's plan............
The kingdom of God (of the 'heavens' in Matthew) is the reassertion of God's dominion as King over men who at last know Him, serve Him and love Him. This kingdom was prepared and foretold in the Old Testament. Matthew therefore, writing among Jews for Jews, makes a special point of demonstrating that the scriptures are fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ............
The Gospel According To Apostle/Saint Mark: The plan Mark follows is the least systematic of all the Synoptics. The preaching of John the Baptist plus Baptism and temptation of Jesus Christ make up his prelude............
Rather than call himself Messiah which would have been too suggestive of human dignity, he took the modest and mysterious title 'Son of Man'. This cautionary measure is what is called 'the messianic secret' and is a basic idea of Mark's gospel. It was not something Mark had invented: it corresponded to that underlying reality in Christ's life of suffering which, in the light of a faith finally and fully established by the Easter event, the evangelist was able to perceive and to place before us for our understanding.
Thus, I will skipped 'The Gospel According To Apostle/Saint Mark' and 'The Gospel According To Apostle/Saint Matthew because the concentration and emphasis of 'The Gospel According To Apostle/Luke' and 'The Acts Of The Apostles' are enough or sufficient for our understanding, and put into practice: of the 'Lord Jesus Christ', 'The Messiah', 'The Anointed One' and 'A History Of the Rise Of Christianity.' God's willing.
In other words, Jesus, the only Begotten Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, came, teach, preach, perform miracles, healing, crucified and suffered (Passion) and died (Death) for human beings while we are still sinners. Then, in accordance with the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible raised from the death (Resurrection) and then, appeared again in person for 40 days to His apostles, disciples, believers, faithful and followers. After that, returned or go back to God, the Father (Ascension). Amen!
All scriptural/biblical texts are taken from "THE JERUSALEM BIBLE." By General Editor, ALEXANDER JONES L.S.S., S.T.L., I.C.B. - Christ's College, Liverpool. 1st June 1966. - The list of all those who have helped in the preparation of this "The Jerusalem Bible" is too long to be given in its entirety.
This is true not only of the content of some episodes, but it is even truer of the order in which these episodes are arranged, which is not the same order in each gospel. This is only to be expected in view of their complex origins.
Their components parts, which at first existed separately, were only gradually collected together into groups; and these groups were later joined together or split up more for reasons for logic or neatness than for anything to do with chronology. In this way many of the gospel events or Sayings have been shifted from their proper time or place. For this reason it is often impossible to take editorial connective phrases like 'then', 'after this', 'on that day', 'at that time', etc., in their literal sense.
The belief of Christians in the authority of these inspired books is not of course affected by this. That there was no perfect agreement in detail among those chosen by the Holy Spirit to speak for him merely implies that he attaches no importance, in the sphere of faith, to that sort of material exactitude; it suggests indeed he actually willed this difference of evidence.
Heraclitus said, 'Implicit agreements are worth more than explicit ones' and it is obvious that a fact which comes to us by a variety of discordant traditions (for example, the apparitions after the resurrection) appears more real and probable than it would if vouched for by witnesses whose evidence was identical in both detail and vocabulary. It is a further advantage when these discrepancies occur, not just accidentally and unavoidably, but as the result of deliberate correction.
It is certain that the gospel writers often presented their material in deliberately different ways, and in any case the earlier oral tradition which they inherited did not only hand down reminiscences of the gospel story passively, but at the same time both interpreted them and adapted them in all sorts of ways to the actual requirements of the living faith they taught. This intervention by the community in forming the tradition was directed by responsible members of that community: there is no reason, therefore, to suspect the fidelity of the tradition.
On the positive side, this intervention is instructive: since the community was the Church, its intervention shows how the Magisterium was exercised from the beginning. Before inspiring the authors of the gospels, the Holy Spirit supervised the preparation of the material, adapted it to the diffusion of the faith and also secured its inerrancy - that is, guaranteed as inerrant, no so much the facts and the precise circumstances in which facts occurred, but rather the spiritual meaning conveyed by those facts.
All this work of the Holy Spirit was only concerned with the provision of food for the spirit in a form that could be digested by the faithful. In particular it was to the writers of the synoptic gospels that he gave the gift of expressing in completely personal terms the message to all three of them.
The Gospel According To Apostle/Saint Matthew is not the only one of the three Synoptics to make use of arguments from the Old Testament, but even apart from the fact that they might have been copying Matthew Aramaic in this, Matthew relies so heavily on this arguments that he has made it one of the chief characteristics of his gospel. Remembering this and recalling the gospel's systematic structure, the work can be aptly described as the great charter of the new order which, in Christ's completes God's plan............
The kingdom of God (of the 'heavens' in Matthew) is the reassertion of God's dominion as King over men who at last know Him, serve Him and love Him. This kingdom was prepared and foretold in the Old Testament. Matthew therefore, writing among Jews for Jews, makes a special point of demonstrating that the scriptures are fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ............
The Gospel According To Apostle/Saint Mark: The plan Mark follows is the least systematic of all the Synoptics. The preaching of John the Baptist plus Baptism and temptation of Jesus Christ make up his prelude............
Rather than call himself Messiah which would have been too suggestive of human dignity, he took the modest and mysterious title 'Son of Man'. This cautionary measure is what is called 'the messianic secret' and is a basic idea of Mark's gospel. It was not something Mark had invented: it corresponded to that underlying reality in Christ's life of suffering which, in the light of a faith finally and fully established by the Easter event, the evangelist was able to perceive and to place before us for our understanding.
Thus, I will skipped 'The Gospel According To Apostle/Saint Mark' and 'The Gospel According To Apostle/Saint Matthew because the concentration and emphasis of 'The Gospel According To Apostle/Luke' and 'The Acts Of The Apostles' are enough or sufficient for our understanding, and put into practice: of the 'Lord Jesus Christ', 'The Messiah', 'The Anointed One' and 'A History Of the Rise Of Christianity.' God's willing.
In other words, Jesus, the only Begotten Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, came, teach, preach, perform miracles, healing, crucified and suffered (Passion) and died (Death) for human beings while we are still sinners. Then, in accordance with the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible raised from the death (Resurrection) and then, appeared again in person for 40 days to His apostles, disciples, believers, faithful and followers. After that, returned or go back to God, the Father (Ascension). Amen!
All scriptural/biblical texts are taken from "THE JERUSALEM BIBLE." By General Editor, ALEXANDER JONES L.S.S., S.T.L., I.C.B. - Christ's College, Liverpool. 1st June 1966. - The list of all those who have helped in the preparation of this "The Jerusalem Bible" is too long to be given in its entirety.
Page 5A
Faith . Hope . Love - Welcome donation. Thank You. God bless.
By bank transfer/cheque deposit:
Name: Alex Chan Kok Wah
Bank: Public Bank Berhad account no: 4076577113
Country: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
I have through years of reading, pondering, reflecting and contemplating, the 3 things that last; FAITH . HOPE . LOVE and I would like to made available my sharing from the many thinkers, authors, scholars and theologians whose ideas and thoughts I have borrowed. God be with them always. Amen!
I STILL HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY TO YOU BUT THEY WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU NOW. BUT WHEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH, SINCE HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING AS FROM HIMSELF, BUT WILL SAY ONLY WHAT HE HAS LEARNT; AND HE WILL TELL YOU OF THE THINGS TO COME.
HE WILL GLORIFY ME, SINCE ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; THAT IS WHY I SAID: ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. - JOHN 16:12-15 -
Faith . Hope . Love - Welcome donation. Thank You. God bless.
By bank transfer/cheque deposit:
Name: Alex Chan Kok Wah
Bank: Public Bank Berhad account no: 4076577113
Country: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
I have through years of reading, pondering, reflecting and contemplating, the 3 things that last; FAITH . HOPE . LOVE and I would like to made available my sharing from the many thinkers, authors, scholars and theologians whose ideas and thoughts I have borrowed. God be with them always. Amen!
I STILL HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY TO YOU BUT THEY WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU NOW. BUT WHEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH, SINCE HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING AS FROM HIMSELF, BUT WILL SAY ONLY WHAT HE HAS LEARNT; AND HE WILL TELL YOU OF THE THINGS TO COME.
HE WILL GLORIFY ME, SINCE ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; THAT IS WHY I SAID: ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. - JOHN 16:12-15 -
No comments:
Post a Comment