Book Review: "Roman Catholicism" Part 2.

Continuing on in my review of this book and in particular Tom Nettles contribution on the Church we read,

"The Roman response (to the reformers) at Trent was not according to Christ or the early church. Establishing a parity of authority between oral tradition and Scripture contradicts the structure of authority and method reflected in the writings of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, and others." (p. 28).

But again Nettles sets up a rickety strawman only to knock it down with force. Both the early Catholic Fathers and the Catholic Church today hold the same unified view on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The dichotomy drawn by Nettles is a false one. I can quote page after page of the Fathers to support the Catholic position which holds that these two sources of revelation go hand in hand none is set up over the other. What the modern Catholic Church has always taught is that Tradition is used for a correct hermeneutical reading of Sacred Scripture. Protestant apologists usually misunderstand this concept as does Nettles here. A few examples should suffice for the Catholic understanding of the source of faith and morals from the Fathers themselves,

Papias, that most ancient bishop of Hierapolis notes concerning tradition's role in understanding Christian doctrine, - "Unlike most people, I do not delight in those who talk a great deal, but in those who teach the truth, nor in those who relate the commandments of others, but in those who relate the commandments given by the Lord to the faith, and which are derived from Truth itself...It did not seem to me that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from a living and abiding voice." (Hist. Eccl. 3, 39, 3-4).

Let us not forget that Papias according to St. Irenaeus (Adversus haereses. 5, 33, 4) heard and learned Christianity from St. John the Apostle first hand. This same man records that books (most probably the ancient epistles of Paul and early gospels) are best profitable and understood when expounded by the living and abiding voice, oral tradition.

In like manner St. Irenaeus posits the question to his detractors, imagine if no early Apostle would have written anything down, what then, from where would we get our Christian instruction from? "That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them (heretics), while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Adversus haereses. 3, 4, 1). So important then is oral tradition for a correct and historic interpretation of Christianity in general and Scripture in particular. It is the schismatics who have always set up in opposition to this, skewed misguided views on Scripture and Tradition, among the Protestants it's the novel doctrine called sola Scriptura.

Nettles goes on in his confusion and states,

"Polycarp's faithfulness to death, Ignatius's zeal for unity and truth and warning against heretics, Justin's philosophical sophistication subdued to the truth of Jesus, Tertullian's pugnacious protection of the rule of faith, Irenaeus's pastoral alertness...Athanasius's...Augustines...Aquinas...are all cords within the tapestry of Christian testimony in the world...It inheres in the structure of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church that is the pillar and foundation of the truth." (p. 29).

I find this statement exceedingly ironic and completely in line with the usual Protestant polemical attempt to re-write the Patristic Catholic history. All of these great Catholic theologians would have not only disagreed with Nettles and his particular pet-theory that is called Protestant Baptist theology but would have roundly condemned him as a heretic of the worst degree and soundly excommunicated him. There is virtually nothing in common with Nettles and these great titans of historic Christianity, not soteriology not anthropolgy no agreement on the Sacraments or their meanings, definitely not ecclesiology and probably not even eschatology.

In the next few pages Nettles points out citing The Augsburg Confession, the Westminister Confession and the thirty-nine Articles, that evangelicals gladly embrace the Trinitarian and related doctrines of the ancient Catholic Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon and at this point we can say amen you do good but what about the rest of the canons of these Councils? On what basis do you get too pick and choose what you want to believe or reject? To reply with "Scripture alone" does you no good since these Holy Scriptures were codified and brought togather by the same Catholic bishops that attended these Councils. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.

Reading on I find this passage in Nettles entry,

"Rome opted for a very strong stream of medieval thought, which isolated the efficacy of saving grace to the sacraments and included the sinner's progressive sanctification by infused grace as an essential element of their definition of justification. That is both legalistic and antinomian, unbiblical on both counts. It is legalistic in that the sinner's obediance constitutes a part of his standing justified before God; it is antinomian in that it accepts as meritorious an obediance that falls short of the law's true demands." (p. 33)

This garbled mass of misunderstanding needs unpacking. First, to claim that Rome based her soteriology on [late] medieval thought is absurd and reveals a lack of historical theology and a lack of understanding Catholic soteriology. Rome's soteriology is based first and foremost closest with St. Augustine's soteriological framework as can be seen from a reading of the Catholic Catechism. It was St. Aquinas using Augustine who formulated his thought and coined much of the terminology that Catholicsim would later used. Secondly, while the sacraments are the vehicle of justification in Catholicism they are not the only instruments in Catholic dogma. Surely Nettles must know this, why he leaves it out and "isolates" saving grace to them alone says a lot about his presentation. Third, Nettles misrepresentation of Catholic soteriology he confidently asserts, leads to a form of legalism and antinomianism. But this conclusion fails since from the outset it is a strawman. Fourth, the true Catholic conception on salvation can be aptly demonstrated from both Tradition and Scripture.

Nettles next goes on to cite various passages from St. Ignatius that shows him to be a man of splendid zeal and passion for the Christian faith. Oneness and the unity of the church is highlighted as a main aspect of Ignatian teaching by Nettles. But here we can stop his tirade against Catholicism and calmly ask him, but what church is Ignatius proclaiming the beauty and the unity even unto death? Is is Nettles sectarian Baptist denomination that would not even exist until nearly two thousand years later? Or no perhaps it's the church of another contributor of this diatribe against Catholicism, "The United Church Of Christ" denomination of Donald Bloesch? No, perhaps Ignatius died defending the Presbyterian church of D. Clair Davis? No, surely it was for the United Reformed Church of Robert Godfrey? Or, it could have been for the Northwest Bible Church of S. Lewis Johnson? Maybe these are all wrong and St. Ignatius was defending the Anglican church of Alister McGrath? Or for the Southern Baptist denomination of Ronald Nash?

There is no need to go to such lengths for St. Ignatius, the blessed bishop of Antioch answers the question for us,

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistulae ad Smyrnaeos. 8, 2).

The Fathers to a man are all Catholics in doctrine and in profession.

Book Review: "Roman Catholicism" Part 1.

I remember when this book was first released back in the early 90's. It was billed as a "fair and accurate critique" of Roman Catholicism by evangelical and reformed scholars. I also remember the conversations I had with a Professor of Church History on how this book was far from what it represented itself to be. It was in fact plagued with inaccuracies, misrepresentations and logical fallacies. Of course not every contributor fell into these faults but on a cursory glance at the list of contributors it read as a who's who of polemical anti-Catholic Protestants, who were well known for misrepresenting not only Catholic dogma in general but the Patristic Fathers in particular, (i.e., Robert Godfrey, Michael Horton, William Webster). At the time I decided not to waste my money and to wait until I bumped into it on a used bookshelf somewhere. Well, yesterday while making my rounds at my local bookstores I picked it up sitting on a used rack.

And so begins this multi-part point by point response to Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, (Chicago. Moody Press. 1994).

The first entry is, "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church" by Tom Nettles, famous Baptist scholar. While stating that true saving faith is the same in Rome as it is in Protestantism,

"Saving faith for an Evangelical is not different from saving faith for a Roman Catholic." (p. 26)

It would seem to be found almost by accident or ignorance by the Catholic given the institutionalized error in the Roman soteriological system,

"the false gospel embodied in the sacramental system of Rome...the Roma error is institutionalized and creedalized...the Roman error purposefully canonized a historical aberration at the sixteenth-century Council of Trent and has maintained it since." (p. 27)

With such words of encouragement and irenic spirit Nettles paints the usual Protestant distorted figure of the early Church. The Catholic Council of Nicea is praised for unpacking the difficult doctrines surrounding the person of Christ since of course it is "in harmony with Luke 19:10 and John 3:16 and 12:47." (p. 27). No word however is made concerning the other canons of Nicea which mark it as definitively Catholic (and not Protestant) such as Canon 2 which upholds baptismal regeneration and the episcopal clerical form of government, or Canon 3 which forbids a woman to even live with an Officer of the Church, save it be a blood relative. What about Canon 6 which gives bishops particular jurisdiction over their areas, which jurisdiction is modeled after the unique bishop of Rome? (and thus giving plain witness to the Roman primacy of the Catholic Church). The imposition of hands of Canon 7 or the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as seen in Canon 18? Of course to mention such things would run counter to Nettles re-writing of the early Church. Nettles goes on to say against nearly all Patristic scholarship,

"Irenaeus's development of the concept of recapitulation was powerful, and, though manageable as a part of different soteriological schemes, its dependence on Christ's human obediance clearly harmonizes with the doctrine of imputed righteousness." (p. 27).

Several problems can be pointed out here. First, Nettles would lead his readers to believe that there were several and possibly contadictory "soteriologcal schemes" among the Fathers. This line of reasoning springs from the Protestant insistence that early Patristic (Catholic) teaching was not unified and monolithic but chaotic and already falling into a multitude of errors. But the soteriology of the early Catholics was far from uncoordinated rather it remains as it is today (among Catholics), a large encompassing multi-faceted doctrine as taught by the New Testament. It is the Protestants who have mutilated and reduced soteriology into a sort of truncated bare-boned equation. The early Fathers simply exemplified different facets of soteriology during the process of the development of doctrine, St. Irenaeus for example bringing out the recapitulatory aspect of salvation as found most clearly by St. Paul in Romans. Secondly, Irenaeus' recapitulatory doctrine proves exactly the opposite of what Nettles is claiming for it. Recapitulation at it's base runs on the principle of Christ's re-acting the various stages of life from fallen man (Adam). This in turn argues St. Irenaeus should be a model for every Christian to emulate. Thus, it is on the basis of man's subsequent actions (works) that he is justified for salvation according to the great bishop of Lyons. Salvation is not a one time event contra the Protestant ordo-salutis but a life long struggle in which works are a critical factor, St. Irenaeus writes,

"Paul, an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown, and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle, and which does not grow on us spontaneously. And beause it comes to us in a struggle, it is therefore the more precious...Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care." (Adversus haereses. 4, 37, 7).

Works which cannot even begin to be performed unless one is spiritually regenerated in baptism,

"The Lord promised to send us the Paraclete, who would make us ready for God. Just as dry wheat without moisture cannot become one dough or one loaf, so also, we who are many cannot be made one in Christ Jesus, without the water from heaven. Just as dry earth cannot bring forth fruit unless it receives moisture, so also we, being at first a dry tree, can never bring forth fruit unto life, without the voluntary rain from above. Our bodies achieve unity through the washing which leads to incorruption; our souls, however, through the Spirit. Both, then, are necessary, for both lead us un to the life of God" (Adversus haereses. 3, 17, 2).

So we see that Nettles baseless contention that Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation is in line with Luther's later teaching of imputed righteousness is unsound (for a classical presentation of Irenaeus' recapitulation doctrine by a true Patristic scholar see J. Quasten Patrology, Vol. 1, p. 295-96). Nettles however is not done with the Fathers, he asserts confidently,

"Tertullian's traducianism in anthropology virtually demands the monergism of reformation thought, but his soteriology was disorganized and shows little coherent development." (p. 27).

We have already spoken about Nettles and Protestantism's misunderstanding on the unity of Catholic thought. What is more surprising however is the incedible notion that Tertullian's anthropology demanded that he was a thoroughgoing monergistic Protestant. Such rhetoric is typical among Protestant anti-Catholic polemicists. The truth is not hard to gather. Pick up any real acknowledged presentation of Patristic thought and you will read how Tertuallian is considered the father of Latin penitential/merit dogma and the idea of Jesus introducing the nova lex, or the new law that Christians must follow. Both ideas that are mutually contradictory to the Protestant monergism of today. Indeed merit plays a major role in Tertullian's soteriological writings, it is the works that are done in life which will reward some to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation, (Apologeticus pro Christianis. 18, 3; 48, 12). Again the reader has been duped by Nettles.

St. Augustine is the next helpless victim of Nettles. He writes,

"The Reformers rediscovered Augustine...The soteriology that emphasized justification as a forensic, declaratory, imputative act of God consistent with all aspects of the obediance of Christ emerged as a corrective to the semi-Pelagianism into which much scholastic thought had fallen." (p. 28)

The problems with this statement are manifold. St. Augustine never held nor taught any notion of a forensic or imputative justification¹. Any introduction on Patristic thought can confirm this. In Augustine it was faith and works working through love that justified a man a definition that is forever codified by Catholics in all of our Councils and Creeds.

_____________________

1. Recently the entire notion of justification via the imputation of Christ's righteousness has come under penetrating critique, see the criticism's of Robert Gundry in his articles in Books & Culture 7 (2001) and his entry in, Justification: What's at Stake in the Current debates (Illinois. InterVarsity Press, 2004). For Augustine's docrtine of justification from a much sounder Protestant perspective see Peter Toon's article which can be viewed on-line, - http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Doctrine/justsanct1.htm

Hermeneutics and the Apocalypse of St. John.

In my research for my upcoming commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John¹ one of the introductory questions has fascinated me to no end. That is, the method of reading and understanding Revelation in general and the historical precedents of the great Catholic commentators of the past. In this brief post I will draw a quick sketch of the historical legacy of those commentators and the history of Apocalyptic hermeneutics².

From my reading of the early Fathers it can be cautiously stated that on the whole the western commentators tended to couple the imagery of Revelation with historical identities, thus St. Irenaeus pictures from the words of Revelation 17:12 that the Roman Empire would be shattered into ten kingdoms and Rome (as Babylon) reduced to ashes³ (cf. Tertullian, (Adversus Marcionem. 3, 13). In St. Hippolytus we see that the Woman with child is the Church and so forth. In contrast, the Fathers of the east tended to allegorize the symbolism of the Apocalypse. So, St. Clement of Alexandria holds that the twenty four elders of Revelation is to be understood as a symbol for the new equality between Jew and gentile in Christ⁴. In like manner Origen scorns the wooden literal chiliastic interpretation of the thousand year reign and the white horse signifies the opening of heaven through the Divine Word (which is seen as a white light)⁵. However at the risk of over simplifying, this should not be seen as a total hard and fast rule. Many early commentators overlap from the literal to the spiritual and vice versa.

At the end of the fourth century in the commentary of Revelation by Tyconius (a Donatist) a new epoch in the hermeneutics of Revelation began. In a sense his interpretations of the motif's of the Apocalypse are explained as a sort of double-fulfillment, or that at first sight the imagery speaks about actual historical phenomena (Rome and her persecuting Emperors) but also that this imagery is intended by John to be understood in a deeper mystical way, (or that this struggle between Rome and the Christians is meant to symbolize the more general war between good and evil)⁶. In the ninth century Berengaud was bold enough to suggest that not only were the images literal and symbolic but that they also foretold the entire history of mankind, from Adam to the second coming of Christ. In the twelfth century, Joachim of Florensis (founder of the Order of Florensis) went a step beyond anyone else in reading the imagery of the Apocalypse as mainly events occuring within his time and surrounding the future events at the end of time. Not long after Joachim, Nicolas of Lyra held that the Apocalypse actually was intended to reveal the events from the first century, point by point, up until his very day. In the sixteenth century and responding to Protestant polemical readings of the Apocalypse, Francis Ribeira (Catholic professor) held that Revelation was meant to be read in the following manner; that John wrote only about events to his immediate first century future and of events surrounding the end of time, with no references to the intermediate history between these two periods. The method of reading the Apocalypse as soley referring to events of the first century (or what has been labled as preterism) has sometimes been mistakenly dubbed a liberal Protestant invention. Against this is the preterism of the Jesuit of the sixteenth century, Alcasar (and reaching back to the preteristic interpretations of Eusebius in the fourth century).

In the closing decade of the eighteenth century I. G. Eichhorn (Commentarius in Apocalypse) argued that Revelation was mainly written to convey not historical phenomena but a sort of poetic understanding of the progress of Christianity, couched in dramatic acts or scenes. Then there is Bousset. The Catholic critical scholar W. Bousset published his magisterial commentary on Revelation (Die Offenbarung Johannis) in the end of the nineteenth century⁷. Bousset's thesis was that Revelation was composed to reveal events of the early Church's Roman persecutions, the later triumphal age of the Church throughout history and finally the events of the end times. The twentieth century was dominated by a "futuristic" reading of the Apocalypse, or the understanding that it mainly deals with events that are still to come (events surrounding the second coming of Christ)⁸.

Thus, encapsulated in this shortest of histories can be found most of the major schools of hermeneutics on the Apocalypse. In modern biblical studies they have been labled as; the historicist method, or those that tend to see in the symbols of Revelation an intricate blueprint as it were of historical details. The preterist method interprets the images of Revelation owing to the events in the first (or second) century. What has been called the idealist position relegates the imagery of Revelation in terms not historical but that the images speak instead of timeless spiritual truths. The camp of the futurist method claim that most (if not all) of the Apocalypse deals with future events surrounding the second advent. A rather recent method is the eclectic method which states that to narrow oneself to only one of these views is to violate the intended meaning of Revelation. The best solution they claim is to employ a variety of these methods to deal with the hard texts of the Apocalypse.

__________________________

1. Date to be announced. I have actually been working on this commentary for some time now but other priorities in life recently have demanded much attention. Recently however I have once again jumped in this project with full gusto.

2. Naturally in my commentary a fuller description is given, tighter criticism of what I consider the erroneous views and a defense of my own view. Here in this post I give but a brief historical overview.

3. (Adversus haereses. 26, 1). A theme picked up and expanded by St. Hippolytus, (De antichristo). From the literal exposition of Rev 20 Victorinus can probably be seen in this western/Latin camp. That Revelation mainly has to do with the ancient Roman Empire and her dealings with Christianity has had a long history of interpretation up until our day, cf. R. H. Charles (Revelation: ICC. 1920).

4. (Stromata. 6, 13).

5. (De principiis. 11, 11, 12; Commentarii in Ioannem. 2, 6).

6. On the whole however, Tyconius seems to favor the allegorical rather than literal interpretation. In this same camp of exposition (from the east) is the beautiful commentary by Andreas who mixes the mystical with literal interpretations.

7. Which still finds acclaims by scholars today. While not exactly a conservative commentary it was up to his time the most rigorous critical examination of the Greek text and survey of critical scholarship up to his day.

8. For example, G. E. Ladd (Revelation. 1972), G. R. Beasley-Murray (Revelation: NCBC. 1978), R. H. Mounce (Revelation: NICNT. 1998), etc. Of course this is not the only major academic interpretation of the Apocalypse in the 20th and now 21st century.

Short Review of "The Author of the Gospels" by Dennis Barton.

Several times in discussion with those who hold to Matthean priority I have been referred to the following article by a Dennis Barton defending Matthean priority¹. In this short post I will give a general review of it since I don't have the time nor the energy for a point by point analysis.

1. Barton commences his article by presenting a short list of Matthean priority scholars with the following red flags,

"Johann Griesbach (1745-1812). Lutheran University professor who spread knowledge of the Matthew-Luke-Mark order in Germany and beyond," "John Chapman OSB. (1865-1933). Considered the greatest Patristic scholar of his time, pointed out weakness of the Markan priority theory. Upheld the priority of Matthew's gospel," "William R. Farmer (died in 2000). Methodist professor. He showed how Markan Priority was established in Germany, by Government imposed, 'political correctness.'Promoted the Matthew-Luke-Mark order throughout America."

Already there is immense problems in the presentation of this article. Normally I would not waste my time with such biased skewing of the evidence. The focus is made clear by Barton, this article is polemically driven. Why does he not tell his unsuspecting reader that the father of the Griesbach theory (J. J. Griesbach) is no friend to orthodoxy and was a Protestant liberal of the first kind? The claim that John Chapman is "considered the greatest Patristic scholar of his time" is simply absurd and reveals a complete lack of familiarity with the field of Patristics and Patrology. Finally the claim that Farmer exposed Markan priority as a government sponsored propaganda machine is only topped in ridicule by other of Farmer's students that have carried his message further claiming that it was first launched by the Nazi party.

2. If Barton was presenting a true presentation of the issues why not give the reader a fair presentation of Markan sources/scholars to complement his little list of scholars? Perhaps it's the fact that the overwhelming (some have calculated 90%) of New Testament scholars, commentators and grammarians world wide of all traditions hold to some form of Markan priority.

Following this preface of his sources Barton remarks,

"The theory that Mark's gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built."

Again, this emotionally driven agenda flies in the face of sober neutral scholarship and ignores and attempts to re-write history and poison the well before the reader has any chance of being led to a balanced presentation of the difficult issues involved. Virtually every point in this article by Barton can be challenged and is plagued by misrepresenting the actual Markan position by conservative scholarship. Too often we are doused with liberal arguments that are supposed to represent the best of Markan scholarship (which is conservative). This is classic strawman argumentation.

On Papias for example we read,

"Here we have Papias quoting John the Apostle`s words in defence of the style of the Gospel of Mark. So the `poor Greek` of Mark is not something first noticed in the 18th century. The extract, `... the Presbyter used to say`, being in the plural, shows that aspects of Mark`s gospel had to be repeatedly defended by John the Apostle against criticism."

A claim that no Markan scholar worth two cents would ever make. A simple glance at any of the major commentaries on St. Mark by any of the recent major works presents the Greek of Mark not as "poor Greek" but actually polished but unique from Matthew and Luke's, difference does not imply inferiority, (Cf. C. E. B Cranfield The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge Un. Press, 1959); R. Gundry Mark (Eerdmans, 1992); R. T. France Mark (NIGTC, Eerdmans, 2002); A. Y. Collins Mark (Hermeneia, Fortress, 2007); R. H. Stein Mark (BECNT. Baker, 2008); and especially Rikki Watts forthcoming entry on Mark in the NICNT series).

3. Barton's literary analysis and argument for Matthean priority is not convincing and in many circumstances works against his thesis.

4. Much is made over the dates of composition of St. Mark and St. Matthew with the following conclusion,

"For nearly 2000 years it has been held that Matthew wrote his gospel in Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the city in 70 AD. The reason modern books have transferred its composition to a later period is so as to conform to the Markan theory."

But again this is a false representation of the facts. Both Markan and Matthean priority scholars have argued for both pre and post 70 A.D. dates based on a variety of different grounds. The liberal scholars who have placed Matthew in the end of the first and sometimes in the second century have been rejected and it is common to find Markan priority scholars holding compositional dates for both Matthew and Mark pre A.D. 70.

Barton again sets up a big strawman only to knock it down with force. He cites R. Brown's 1977 work which denies the historicity of the infancy narratives. This nefariousness coupled with Brown's Markan priority orientation is the supposed source of the "wide following" of later scholars. Barton's agenda is made clear when he ignores and/or overlooks decades and decades of research both before and after 1977 on Markan priority which does not base it's conclusions on anti-historical rhetoric on the Sacred Gospels.

I can go on and on pointing out such drawbacks to Barton's article on this most difficult and sensitive issue. It has been stated that our most holy father Pope Benedict is a Markan priority man. His conclusion on this issue I submit is based on judicious and a careful reading of the sources. Barton's caricature of an article is not a reliable source.

For a much more balanced presentation of these issues see my article below and the secondary literature cited. For a good written defense of Matthean priority that lacks the rhetoric and smoke and mirrors of Barton see D. P. Peabody, L. Cope and A. J. McNicol, One Gospel from Two: Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke, (Trinity Press, 2002).
_______________________
1. As found here - http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm

On the Order of the Synoptic Gospels: A Catholic Perspective.

For those unaware, there has been a raging debate in critical New Testament scholarship concerning the order of composition between the synoptic gospels¹. This will be a brief introduction to the issues involved, followed by a cautious conclusion on the matter.


Modern Solutions



World wide the predominant theory² has been variously labled the "two source hypothesis," "the Oxford hypothesis," "four source hypothesis," which was given it's classical presentation by B. H. Streeter in 1924. This view holds that St. Mark was actually the first gospel written and that St. Matthew and St. Luke then used Mark (along with Q³) for composing their gospels.


The strongest response to Markan priority theories has come from William Farmer who has instead presented the compositional order of Matthew, Luke, Mark (this view has been labled the "two gospel hypothesis" or "the Griesbach hypothesis" after J. J. Griesbach, German scholar of the late 18th century)⁴.


Both sides of the issue have an abundance of secondary literature and thus a plethora of arguments some stronger than others. Here I will only concentrate on what I consider the main arguments (I refer the reader to any of the works below for in depth analysis of all the arguments - especially Stein's (Studying the Synoptics) ).


On Markan Priority:


1. The argument from language. This is a very strong point that is not easily refuted. Both St. Matthew and St. Luke have a tendency to cooperate in smoothing out St. Mark's rough grammar. It is very difficult to explain why Mark would obscure the clear and understandable passages if he had Matthew and Luke to work with. And much more likely that just the reverse is true, Matthew and Luke sought to explain the hard grammar and syntax of the earlier Mark. One example, in Mark 7:31 we read, "And again, Jesus left the regions of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the middle of the regions of the Decapolis." This is a very strange route which should have Jesus simply heading southeast towards his destination, instead he starts by going north then he ends up in a region of cities even further southeast than his final destination? St. Matthew clears up the difficulty, "And departing from there (the regions of Tyre and Sidon), Jesus came to the Sea of Galilee." (Matt 15:29). Dozens of examples such as these can be cited.


2. Ommissions/changes. Another strong telling phenomena. Again, both Mattew and Luke equally omit or clarify potentially misleading details in Mark. As to why Mark would introduce otherwise misleading details that seem to contradict Matthew and Luke has not been properly explained by Matthean priority proponents. One example, in Mark 6:5-6 we read that Jesus was amazed at the unbelief of the Nazareth crowds in consequence he was "unable to do any miracles there." St. Matthew perhaps aware of the apparent scandal this text has caused in the early Christian communities clears things up, instead Jesus could not do many not any miracles there (Matt 13:58). Other problems that have been noted, why has Mark decided to omit such critical information as the infancy narratives, the sermon on the mount, etc if he wrote subsequent to Matthew and Luke? Many more examples can be cited.


3. The short/long pericope argument. St. Mark is the shortest of the gospels. Thus, we would completely expect him (if he was written last) to follow through consistently in his individual pericope's to abridge. Yet, his individual pericopes are usually longer than that of Matthew or Luke (showing then literary independence).


4. Reason of compositional argument. Assuming Mark was written last (or even second) what then is his reason for composition if he already had fuller compositions done before him?


5. The general arrangement argument. Generally speaking the flow of events in the synoptics tend to follow Mark's order. However, where Matthew and Luke do differ from one another they tend still to follow Mark not eachother, exactly what we would expect if Mark was used by both.

6. The text-criticial argument. Matthew Williams has championed this argument and has demonstrated in painful detail based on textual variants that Mark's readings are usually closest to the original readings as opposed to Matthew and Luke (cf. his Two Gospels from One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels, Kregel, 2006).


On Matthean Priority:

1. The Greco-Roman historian argument. Or the explanation for the smaller size of St. Mark due to his copying of Greco-Roman historians who usually abbreviated, in like manner it is argued, Mark abridged and conflated Matthew and Luke.

2. Matthean distinctions. There are examples of unique Semitisms and other signs of primitive tradition in St. Matthew that are not found in Mark (such as the additional info found in Matt 16:13-20).

3. The Patristic support. The Catholic Fathers expressly support Matthean priority as the first of the gospels to be written according to tradition. However more needs to be said about the citation of the Fathers on this point which is unfortunately misrepresented at times. Papias (as recorded by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3, 39, 16,) is sometimes marshalled for support but his statement about the ta logia of which Matthew arranged is hotly disputed and even Farmer doubts the gospel of Matthew is even meant by Papias. Moreover Papias says nothing about the chronological order of the gospels. St. Clement of Alexandria is more to the point, stating that Matthew came first followed by Luke then Mark (as recorded by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 6, 14, 5-6). Yet later tradition Origen (Comm. Jo. 6, 32), Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3, 24, 5-18), St. Jerome (Vir. ill. 3) hold pace Clement and modern Griesbachians that it was Matthew, Mark and lastly Luke (St. Augustine and the Muratorian list have also been cited as supporting this position).

In conclusion, on the one hand it is manifest that the sum total of these arguments for Markan priority is indeed impressive. Moreover, the problems and challenges (theological and literary) that arise if one denies Markan priority are extremely serious. In the effort to silence some who have conjectured that Markan priority are simply liberal or Protestant pet theories we have the monumental Markan priority defenses by the acclaimed Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer⁵. On the other hand, as a Catholic the consensus of the Fathers on Matthean priority is very important and not easily overturned. It must be admitted that other solutions that do not post St. Matthew as first among the gospels are modern developments with no real attestation in Church history. Thus, a clear cut concrete decision at this point in the state of the issue seems rash. Perhaps a clear path out of this tangled question is the on going research that is being made on the impact and importance of the oral tradition that is used by the evangelists⁶.
_____________________________

1. The term synoptic is derived from the Greek "syn" (togather) and "opsis" (seeing) thus the idea of "common view," and highlights the similarities between the first three gospels, namely St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke as opposed to the striking different tone of St. John's gospel.

2. Which has entertained a large following in New Testament academic circles, i.e., S. Neill (The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961), Oxford Un Press, 1964; C. M. Tuckett (The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis), SNTSMS: 44, Cambridge Un. Press, 1983; D. Guthrie (New Testament Introduction); M. D. Goulder (Luke: A New Paradigm) JSNTSup:20, Sheffield, 1989; S. E Johnson (The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism) SBLMS:41, Scholars, 1991; P. M. Head (Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority) SNTSMS: 94, Cambridge Un. Press, 1997; R. H. Stein (Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation), Baker, 2001; Scot McKnight (Interpreting the New Testament), Broadman & Holman, 2001; P. Perkins (Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels), Eerdmans, 2007; P. R. Eddy & G. A Boyd (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition), Baker, 2007; D. C. Sim & Boris Repschinski (Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries) T & T Clark, 2008 is but a small sampling of monographs not even mentioning the overwhelming majority of Markan priority adherents among the Markan commentary specialists.


3. Q is the hypothetical source that some scholars posit that Matthew and Luke used as an additional source for information. It comes from the German "Quelle" or "source." Streeter's definition of the issues was even more complex. He argued that Matthew and Luke actually had four sources at their disposal, Mark, Q, L and M (L being the additional source predating Luke and M for the Matthean additional source), thus the "four source hypothesis," cf. B. H. Streeter (The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins), Macmillam, 1924. For a compendium of modern research on the issue of Q see pro; J. S Kloppenborg (Excavating Q: The History and Sayings of the Source Gospel) Fortress Press, 2000; and contra; M. Goodacre (The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem) Trinity Press, 2002.


4. (The Synoptic Problem), Macmillan, 1964; (Synopticon, The Verbal Agreement between the Greek Texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke Contextually Exhibited), Cambridge University Press, 1969; (New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference And Beyond), Mercer University Press, Fall, 1983; (Mark as Composer) Mercer University Press, 1987; (The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem) Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994; (Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism) 1994.
Farmer's criticism has attracted a wide following (especially in America) and other scholars have springboarded off of his work; A. J. McNicol, D. L. Dungan, D. B Peabody (Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke's Use of Matthew), Trinity, 1996.


5. Just to name but one Catholic scholar. Fitzmyer in my opinion is perhaps the most erudite and prodigious New Testament scholar of the second half of the 20th century. On Markan priority see, "The Priority of Mark and the 'Q' source in Luke" in (Jesus and Man's Hope), Pittsburg, 1970.

6. Such as the excellent works of among others; B. Reicke (The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels) Fortress, 1986; Terence Mournet, (Oral Tradition and Literary Dependence: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q) Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

The Revelation of St. John: A Lacuna.

Tertullian noted long ago that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. The early Christians suffered and were promised savage persecution at the hands of everyone, secular governments, anti-Christian Jews and even heretics that were to spring forth from the Church herself. The Ἀποκάλυψις of John was written to prepare, encourage and above all, - display the fact that despite these horrendous persecutions the Lamb of God Jesus Christ stands victorious over the powers and principalities of this world and grants to all those who overcome, crowns of eternal life. We are according to John, more than conquerors through Him.

In modern scholarship, virtually every point of Revelation is in dispute¹. Not least because of the rocky history of Revelation throughout history in general and in the early Church in particular². Commentaries abound on Revelation to settle these issues but an up to date detailed (traditional/conservative) Catholic commentary is sorely needed³.

_______________________
[End Notes]

1. For example, authorship (was the author John the Apostle?), date of composition (pre or post 70 A.D.?), model of hermeneutic (historical, idealist, preterist, futurist?), structure, etc. Discussion on these points here however would send us far removed and beyond the scope of this brief introductory post.

2. The suspicions of many early patristic commentators over the apostolic and authoritative nature of Revelation is well known. Especially vocal were writers from the East (i.e., Eusebius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodore of Cyrus, note the -Western- doubts by St. Jerome, etc) based in large part on the foundational critique of bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (as recorded in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. 7. 24-25). Consequently Revelation was not seen in the canonical list of the Council of Laodicea and not seen in the early lectionaries in the East and so on. However, Revelation was vindicated and shown as canonical by the majority of the Catholic episcopate (especially in the West) leading to St. Athanasius accepting it completely in his canonical list. For early patristic acceptance of Revelation as authoritative is strong indeed, (Cf. Papias, probably St. Ignatius, Barnabas, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, St. Epiphanius, listed in the Muratorian canon, etc. ).

3. Legend has it that Calvin declined to write a commentary on Revelation due to the most difficult exegetical problems involved and strangely enough Origen died just before his planned execution of a commentary on Revelation. Already in 1906 H. B. Swete noted that "The literature of the Apocalypse is immense" (The Apocalypse of St. John. XVII). Of the mountains and mountains of books on Revelation a few stand out. Among the Protestans David Aune has a multi-volumed entry in the Word Biblical Commentary series that is enormous in its breadth. But he can be liberal at points. Equally as massive and perhaps better on the Greek is Greg Beale's entry in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series. David Chilton's (Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation) gives a good preterist reading. R. H. Mounce in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series still finds praise. If you find R. H. Charles old ICC entry in the used section (for a cheap price) he can still be useful, the same goes for W. Bousset's old commentary. The presentation among Catholic specialists is much smaller. The critical, liberal and feminist entry by J. Massyngberde Ford in the Anchor Bible series is simply absurd and she has won over practically no one to her radical interpretations. Thankfully the Revelation entry for AB series is being re-done by Craig Koester who is a Lutheran...Wilfrid Harrington's entry in the Sacra Pagina series suffers from both the small space allotted in this series as well as his liberalism. Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza is scheduled to give us an erudite entry in the Hermeneia series but it will prove too liberal for conservative Catholics. Perhaps one of the many current Catholic apocalyptic specialists will step up and grace us with a much needed large scale commentary (John J. Collins, J. S. Considine, Charles Giblin, Jan Lambrecht, D.A McIlraith, K. E. Miller, D. C. Olson, Adela Y Collins?).

Among the ancient Catholic commentaries the first full length (many earlier patristic fathers commented on individual passages of Revelation) works were by Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau (third century), Bishop of Tricca - Oecumenius (most likely in the early part of the sixth century), Bishop Primasius of Hadrumetum and during this same century, Apringus - Bishop of Pax, Cassiodorius, Metropolitan of Cappodocia - Andreas and one of his successor's, Arethras. In the late seventh century; Baeda of Wearmouth, in the eight; Benedictine monk Ambrosius Ansbertus. Starting from the ninth century the explosion of commentaries on Revelation begins.