Replacing “thin air” Jesus with the true Jesus in Catholic universities

Replacing “thin air” Jesus with the true Jesus in Catholic universities 

 

By Jerome D. Gilmartin – September 11, 2019

 

Pope Benedict XVI: “Intimate friendship with Jesus … is in danger of clutching at thin air.” Jesus of Nazareth, 2007, p. xii.

 

Catholic universities, and seminaries as well, now have reason to bring an end to five decades of instruction that, as Pope Benedict XVI wrote, has reduced Jesus to “thin air,” surely jeopardizing the eternal salvation of countless students and others.

 

The Catholic bishops of the USCCB now have reason to discontinue their support for this instruction, e.g.: “The ancient tradition that the author [of the Gospel according to Matthew] was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable . . .” https://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0 Recent recognition of a Gospel-affirming Historical-Critical hypothesis as “Major” by biblical scholars facilitates this correction.

 

The Gospels ─ Who wrote them and why does it matter?

 

Imagine that fifty years ago almost all U. S. law schools began to teach that we had somehow been misled; the U.S. Constitution we have is not the original document. It may reflect the original in various ways, but no one can be confident that any particular provision was in the original. Lawyers and judges have been making the best of this uncertainty, which is largely unknown to the general public. A similar situation ─ in effect, the reduction of all four Gospels to mere non-eyewitness hearsay testimony ─ has existed in regard to the Gospels as taught in most Catholic seminaries, universities and colleges for the past five decades.

 

Are the Gospels authentic accounts by the evangelists, or just stories about Jesus by later unknown writers?

 

Are the Gospels eyewitness reports by apostles Matthew and John ─ as well as the testimony of Mark and Luke, associates of apostles Peter and Paul respectively ─ as to what Christ actually said we must do to avoid hell and gain eternal happiness in heaven, as the Church has held since its earliest days?

 

Or are they just the writings of later, unknown others who never heard Jesus and may have misinterpreted what their unknown sources said or wrote about Jesus; sources who themselves may not have been fully aware of what Jesus actually said is required of us if we are to have eternal life? Is it not extremely important for each of us to look into this matter, knowing that death comes to all, often without warning?

 

Did God change the rules to accommodate Reformation-inspired, Gospel-blurring Markan Priority; embraced by most Catholic seminaries, universities and colleges after 1967 as noted below? If God did, would he not deserve this thunderous accusation from the damned souls:

 

“You pretend to be a God of Justice, but you now welcome into heaven those who, unrepentant before death, committed the same grave sins for which you threw us into this eternal fire!”

 

Our eternal salvation may well depend on which view we choose to believe and live by.

 

The Church thrived ─ until the late 1960s

 

In the half-century leading up to Vatican II (1962-1965) the Church thrived. For at least 1,600 years the Church had taught that the Gospels were accounts of the life and ministry of Christ by apostle-eyewitnesses Matthew and John and by “apostolic men” Mark (Peter) and Luke (Paul). Catholic centers of higher learning taught this as well. As I wrote in The 7-Step Reason to be Catholic, 2nd Ed.: Before Vatican II, “For about five decades, during what has been called the golden age of Catholicism, Catholic schools proliferated; the Baltimore Catechism . . . ensured that young Catholics properly understood their faith, including its basis in the Bible and Church Tradition . . . Catholics attended Mass with reverence every Sunday and holy day and few would even think of receiving Holy Communion without first having gone to Confession, repenting, and being forgiven for any mortal sin . . . There was an abundance of vocations for the priesthood and for orders of nuns, and the breakup of a marriage followed by remarriage, with the resulting shuttling of shared children, was almost unheard of.”

 

Freefall of Catholicism begins

 

Soon after Vatican II the Church went into freefall by every key measure: https://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/. In 1970, 48% of U. S. Catholics attended Mass weekly and there were 571 U. S. parishes without a resident priest-pastor. By 2017, 23% attended Mass weekly, 3,552 parishes were without a resident priest pastor and the number of graduate level seminarians had fallen by 48%. This freefall has been attributed to the drug culture, the birth control pill, widespread acceptance of fornication and other negative influences that began to seriously affect society, especially the young, in the 1960s.

 

Late 1960s: The ”soft mutiny” of Catholic universities against the Church begins — with a Gospel-blurring hypothesis with roots going back at least 200 years

 

Largely overlooked as a direct cause of this freefall, however, has been what might be called the soft mutiny against the Church by virtually all U.S. Catholic seminaries, universities and colleges following the Land O’ Lakes declaration. The Land O’ Lakes Conference took place in 1967 when leaders of ten major Catholic universities and of two religious orders met in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin and issued a declaration of independence, most importantly from the Pope:

 

“[T]he Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.” (Excerpt from par. 1). https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-land-o-lakes-statement-has-caused-devastation-for-49-years

 

Within a few years all but a few U. S. Catholic seminaries, universities and colleges followed suit. They soon discontinued or deemphasized the teaching that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Instead, apparently having in mind ecumenism and the increasing number of non-Catholic students who would find Petrine Primacy unacceptable, they began to teach the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis (TSH) as the best explanation for Gospel origin. The Markan Priority TSH had by this time among biblical scholars become the most popular of the many hypotheses of the Historical-Critical Method (HCM).

 

Errant historical-critical instruction, in the form of the Markan Priority TSH, did not begin its devastating effects in Catholic centers of higher learning until the late 1960s, as noted. However, in Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture, 1300-1700, (2013) — a book that has been called a masterpiece of scholarly study — authors Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker trace the development of this anti-Christian historical-critical endeavor over the past two hundred years. Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, Baylor University, reviewed this book as follows:

 

“Hahn and Wiker make the case that biblical criticism has been shaped by philosophical and political ideas that are often intrinsically hostile to Christian faith. This is an important work that will force its readers to readjust, and in some cases totally reject, what they had been taught about the objectivity and neutrality of contemporary approaches to God’s Word.” — https://www.amazon.com/Politicizing-Bible-Historical-Criticism-secularization/dp/0824599039#customerReviews

 

Markan Priority ─ The historical-critical instrument that allowed “Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck to “break the back” of Matthew’s Gospel and “neutralize the papacy.”

 

In 1786 Protestant theologian Gottlob C. Storr proposed that Mark was the first Gospel written. By the mid-19th century if not before, biblical scholars concluded that ─ because Mt 16:18-19, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .“ is not in the same scene near Caesarea Philippi as described in Mark 8:27-30 ─ Mark could be seen as not only written first but more credible than Matthew. It could then be argued that Jesus never conferred primacy on Peter by naming him the rock on which he would build his one Church and promised to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church would then be considered just one of the many Christian faith traditions.

 

A century later, “Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck used that very idea in his attempt to nullify Petrine primacy. In Bismarck and the four Gospels, biblical exegete William R. Farmer (later a convert to Catholicism) tells how Bismarck, seething after the announcement of the Papal Infallibility dogma in 1870, “broke the back” of the Gospel according to Matthew, and thus of Canon Law, and neutralized the papacy, or so it seemed, by imposing Markan Priority in German universities. Many German bishops and priests opposed the “May Laws” and were imprisoned or exiled.

 

But this Markan Priority square peg didn’t quite fit into the historical-critical hole. How could a statement made personally by Jesus, one that was vitally important to the Church he was founding and quoted by Matthew, an apostle who was there and would have heard Jesus speak those words, be rejected simply because it is absent in the account of Mark, who was not there near Caesarea Philippi with Jesus and the apostles?

 

The obvious explanation for Mark’s omission would be that in his preaching, Peter had no need to tout his personal authority as head of the Church. How many of our bishops begin their homilies with, “By the way, the Pope gave me authority as your leader in this diocese”? Peter also knew that In Rome, with Nero’s agents listening and ready to pounce, any mention of another kingdom, especially if he claimed to have its keys, would have meant a swift end to his preaching. For these reasons, in the belly of the beast Peter was almost certainly silent regarding those statements of Jesus whereas Matthew, in his earlier Gospel addressed primarily to Hebrews, could freely quote them. And, of course, the Gospels are replete with indications that the other apostles looked to Peter as their leader, as are the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

 

Outside the Catholic Church the post-Reformation incentive to deny that Jesus had given primacy to Peter in the one Church he was founding remained strong. Simply stated, it seemed that the rounding of the Matthean Priority square peg had been accomplished as follows:

 

  1. Declaring, without evidence, that Matthew was probably written anonymously. This meant ignoring at least eight citations authenticating the Gospel according to Matthew written by Early Church Fathers before 325 A.D. (The Faith of the Early Fathers, V.1, W. A. Jurgens, p. 421).

  2. Creating “Q,” a hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus that varies in number from biblical exegete to exegete and has never been found. Markan Priority, as the term indicates, holds that Mark wrote and promulgated the first Gospel. Matthew, whoever he was (not the apostle), would have used Mark as a source. Without Q, however, pseudo-Matthew could not have credibly written his Gospel with the detail it includes.

  3. Declaring that the Synoptic (same view) Gospels, the first three, were probably written a generation or so later, [presumably time enough to ensure that the real apostle Matthew had died and wouldn’t show up and, as we octogenarians say, “upset the apple cart.”]. In any case, there is compelling evidence such as the following that all four Gospels were written before the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D.:

a) All three of the Synoptics include Jesus clearly foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24:2, Mk 13:2, Lk 19:44), but there is no reference in any of the four Gospels that that prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled. Mt 22:7, “The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city,” is cited by some who claim that this city was Jerusalem and therefore Matthew was written after 70 A.D. In context, however, this is drawn from the parable of the wedding banquet where a king burned the city of those who murdered his servants rather than accept the king’s invitation to a wedding banquet, Mt 22:7. It is simply an excerpt from one of the many parables of Jesus. It is clearly not a reference to the cataclysmic, far beyond burning, prophecy by Jesus before his death in about 33 A.D.: “Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down” (Mt 24:2, RSVCE) about 37 years before the terrible event occurred in 70 A.D.

 

Some Markan Priority TSH proponents attempt to date the writing of Matthew to after 70 A.D. by ignoring the unmistakable future tense used by Jesus: “there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down” (Mt 24:2). The Bible Gateway web site, however, lists translations of Mt 24:2 in 59 different bibles, including the RSV Catholic Edition and the New American Standard Bible. Without exception, all 59 translations quote Jesus as referring to a future event; unequivocal evidence that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., almost certainly by Matthew the apostle-eyewitness — evidence which is compatible with the faith-affirming Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis and which renders the dominant but Gospel-blurring Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis untenable.

 

Such illogical interpretation of the clear meaning of biblical passages is an apparent reflection of a fundamental tenet of the Historical-Critical Method: God (if God exists) cannot intervene in human history. This accounts for the often heard, even from the pulpit, attempts to offer natural explanations of such miracles of Christ as his feeding of the crowds and walking on water.

 

b) In John, the Gospel virtually all biblical scholars agree was written last, we read, “Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Beth-za′tha, which has five porticoes” (Jn 5:2). If writing after Jerusalem was destroyed, the Gospel writer would have written something like, “Before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem there was, by the Sheep Gate . . . or, “By the Sheep Gate, which was somehow not destroyed by the Romans . . . .” There is virtually unanimous agreement among biblical scholars that the apostle John lived until the late 90s, more than twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem. If John’s account of the ministry of Christ, apparently written and promulgated by him before A.D. 70, was false and fraudulently attributed to him, John would have had at least two decades to denounce it as such, as he did “false words” in 3 John:9-10.

 

c) The pre-70 A.D. writing of all four Gospels, within about 37 years after the Resurrection, means that all four evangelists were probably still living and able to expose as fraudulent any Gospel falsely attributed to them. Even if an evangelist was no longer living, many of the disciples and others who would have known Jesus and witnessed his miracles would have denounced as false any miracle of Jesus recorded in his Gospel, including the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, if it had not actually occurred. That all four Gospels were given canonical approval in the late fourth century attests to their authenticity.

 

In any case it is well attested that apostle John lived until about the middle of the last decade of the first century as noted and we have the following testimony of St. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215): “John, last of all, seeing that the plain facts had been clearly set forth in the Gospels, and being urged by his acquaintances, composed a spiritual Gospel under the divine inspiration of the Spirit.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14).

 

C. C. Torrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale from 1900 to 1932 wrote: “I challenged my colleagues to designate one passage from any one of the four Gospels giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D. . . . The challenge was not met, nor will it be, for there is no such passage.” “The Dates of the Gospels,” Rev. George H. Duggan, S.M. (Reprinted in this book.)

 

The above notwithstanding, with the exception of most Evangelicals, the Gospel-blurring Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis gained acceptance within Protestantism before its acceptance in most of Catholic academia, where doubt regarding authenticity of the Synoptic Gospels (for some, with the exception of Luke), extends to John as well.

 

Key tenets of the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis as taught in most of Catholic academia

 

As championed by Fr. Raymond E. Brown, S. S. (1928-1998) in Catholic academia, the Markan Priority TSH posits the following (paraphrased to respect copyrights):

 

  • The Gospels were not written by “evangelists” Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; they were written by second-generation Christians. Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine,14.

     

  • Did the Early Church Fathers have historical information? If not, they could not answer historical questions. Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, 20.

     

  • As members of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue, we concluded that much of what is found only in Matthew [“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church…”?] was probably written after the resurrection. Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church, 72.

     

  • We cannot know whether or not something written in Semitic by Matthew the apostle was reflected in what the anonymous later writer of The Gospel according to Matthew wrote. An Introduction to the New Testament, 210, 211.

     

Image attribution: Creative Commons.

commons.wikimedia.org

 

The adaptation of the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis in most of Catholic academia generally holds that: (a) All four Gospels were first written in Greek by anonymous second-generation Christians. (b) Mark was written first and is the most credible of the four anonymous Gospels. (c) Passages in Matthew and Luke that are identical or similar to those in Mark were copied or paraphrased from Mark; for other passages the presumed source was “Q,” a hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus never found or alluded to by Church Fathers and in which the number of sayings varies considerably from biblical exegete to exegete. (d) Passages in Matthew that are not in Mark are regarded as particularly doubtful, notably Mt 16:18-19, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . I will give you the keys . . .,” the key passage in which Jesus gives his Church (singular) Petrine primacy. The absence of these words of Jesus in Mark (Mk 8:27-30) has given rise to doubt that Jesus ever gave such authority to Peter, without which it can be argued that the Catholic Church is just one of many Christian faith traditions. (Note the explanation offered earlier in this article for the absence of these words of Jesus in Mark).

 

Markan Priority: Decried by Pope Benedict XVI but widely accepted among Church leadership

 

The vast faith-undermining effect of Markan Priority instruction decried by Pope Benedict XVI, noted below, becomes evident when we find that almost any Catholic priest and bishop will answer these questions in the following manner:

 

“Which Gospel was written first, and is considered most credible?”

 

“Mark.”

 

“Was The Gospel according to Mark actually written by Mark, companion of Peter, whose Gospel is based largely on the preaching of Peter?”

 

“Probably not.”

 

“When something in Matthew or another Gospel seems at odds with Mark, which account is considered more credible?”

 

“Mark.”

 

Petrine Primacy; that Jesus personally appointed Peter to lead the one Church he was founding: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . .’ is found only in Matthew (Mt 16:18-19) and is obviously missing from Mark (Mk 8:27-30). Under the dominant Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis, does this not mean that Jesus probably never said those words to Peter and therefore it is improbable that Peter or any of his successors ever had primacy given to Peter by Christ?

 

“Although denying Petrine primacy contradicts Church Doctrine, the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis does, in fact, cast doubt on, if not denies, Petrine primacy.”

 

Note: In Faith of the Early Fathers, author William A. Jurgens lists eighteen pre-Nicene (i.e., pre-325 A.D.) citations under the caption, “From earliest times it was acknowledged that the supreme power over the whole Church belonged to the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter.” Jurgens lists an additional thirteen citations under the caption, “Among the apostles, Peter received from Christ the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church,” (Doctrinal Index, p. 421)

 

Pope Benedict XVI: Markan Priority has reduced seeking Jesus to “clutching at thin air”

 

In his book, Jesus of Nazareth, From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, © 2007, p. xii, Pope Benedict XVI assessed as follows the spiritual devastation of the previous four decades of Markan Priority instruction in Catholic centers of higher learning:

 

As historical-critical scholarship advanced . . . the figure of Jesus — became increasingly obscured and blurred . . . All these attempts have produced a common result: the impression that we have very little certain knowledge of Jesus and that only at a late stage did faith in his divinity shape the image we have of him. This impression has by now penetrated deeply into the minds of Christian people at large. Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air”.

 

We read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #76 and in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum that the Church recognizes the four evangelists as writers of the Gospels:

 

“[T]he Gospel was handed on in two ways: ‘orally’ by the apostles… [and] ‘in writing‘ by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing” (CCC #76).

 

The Vatican II document Dei Verbum is even more explicit:

“For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”

 

However, not only students in most Catholic universities and colleges, but the vast majority of Catholic priests ordained and bishops consecrated since the early 1970s have been taught that the Markan Priority TSH ─ the historical-critical hypothesis that, as Pope Benedict XVI noted, reduces Jesus to “thin air” ─ is the best explanation of the origin of the Gospels.

 

Here is an excerpt from a message I received from a Catholic priest taught by Fr. Brown:

 

“Dear Jerome,

I was taught the [Markan Priority] Historical-Critical Method in the seminary in the 1970’s…[by] Fr. Raymond Brown. [H]e saw toward the end of his life how this method could destroy Catholic Faith in people rather than build it up. I saw seminarians lose their faith in my class when exposed to the unbridled use of this method. Many were converted by this method to heterodox teachings or beliefs. Others lost their faith and left the seminary. For me, and by God’s grace, somewhere someone indicated that even if the Scriptures were not written by eye-witnesses to Christ, the oral tradition certainly came from them [and] it was the Risen Lord inspiring the written text and so Christ, the Risen Lord was completely active in this process. But it would be easy to be manipulated by the HCM to abandon the Catholic Faith in favor of some Ecumenical Church with loose doctrines or dogmas. The [Markan Priority] HCM calls into question not only the infancy narratives but also the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Virgin Conception and birth, not to mention miracles of Christ and his physical death and resurrection. It really opens old heresies already resolved by the Church. And Catholic exegetes who use this method simply make the same mistakes of liberal protestant scripture scholars of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s which radicalized many believing Protestants and pushed them to fundamentalism and literalism that actually began to be institutionalized in the 1920’s.… The Fathers of the Church can never be left out of the equation!”

 

At Mass our priests and bishops read from “The Gospel according to Matthew, . . . Mark,” etc. We can only speculate about the extent to which the “anonymous Gospels” seminary formation of most may influence the homilies that follow and in turn the faith of parishioners; especially the young.

 

The study of Gospel Semitisms – further indications of Gospel authenticity – called for by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII

 

In 1893, as Bismarck-imposed “higher criticism” (the Historical Critical Method) was gaining ground beyond Germany, Pope Leo XIII warned in Providentissimus Deus that it would make the enemies of religion more bold and confident in “attacking and mangling the Sacred Books.” As a defense, the Pope called for the study of the biblical Semitic languages, which would include Hebrew and Aramaic. Such study would better prepare biblical exegetes to recognize Hebrew and Aramaic Semitisms, characteristics of those languages in the canonical Greek Gospels. In 1943, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, paragraphs 15 and 16, Pope Pius XII granted Catholic biblical scholars permission to employ the historical-critical method, but stipulated that in that endeavor scholars study not only Greek but Hebrew. Unfortunately, it seems that the studies of most Catholic and other historical-critical scholars have instead proceeded from the Greek, with little if any reference to the Semitic substrate.

 

Dead Sea Scrolls aid understanding of first century Hebrew and Aramaic

 

Resistance to the call of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII to study the Gospels in light of Hebrew and Aramaic may have had some merit before discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1945-1955). Until then, and for some time afterward while scroll images were distributed and studied, biblical exegetes were familiar with the Hebrew of the Old (Hebrew) Testament and to some extent the Mishnaic Hebrew that developed from biblical Hebrew beginning in about the first century, A.D.

 

But the Dead Sea Scrolls ─ some written as early as the third century B.C., but others written by the Jewish Essene Community as late as 60 A.D., about the time when the four Gospels were probably written ─ brought about what scholars have called a “sea change” in their ability to recognize Hebraisms and Aramaisms in the canonical Greek Gospels, many of which explain some of the rough Greek of the canonical Gospels, and enhance scholars’ ability to categorize those Semitisms.

 

A number of Semitism scholars find the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and sources of Luke to be translations of earlier Hebrew / Aramaic documents

 

After a 20-year study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, French Hebraist abbé Jean Carmignac (1914 – 1986) concluded that the canonical Greek Gospel according to Matthew was in fact a translation of an earlier Hebrew, in part Aramaic, document. In his book, Birth of the Synoptic Gospels he cited twenty other Semitism scholars who also found Greek Matthew to be such a translation, twenty who found Greek Mark to be such a translation, and nineteen who reached the same conclusion about sources of Greek Luke (The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 65-83). Abbé Carmignac’s studies led him to conclude that Matthew, Mark and Luke were probably all written between about A.D. 40 and a little after 50 (p. 61 of his book); only about seventeen years after the Resurrection. With high probability, all three evangelists would still have been living and able to attest to the truth of the Gospels they had written. Such early dates make the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis untenable, of course, prompting this comment by abbé Carmignac on the back cover of his book:

 

“These scientific arguments should prove reassuring to Christians and attract the attention and interest of nonbelievers. But they overturn theories presently in vogue and therefore they will be fiercely criticized.”

 

Objections to relevance of Semitisms as indications of translations are refuted.

 

Most Markan Priority TSH proponents explain the many Semitisms in the canonical Greek Gospels as simply indications of the presumed native Hebrew language of the unknown writer, or the writer’s attempt to imitate the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew (Old) Testament done in the third and second centuries B.C.

 

I found no information about the number, if any, of Markan Priority TSH proponents who object to abbé Carmignac’s conclusions who have the equivalent of his knowledge of Gospel Semitisms gained through his 20-year study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In any case, abbé Carmignac forthrightly refuted those objections and asserted that Semitisms, properly categorized, clearly indicate that the canonical Greek Matthew, Mark and sources of Luke are in fact translations of earlier Hebrew / Aramaic documents:

 

  • He divided those Semitisms into nine categories: Semitisms of borrowing, of imitation, of thought, of vocabulary, of syntax, of style, of composition, of transmission, of translation, with the added category of multiple Semitisms; several mixed together.

     

  • He then defended unequivocally the Semitisms of the final three categories (composition, transmission, translation), each of which he explained at length.

     

  • He continued: “But even in the first five categories . . . and especially the sixth (style), the abundance of evidence presented goes far beyond any possibility that the author [writer] was influenced by his mother tongue or by the prestige of a venerable text.” Birth of the Synoptic Gospels, 17-41.

     

In finding Greek Matthew in particular to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, Carmignac, et. al., are consistent with Papias, Irenaeus and other ecclesiastical writers as noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911):

 

a) Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of the apostle John: “Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew dialect and each person interpreted them as best he could,” Fragments of Papias, VI, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm;

 

b) Irenaeus: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, [both were martyred there by Nero in about the year 67] and laying the foundations of the Church” Against Heresies, 3.1.1. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm; cited by Eusebius of Caesarea.

 

c) ”St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew . . . all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm (emphasis added).

 

This strong evidence that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not in Greek, before 70 A.D. makes all Markan Priority hypotheses, including the dominant Two Source Hypothesis, untenable. With such compelling evidence that, with high probability, apostle-eyewitness Matthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name, by no objective rationale can the Gospel according to Matthew be subordinated to The Gospel according to Mark, to any other Gospel, or attributed to an unknown second-generation writer. A further defense of Matthean Priority and refutation of Markan Priority can be found in “Jesus emerges from the historical-critical fog,” at 7stepcatholic.com.

 

The Gospel-affirming Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis is now peer-recognized as a major Historical-Critical Hypothesis and ─ by any objective measure ─ is more credible than the dominant but Gospel-blurring Markan Priority TSH

 

The Matthean Priority is demonstrated most persuasively in One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke (2002), the 426-page book by David B. Peabody, Allan J. McNicol, and Lamar Cope, the research team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies. They provide a formidable defense of Matthew as the first Gospel written. They demonstrate at many levels and in many ways the secondary character of the Gospel according to Mark with respect to the Gospels of Matthew and of Luke (p. 1). They point out that nowhere in the ancient sources is there any evidence that Mark was the first Synoptic Gospel written (p. 16) and that the Patristic evidence in all cases specifies Matthew as the first Gospel composed and John the last (p. 20).

 

The authors of One Gospel from Two also note that Raymond E. Brown and other scholars continued to use arguments of B. F. Streeter, even though Streeter had been discredited and had purportedly altered whole phrases of Mark to make his conclusions appear convincing (pp. 5, 10).

The Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis is defended by Dr. David B. Peabody against the other three major hypotheses in The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (2016), a book recommended to me by a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

The Four Major Historical Critical Hypotheses ─ a comparison

 

The four Historical Critical Hypotheses peer-recognized as  

Major 

Were the Gospels written by the four evangelists, including eyewitness-apostles Matthew and John? 

Takes into account early testimony of Church Fathers and others? 

Markan Priority Two- 

Source Hypothesis (TSH) 

Probably not 

No 

Markan Priority Farrer Hypothesis 

Probably not 

No 

Markan Priority Orality-Memory Hypothesis 

Probably not 

No 

Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis (TGH) 

Possibly. Dates of writing and names of the Gospel writers are not addressed* 

Yes 

 

* High probability that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John becomes evident when the TGH is coupled with the compelling evidence earlier noted that all four Gospels were written within the probable lifetimes of all four evangelists, certainly John.

 

What responsible cold-case investigator would turn a blind eye toward the first few decades of relevant written testimony following a 100-year-old crime he hopes to solve? And yet the three faith-undermining Markan Priority hypotheses deemed major ─ The Markan Priority Two Source hypothesis, the Farrer hypothesis and the Orality-Memory hypothesis ─ survive because their proponents have been allowed to ignore the compelling evidence for the evangelists as writers of the Gospels, as well as the Gospel-affirming testimony of numerous early-Church writers.

Although the mission statements of most Catholic universities encourage diversity and the free discussion of ideas, diverse though they may be, it seems this may not typically apply to the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis. In a conversation with a religious studies professor at a Catholic university not long ago, I mentioned the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis. He replied, in these or similar words:

 

“The Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis is taught everywhere. If an otherwise excellent candidate for a position in our department favors a different hypothesis, that candidate will not be hired.”

 

In contrast to the three Markan Priority hypotheses, the only other hypothesis now peer-recognized as “major” ─ the faith-affirming Historical-Critical Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis ─ not only fully takes into account early Church testimony; it has no need to create any never-found list of “Q sayings.” And, though it does not name the Gospel writers or attempt to use the Matthean Priority TGH to date the Gospels, it does not attribute them to unknown writers of a later generation and does not rule out the possibly that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them.

 

At this writing, articles on the USCCB web site support Gospel-blurring Markan Priority. The peer-recognized Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis now enables the USCCB to discontinue that support.

 

It is troubling that the following statements in support of Gospel-blurring Markan Priority ─ which cast doubt on if not contradict the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., #76 and Dei Verbum, as well as undermine EWTN, Catholic Answers, and all other Catholic organizations striving mightily to evangelize against a culture that adamantly rejects Christ and, in particular, the Catholic Church ─ appear at this writing on the website of the USCCB in introductions to all four Gospels:

 

Matthew

 

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable . . .” https://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0

 

Mark

 

“Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark . . . Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated . . . Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.” https://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/0

 

Luke

 

“Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (Lk 1:3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions . . . .”

 

This suggests that Luke is of doubtful authenticity because it is based on Mark, (a) which the USCCB considerers to be of uncertain origin as noted above, (b) in which ‘Petrine influence [regarded by the Church as substantial] should not, however, be exaggerated’ and (c) which is dependent on “Q,” which has never been found. https://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/0

 

John

 

“Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.” https://www.usccb.org/bible/John/0

 

Although Pope Benedict XVI expressed great concern about the particular Markan Priority Historical Critical Hypothesis that has reduced and continues to reduce the seeking of Jesus to “clutching a thin air” in most of Catholic academia, he continues to support the concept of the Historical Critical Method:

 

“The first point is that the historical-critical method ─ specifically because of the intrinsic nature of theology and faith ─ is and remains an indispensable dimension of exegetical work.” (Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, p. xv.)

 

This statement by Pope Benedict XVI may have been instrumental in the acceptance by the USCCB of the problematic quotations above.

 

Now, however ─ thanks to recent peer-recognition of the Dei Verbum and CCC #76-compatible Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis as a major historical-critical hypothesis in such books as One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke (2002), The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (2016), Three Views on the Origin of the Synoptic Gospels (2002) and Why Four Gospels? (2001 – 2010) ─ Catholic academia and the USCCB have the opportunity to instead support the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Historical-Critical Hypothesis. Coupled with the strong indications that all four Gospels were written within the probable lifetimes of all four evangelists, certainly John, the support of Catholic academia and the USCCB is now warranted academically, as it has been historically since the earliest days of the Church.

 

Correcting, after five decades, Gospel-blurring “thin-air Jesus” instruction

 

The days of widely taught “thin-air Jesus” Markan Priority instruction in Catholic academia lamented by Pope Benedict XVI are numbered, as Catholic parents become aware of the faith-undermining Markan Priority TSH dominance in most Catholic colleges, universities and seminaries for the past five decades ─ instruction largely responsible for parents going to Mass alone when their Catholic college-educated offspring come home to visit ─ and now aware of the faith-affirming Matthean Priority TGH alternative.

 

Students, too, who request classroom discussion with an email such as “Dear Professor: Were the Gospels written anonymously, as this course teaches, or by the evangelists, as the Church teaches? A respectful request for classroom discussion,” posted on my secure web site, 7stepcatholic.com will quickly have their faith in Jesus reaffirmed.

The question now for the leadership of every Catholic seminary, university and college, including lay advisors, is:

 

“Will you continue to allow the Markan Priority TSH, discredited by Pope Benedict XVI, to be taught as the best explanation of Gospel origin, or will you now instruct students regarding:

 

a. the flawed rationale offered by biblical exegetes in support of the Gospel-blurring, “Q”-dependent, Markan Priority TSH, and

b. the compelling case for the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis, which is not inconsistent with the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., (#76) and Dei Verbum?

 

And these questions for our bishops:

 

“Will you continue to send candidates for the priesthood to seminaries, universities and colleges where the Markan Priority TSH is dominant?”

 

“Will you provide seminars to inform clergy of the flawed rationale for the Markan Priority TSH and of the compelling case for the evangelists, including apostle-eyewitnesses Matthew and John, as the writers of the Gospels?”

 

Aware now of the faith-undermining effects of the Markan Priority TSH and the faith-affirming alternative, questions for Catholic parents and for alumni / alumnae of Catholic centers of higher learning may well be:

 

“Will you send your children to institutions / continue to support institutions in which the Markan Priority TSH is dominant?”

 

Jesus assured us that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against his Church. Nowhere in Scripture, however, does Jesus extend that assurance to anyone. Since the 1970s Markan Priority TSH instruction has been undermining faith, as Pope Benedict XVI noted, turning the seeking of Jesus into “clutching at thin air,” placing countless souls at risk of losing their eternal salvation.

 

The faith-affirming Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis is, by any objective measure, more credible than the “Q”-dependent Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis.

 

Coupled with the compelling evidence for the pre-A.D. 70 writing of all four Gospels, the Matthean Priority TGH restores the credibility of the Gospels as authentic reports of the ministry of our Lord and Savior by evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

May the Matthean Priority TGH soon replace the Markan Priority TSH as the best explanation for Gospel origin in every Catholic seminary, university and college.

 

This article is a further development of my article, “Jesus Emerges from the Historical Critical Fog,“ published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly, Fall / Winter 2017, and included in this section of the book.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *