Month: December 2015

Did Matthew Abbreviate Mark?

Saint-Matthew_This post presents the results of a test I recently did in my ongoing look at the Synoptic Problem.

In what follows, I will be testing the claim that if Matthew used Mark, he abbreviated the material he found in Mark. Note the “if,” because it’s important. I am not here arguing that he did use Mark. That’s a topic to be discussed elsewhere.

Here goes . . .

 

The Issue at Hand

An important perception among biblical scholars is that, if Matthew drew material from the Gospel of Mark, he seems to have abbreviated this material.

The presumable reason for this would be to allow Matthew to have space to fit in all the other material he wanted to add to Mark and still keep his own Gospel the size of a single volume (either a single scroll or a single codex).

In The Four Gospels, B. H. Streeter gives several examples of how Matthew (apparently) shortened different sections or pericopes (per-IH-ko-PEES) of Mark. He notes how Matthew’s versions have fewer words in Greek than the corresponding pericopes in Mark.

However, in his book The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, E. P. Sanders claimed that Matthew does not consistently shorten material from Mark. If you look at all the pericopes Matthew and Mark have in common, they’re fairly even in terms of overall word count. Matthew’s total word count for these pericopes is slightly shorter than Mark’s, but not by much, and most of the difference is grouped in just a handful of pericopes (see The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, 82-87).

This, however, doesn’t strike me as the optimal test: Doing a straight pericope-to-pericope test could be misleading, since Matthew adds material from his own sources to pericopes.

For example, in the account of the Testing in the Wilderness, Mark has only a brief note that the event took place, but he doesn’t describe it in detail. Matthew does; he has the three “temptations” that the devil presents Christ with.

A better test, it occurred to me, would be to eliminate Matthew’s additions (like the three temptations) and see if we find that he shortened what remains.

Unfortunately, Sanders didn’t do this kind of test. Also unfortunately, I don’t know anybody else who has done this kind of test, either.

 

Why This Is Important

In Synoptic Problem studies, a good deal hinges on whether Matthew would have abbreviated the material he took from Mark, because that gives us a clue to the order of the two Gospels.

It’s much more likely, given the way ancient authors worked, that Matthew would have consistently tightened up Mark’s text than for Mark to consistently expand Matthew’s text in a sentence-by-sentence manner.

Therefore, if Matthew’s material looks like a tightened up version of Mark’s, Mark probably wrote first.

In view of the importance of the question at hand, I wanted to find the answer.

Fortunately, I realized that I had the tools available to do the test myself.

 

The Tools

Some time ago I began developing a synopsis of the four Gospels that presents both the English and the Greek text of each one in parallel columns.

(It’s not yet published, since I’m still adding new features to it, but I hope to publish it in the future.)

To develop this synopsis, I loaded the Greek and English text into a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel) and matched the text up verse-by-verse. (Of course, the verse divisions, like the pericope divisions scholars use, are not in the original text, but they are useful.)

The advantage of having the material in a spreadsheet is that I’m able to sort and manipulate the synopsis in various ways that can’t be done with a synopsis printed on paper.

These sorting capabilities, I realized, would let me do the kind of test I wanted to do on Matthew and Mark. Using Excel, it shouldn’t be difficult to isolate the material needed from the two Gospels and then do a word count on the Greek text.

Excel doesn’t have a good word count tool (that I know of), but Microsoft Word does. (N.B. Although Greek has diacritical marks which could, in some character encodings, cause Word to think there were more words than there are, this would have applied to both texts equally and the overall result would remain valid. However, I verified that I was not using one of those character encodings so the word count should be accurate.)

Therefore, all I had to do was isolate the relevant material, paste the Greek text into Word, and see what the resulting word count was.

So I did the test.

 

Pass 1 of the Test

To isolate the relevant material, I took the following steps:

  1. I made a copy of the spreadsheet so I could manipulate it without harming the original.
  2. I struck all material related to Luke and John.
  3. I struck the longer ending of Mark (since it likely was not original and not what Matthew had in front of him).
  4. I struck all the pericopes in Mark that have no parallel in Matthew (allowing a pericope-to-pericope comparison)
  5. I struck all of the verses that Matthew contained which have no parallels in Mark. This represents the additions that Matthew would have made to Mark (thus allowing a more refined pericope-to-pericope test than the one Sanders did).
  6. I then pasted the resulting Greek text from both Gospels into Word.

Results:

  • Matthew: 8,114 words
  • Mark: 10,542 words

If Matthew used Mark, it would seem that he abbreviated the pericopes he used by 2,428 words or 23%, dropping almost one in four words.

 

Pass 2 of the Test

Although the above results should be the best way to look at the problem, a potential objection occurred to me: The above selection of material includes verses in Mark that Matthew would have omitted entirely.

It seems to me that these verses should be counted in the test (as in Pass 1). There is nothing to say that, in selecting material from Mark, Matthew couldn’t delete entire verses within a pericope. Indeed, the evidence indicates that he would have.

However, just to go the extra mile (to bend a phrase from Matthew 5:41), I decided to do a second pass of the test, eliminating the verses in Mark that had no parallel in Matthew (even though the pericopes that contained them did have a parallel in Matthew).

My prediction, if Matthew was shortening Mark, was that the Matthew material would still contain fewer words (since Matthew was tightening things up within verses as well as by deleting verses) though the result would be less pronounced.

Results:

  • Matthew: 8,114 words
  • Mark: 8,569 words

Thus if we compare just the verses that have direct parallels in both Gospels, it would seem that Matthew abbreviated these verses by 455 words or 5%, dropping about one word in twenty as he tightened up the text (aside from the whole verses he dropped).

 

Summary Thus Far

On both versions of the test, the data supports the conclusion that if Matthew used Mark, he abbreviated the material he took from it.

This is particularly clear on the better version of the test (Pass 1), but also true on the “go the extra mile” version of the test (Pass 2).

The difference in the results of the two passes indicates that Matthew would have done much of his abbreviation by dropping the contents of entire verses, while also tightening up the contents of the verses he retained.

The versions of the test that I did are a pair of rough-and-ready assessments that depended significantly on computers. A more refined, human-based, and scholarly version of this test could be performed in the future, but the results are likely to be the same in substance.

 

Verses Matthew Would Have Added to Mark’s Pericopes

Let’s complete our look at the issue by examining the verses that Matthew would have added to the pericopes he shares with Mark.

If the hypothesis is correct that Matthew abbreviated what he took from Mark to help make room for the additional information he wanted to add to his Gospel, we should find that most of the verses he added within these pericopes should be independently-sourced, value-added verses, providing new information rather than just restating what should be obvious or paraphrasing Mark in a somewhat wordier way.

By my count, there are 149 such verses. They are listed below, and you can see what they say by hovering your mouse over the individual verse citations.

 

Prophetic Fulfillments

Matthew is very interested in showing that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.

As a result, it is not surprising that he would have added notes regarding how Jesus did so to pericopes he found in Mark. By my count, there would be 16 verses of this material:

  1. Matt. 4:14
  2. Matt. 4:15
  3. Matt. 4:16
  4. Matt. 8:17
  5. Matt. 12:17
  6. Matt. 12:18
  7. Matt. 12:19
  8. Matt. 12:20
  9. Matt. 12:21
  10. Matt. 13:14
  11. Matt. 13:15
  12. Matt. 13:35
  13. Matt. 21:4
  14. Matt. 21:5
  15. Matt. 27:9
  16. Matt. 27:10

For Matthew, these prophetic fulfillment notices counted as value-added content for the audience he was trying to reach, which particularly included Jewish Christians who would be specially interested in how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.

 

Double Tradition (“Q”) Material

Additional value-added material is found in what is known as the “double tradition.”

This material also was seen as valuable by the Evangelist Luke, who also included it in his Gospel (hence “double tradition,” because it is found in two Gospels).

One question is where this material came from. Did Luke get it from Matthew? Did Matthew get it from Luke? Or did they both get it from a now lost source? Many modern scholars think the latter, and they have dubbed the proposed, lost source “Q.”

There are about 235 verses of the double tradition material in Matthew and Luke, but only some of them occur in the pericopes that Matthew would have taken from Mark.

To establish which ones, I compared these pericopes with the verses attributed to the double tradition in the International Q Project’s work, The Critical Edition of Q (Robinson, Hoffmann, Kloppenborg, ed.s). This may be deemed a neutral source in that it was not formulated with respect to the hypothesis we are presently testing.

By this reckoning, Matthew would have added about 42 verses of double tradition material to the pericopes he used from Mark:

  1. Matt. 3:7
  2. Matt. 3:8
  3. Matt. 3:9
  4. Matt. 3:10
  5. Matt. 3:12
  6. Matt. 4:3
  7. Matt. 4:4
  8. Matt. 4:5
  9. Matt. 4:6
  10. Matt. 4:7
  11. Matt. 4:8
  12. Matt. 4:9
  13. Matt. 4:10
  14. Matt. 4:13
  15. Matt. 5:13
  16. Matt. 10:6
  17. Matt. 10:7
  18. Matt. 10:8
  19. Matt. 10:15
  20. Matt. 10:16
  21. Matt. 10:19
  22. Matt. 10:24
  23. Matt. 10:25
  24. Matt. 12:27
  25. Matt. 12:28
  26. Matt. 12:30
  27. Matt. 12:32
  28. Matt. 13:16
  29. Matt. 13:17
  30. Matt. 15:14
  31. Matt. 16:3*
  32. Matt. 18:6
  33. Matt. 18:7
  34. Matt. 21:32*
  35. Matt. 24:26
  36. Matt. 24:27
  37. Matt. 24:28
  38. Matt. 24:37
  39. Matt. 24:38
  40. Matt. 24:39
  41. Matt. 24:40
  42. Matt. 24:41

(* The International Q Project lists these two verses as possibly but not definitely being part of Q in their estimation.)

Between this material and the prophetic fulfillments, so far 58 of the 149 verses that Matthew added to Markan pericopes would be independently-sourced and value-added.

 

Other New Traditions

Of course, the Old Testament and the double tradition were not Matthew’s only sources besides his proposed use of Mark. In addition to the above, there are at least 47 verses in which Matthew seems to have drawn on additional material from his own sources (eyewitness memory or otherwise):

  1. Matt. 5:14
  2. Matt. 5:16
  3. Matt. 10:12
  4. Matt. 10:13
  5. Matt. 10:17
  6. Matt. 10:18
  7. Matt. 10:20
  8. Matt. 10:21
  9. Matt. 10:22
  10. Matt. 10:23
  11. Matt. 12:7
  12. Matt. 12:11
  13. Matt. 12:12
  14. Matt. 12:22
  15. Matt. 13:12
  16. Matt. 14:28
  17. Matt. 14:29
  18. Matt. 14:30
  19. Matt. 14:31
  20. Matt. 15:12
  21. Matt. 15:13
  22. Matt. 16:2 (* This verse is plausibly grouped with a possible double tradition or “Q” saying in Matt. 16:3; otherwise the two verses would both belong to this list.)
  23. Matt. 16:17
  24. Matt. 16:18
  25. Matt. 16:19
  26. Matt. 18:10
  27. Matt. 19:10
  28. Matt. 19:11
  29. Matt. 19:12
  30. Matt. 21:28
  31. Matt. 21:29
  32. Matt. 21:30
  33. Matt. 21:31
  34. Matt. 24:10
  35. Matt. 24:11
  36. Matt. 24:12
  37. Matt. 26:52
  38. Matt. 27:3
  39. Matt. 27:4
  40. Matt. 27:5
  41. Matt. 27:6
  42. Matt. 27:7
  43. Matt. 27:8
  44. Matt. 27:19
  45. Matt. 27:52
  46. Matt. 27:53
  47. Matt. 28:4

Adding these verses to the preceding, 105 of the 149 verses that Matthew added to Markan pericopes would seem to be independently-sourced, value-added material for him.

 

Possible Extrapolations

We now come to the most problematic of our categories, which consists of material that Matthew may have been able to extrapolate from what he had before him in Mark but that also could have derived from his own sources (including eyewitness memory or other testimony).

Much of this material deals with reactions, such as how different persons or groups reacted to what Jesus said and did.

If Matthew derived it from his own sources, then it would properly be grouped with the material in the other categories we have examined—particularly, the previous category, as independent material that Matthew saw as adding value to his narrative.

If he extrapolated the material from what he found in Mark, this also added value, but in a different way—for example, helping bring out the deeper significance of what happened in particular incidents in Jesus’ ministry.

It would not, however, represent the addition of new material to Markan pericopes in the way the previous three categories would have.

By my count, there are up to 37 verses that could belong to this category.

How many you think should belong to it will depend on how much freedom you think Matthew allowed himself to extrapolate from his sources.

My own feeling is that some of this material was likely derived from independent sources (meaning that, in the ideal, it should be reclassified into one of the above categories, particularly the previous one) but that some of it would have been extrapolated from Mark.

However, for purposes of testing our hypothesis that Matthew abbreviated Mark to include value-added material, I have been as generous as possible with the extrapolation hypothesis, thus erring on the side of Matthew extrapolating from Mark.

Here are the 37 verses:

  1. Matt. 3:2
  2. Matt. 3:14
  3. Matt. 3:15
  4. Matt. 9:26
  5. Matt. 12:5
  6. Matt. 12:6
  7. Matt. 12:23
  8. Matt. 15:23
  9. Matt. 15:24
  10. Matt. 15:25
  11. Matt. 15:31
  12. Matt. 16:12
  13. Matt. 16:27
  14. Matt. 17:6
  15. Matt. 17:7
  16. Matt. 17:13
  17. Matt. 18:3
  18. Matt. 18:4
  19. Matt. 21:10
  20. Matt. 21:11
  21. Matt. 21:20
  22. Matt. 21:43
  23. Matt. 21:46
  24. Matt. 22:33
  25. Matt. 22:38
  26. Matt. 22:40
  27. Matt. 22:46
  28. Matt. 26:25
  29. Matt. 26:44
  30. Matt. 26:50
  31. Matt. 26:53
  32. Matt. 27:21
  33. Matt. 27:25
  34. Matt. 27:26
  35. Matt. 27:43
  36. Matt. 28:2
  37. Matt. 28:3

Because of the ambiguous nature of this material, we cannot establish a definite number of verses that would have independently-sourced, value-added material.

If none of these verses were counted that way, we would still have 105 of 149 verses being independently-sourced, value-added material.

If all of them were counted that way then we would have 141 of 149 verses counted that way.

The truth is likely between these two figures.

 

Bridging Material

Our final category is what I am calling bridging material. These are verses that are likely extrapolated by Matthew to bridge one section of his narrative with another, based on what he had in front of him in Mark.

For example, Matthew 26:1 reads, “When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples. . . .” This bridges the end of the sayings discourse in Matthew 23-25 with the material that follows it in chapter 26. It is thus something Matthew likely derived neither from Mark (because it isn’t there) nor from other, independent sources but was extrapolated for literary purposes to bridge one section of his narrative with another.

By my reckoning, there are 7 such verses in the pericopes that Matthew would have taken from Mark:

  1. Matt. 8:1
  2. Matt. 13:18
  3. Matt. 14:18
  4. Matt. 15:29
  5. Matt. 22:34
  6. Matt. 26:1
  7. Matt. 27:36

With a high degree of probability, these represent verses that Matthew did not derive from independent sources but used to bridge material he found in Mark with other sections of his narrative.

They do not, however, affect the totals arrived at above: It would still appear that between 105 and 141 of the 149 verses that Matthew added to the Markan pericopes he used came from independent, value-adding sources.

 

Conclusion

While scholars might argue with the specific numbers offered above, it remains true that Matthew would have added between approximately 105 and 141 independently-sourced, value-added verses among the approximately 149 verses he would have added to the Markan pericopes he used.

In view of this, Matthew would not have extrapolated enough material from what he found in Mark to overturn the conclusion arrived in the first part of our test: It still appears that Matthew significantly shortened the material he found in Mark to include independently-sourced, value-added material.

Future research may change the numbers involved somewhat, but it is unlikely to change the fundamental conclusion.

The Weekly Francis – 31 December 2015

pope-francis2This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 19 November 2015 to 31 December 2015.

Angelus

Daily Homilies (fervorinos)

General Audiences

Homilies

Messages

Speeches

Papal Tweets

An Old Time (Radio) Christmas

barn_snow

Lum and Abner was an Old Time Radio show that was kind of like a radio predecessor of The Andy Griffith Show.

It was about two homespun characters–Lum and Abner–who ran a general store in the town of Pine Ridge, Arkansas.

They had a series of comedic adventures with their fellow townspeople, as well as city slickers passing through Pine Ridge.

The series was very popular and ran from the 1930s to the 1950s. They made around 5,000 episodes, but only about a third of them survive.

One that does survive is the 1938 Christmas episode. It aired on December 23, 1938, and it’s an amazing 15 minutes of radio.

Taking a break from their usual comedy adventures, Lum and Abner do a heartfelt Christmas episode of a kind that would never be made for radio or television today. In fact, it’s guaranteed to be unlike any other Christmas episode you’ve ever heard.

One of the fascinating things about it is that the producers refuse to tell you exactly what is happening in this episode. They let you decide for yourself whether it’s all just a big coincidence, whether it’s incredibly timey-wimey, or whether it’s something even stranger.

So take a listen, and decide for yourself.

Use the video or podcast below or click this link if you’re reading by email:

https://www.jamesakin.com/reels_squares/wp-content/uploads/Lum-and-Abner-1938-12-23-ChristmasStory.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Star Wars Character Remix

star-wars-charactersOne of the challenges J.J. Abrams and company had in making Star Wars: The Force Awakens was making things feel familiar, yet different.

That includes the main cast. Our new heroes needed to evoke Luke, Leia, and Han without being carbon copies of them.

The solution they opted for was to take the character traits of the original team and re-mix them.

(Minor spoilers ahead, but only minor ones.)

This was the same solution that Gene Roddenberry used when making Star Trek: The Next Generation—he took the character traits of the original cast of characters and shuffled and altered them. Thus:

  • Captain Kirk, the leader and action hero, got split into two characters (Picard and Riker)
  • Mr. Spock, the superintelligent alien who’s half-human and has limited telepathy, got split into three characters (Data, Worf, and Troi)
  • Dr. McCoy got turned into a series of women (Dr. Crusher, Dr. Pulaski, Dr. Crusher)

So how do the old Star Wars heroes get mapped onto the new ones?

I made the following table to explore that idea.

star-wars-character-remix
Not all elements of the table have the same weight, and some could be looked at more than one way, but I think they did a decent job of the remix.

A few observations:

  • Rey is the most complex of the characters, which is natural, because she is the main character. This, along with her complexity and a number of specifics, makes her most like Luke, though she has obvious elements from Leia and Han.
  • Reviewers immediately picked up on the fact that Poe Dameron is closest to Han Solo in terms of his personality, which makes him closest to Han, though he contains elements of Luke and Leia.
  • Finn’s connections with the original trio are the weakest (in substance, even if this isn’t reflected in the table). This means that he is the most original character of the bunch and may have the most potential to go interesting places as a character.

Doing character trait remixes is most important for the main characters.

In Next Gen, they needed to make sure that nobody was a carbon copy of Kirk or Spock, but after that it became less important to remix character elements.

In the same way, The Force Awakens needed to make sure nobody would be a carbon copy of Luke, Leia, or Han, but after that remixing didn’t matter as much. As a result, the characters in the supporting cast are easier to map onto their equivalents in the original trilogy:

  • R2-D2 becomes BB-8
  • Darth Vader becomes Kylo Ren
  • Emperor Palpatine becomes Supreme Leader Snoke
  • Grand Moff Tarkin becomes General Hux
  • Yoda is like Maz Kanada
  • Boba Fett is similar to Captain Phasma (a comparison the actress herself has made)

Your thoughts?

The Weekly Francis – 16 December 2015

popefrancisThis version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 29 November 2015 to 14 December 2015.

Angelus

General Audiences

Homilies

Messages

Speeches

Papal Tweets

Why the Holy See Issues Non-Magisterial Statements

pope francis daily homilyIn a recent post, canonist Dr. Edward Peters offers some interesting reflections on a puzzling phenomenon: Why are there statements issued by the pope and by offices at the Vatican that are expressly flagged as being “non-magisterial”?

The Magisterium of the Church is its teaching office, which consists of the pope and the bishops of the world in union with him (CCC 85).

It can be surprising, therefore, when comments made by the pope or by Vatican offices deal with matters of faith and morals and yet are expressly identified as non-magisterial.

How does that work?

Dr. Peters seems skeptical that it does work. In his post, he seems to entertain the idea that such statements are magisterial, even if those who issue them do not recognize them as such. In other words, these acts have a magisterial character even if those making them did not have the intent to issue magisterial statements. He writes:

[T]he relationship between an intention behind, and the nature of, an act is complex; the lawyer in me knows that much. But lately, a rising number of persons seem to think that they can control the characterization of their act simply by declaring an intentionality for their act. That’s a very slippery slope. As a rule, I think an intention to perform an act is relevant to one’s responsibility for the act, but is not dispositive of the characterization of the act.

Consequently, he concludes:

Popes who make deliberate assertions about faith or morals in public remarks are contributing, in a small way, to the ordinary magisterium of the Church; dicasterial prelates who make deliberate assertions about faith or morals in materials published through the Holy See are contributing, in a small way, to the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

The view that Dr. Peters proposes is attractive in that it would make it very easy to determine whether an act is magisterial. It would not settle the question of what level of authority the magisterium was investing in an assertion, but it would make it clear that the assertion is backed by the Church’s teaching authority.

As attractive as the proposal may be, it is evidently not how officials in Rome view the matter. This is made clear by the number of statements we find coming from the relevant figures and documents that particular statements are not magisterial though they fit Dr. Peters’ criteria.

This also is not a new phenomenon. It goes back years. Although I have not done a thorough study of the question, I am aware of non-magisterial interventions (that touch on matters of faith or morals) from offices connected with the Holy See going back at least to the 1960s.

What I’d like to do here is look at some of the factors that, I suspect, are behind the decision to flag certain statements as non-magisterial and why these are more common today.

 

1) Binding Authority

At the root of the decision to flag statements as non-magisterial is the fact that magisterial statements are authoritative and bind the consciences of believers. This is true even when the Church’s infallibility is not being engaged. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals.

To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it (CCC 892).

Even the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has binding authority—it calls for the faithful to adhere to it with “religious assent.”

Knowing that, put yourself in the position of a pope. The responsibilities of the papal office are amazingly daunting—even superhuman—and it is easy to see how a pope would blanch at the prospect of binding the consciences of the faithful every time he says anything about faith or morals in public.

People are going to come to the pope, publicly, with questions, and he’s not going to have the leisure to privately study, pray, meditate, and consult the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about precisely how to formulate every answer.

Even without a question being posed to him, a pope may feel it would be helpful to propose an idea for the consideration of the faithful without binding them to believe it.

A classic example of this is the discussion of the fire of purgatory in Benedict XVI’s encyclical Spe Salvi, where he writes:

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Savior. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgment. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves (Spe Salvi 47).

The question of what purgatory’s fire consists of has been a thorny one, with Medieval theologians pondering how what they took to be a physical fire could affect an immaterial soul. More recently, theologians including Fr. Joseph Ratzinger proposed that the fire is better understood as a symbol of a transforming encounter with Christ (see his book Eschatology).

In writing his encyclical, Benedict XVI apparently wanted to give the new proposal official recognition without requiring theologians and the faithful to reject other understandings of purgatorial fire. By proposing it as a theological opinion—rather than a Church teaching—he made it clear that this is a permitted and even a favored view but not the only one possible.

This example represents one way a pope can propose a theological idea without imposing it, but there are others—including making an explicit statement that a particular act is non-magisterial. Benedict XVI also did this in writing his series Jesus of Nazareth. In the introduction to the first volume of that work, he famously wrote:

It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord” (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.

In any event, popes—and, by extension, various departments at the Vatican—feel the need to be able to say things connected with faith and morals in public without binding the consciences of believers to accept them.

They want the freedom to be able to propose (even officially propose, as in Spe Salvi) without being forced to impose.

 

2) Broad Engagement

Magisterial officials could, of course, refrain from engaging on questions where they are not prepared to bind the consciences of the faithful. They could limit their public statements to only those matters where they want the faithful to give religious assent.

This can also be an attractive proposition. It would make it much easier for the faithful to determine what they are required to believe versus where they can have “a legitimate diversity of opinion” (to borrow a phrase from Cardinal Ratzinger).

It would also mean shorter and fewer Vatican documents, and it would mean that the Holy See would not stray as far into questions of economics or ecology as it presently does.

To cite just one example, Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ contains large amounts of material that, properly speaking, are not matters of faith or morals but rather assessments of environmental science, economic matters, and so forth. All of this material would go if the Holy See chose to restrict itself to binding statements of faith and morals.

But this is easier said than done, because there is a fuzzy boundary between matters of faith and morals and those that are related to them (a fact noted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; see section 24 of its 1990 instruction Donum Veritatis).

Further, in order to make statements on faith and morals understood, it is often necessary to set them in a context that refers to related but still distinct topics (e.g., how are you going to talk about the moral principles underlying economic systems without talking about economic systems themselves? Or how are you going to talk about the moral principles involved in reproductive technologies without talking about biology and technology?).

While it could strike a different balance than it has at present, the Magisterium could not fundamentally pull back from such matters without reconceptualizing its mission and sharply limiting its engagement with society.

This it has not chosen to do. In fact, there has never been a time in Church history when the Holy See and the Magisterium did not conduct a form of broad, societal engagement.

The Holy See’s present involvement with the United Nations is one manifestation of that. So were the papal states. So was Pope Leo I’s negotiation with Attila the Hun.

Even in the New Testament itself, we see the Magisterium presiding over charity relief efforts (Acts 6:1-6, 1 Tim. 5:16).

Of course, when the Corinthians wrote St. Paul for advice about marriage, he could have said, “I’m sorry, but I’m only going to tell you the points of faith and morals for which I have a specific command from the Lord,” but he didn’t. He also gave them pastoral advice which was not binding as matters of faith and morals (see 1 Cor. 7:1-40).

In fact, at one point he explicitly notes that he is going beyond what the Lord mandates and is offering his own opinion (1 Cor. 7:10)!

The fact is, officials of the Magisterium have always understood their mission as more than just articulating what the faithful must believe. Since the first century, they have understood it as involving broader engagement, including pastoral advice, theological speculation, and social/political questions (see also the writings of the Apostolic Fathers).

As long as this is the case—and there is no sign that it will change—it can be helpful for Magisterial officials to note when they are and aren’t trying to bind the consciences of the faithful through a magisterial act.

 

3) Global Awareness

The interconnectedness of the globe in the last few years has added new reason for members of the Magisterium to clarify when they are not invoking their authority.

In the fifth century, when Leo I was giving a daily homily, the only people who heard it were those in attendance. He may have had a scribe keep a copy of it in his personal archives, but it was not covered by global media and flashed around the world at the speed of light.

As a result, in the days before telecommunications, popes had much greater liberty to speak informally to their flock, as a local pastor, without having to engage their authority as the supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.

Today, nobody who works at the Vatican can say anything without the potential for it to generate world headlines like, “Pope Says This!” or “Pope Condemns That!”—even if the pope had nothing to do with the remark.

Given the intense, global scrutiny of everything said at the Holy See, there is additional reason for clarifications about what is and is not binding on the consciences of believers.

This sheds light on the Holy See’s current practice regarding the fervorinos, or daily homilies, preached by Pope Francis at the Casa Santa Marta. The Holy See Press Office has indicated that these are not magisterial—one reason being that the pope would need to review, edit, and approve the texts after the fact, and he has determined that he has more pressing things to do.

It is easy to understand how Francis could desire the same freedom that every parish priest has—and that all of his pre-telecommunications predecessors had—to simply preach a homily without automatically binding the consciences of the faithful.

 

Conclusion

There is more that can be said about this fascinating subject, but it seems to me that we have identified three factors prompting the Holy See (and local bishops) to flag certain statements they issue as non-magisterial:

  • They want to be able to propose ideas without imposing them
  • They want to engage on a broad array of subjects, including ones that have a fuzzy boundary with matters of faith and morals
  • They are under greater scrutiny than ever in history, with a correspondingly greater risk of misunderstanding

All of these factors give them reason to make it clear when they are not binding the consciences of the faithful, and often saying “this is not a magisterial statement” is a useful way to do that.

New Vatican Document on Jews, Salvation, and Evangelization

vatican-document-jewish-religionThe Holy See has released a new document dealing with the Jewish people, salvation, and evangelization.

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What is the new document?

It’s titled The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable (GCGI), and it was released by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.

The title is a quotation from St. Paul, who refers to how the Jewish people “are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28-29).

The document itself commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of Vatican II’s decree Nostra Aetate, which dealt with the Church’s relations with other religions and, in particular, with Judaism.

 

2) What authority does the new document have?

The preface to the document states:

The text is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, but is a reflection prepared by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews on current theological questions that have developed since the Second Vatican Council.

It therefore does not carry magisterial authority. Of course, when it repeats existing magisterial teaching, that is authoritative.

When it doesn’t, it offers insights into the Holy See’s current thinking. That includes the thinking of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was involved in the drafting of the document and approved it before publication (as made clear at he press conference where the document was released).

 

3) What does the document contain?

It contains seven sections. The first surveys the history of Jewish-Catholic relations in the last fifty years, and the last deals with goals for the dialogue between the two communities (e.g., deeper understanding of each other, practical cooperation on social problems).

The middle sections deal with various theological questions.

Section 2 deals with the unique status of Jewish-Catholic dialogue. It makes the point that Christianity is rooted in Judaism, that Jesus and the first Christians were Jews, and that this means that the Church relates differently to Judaism than to any other world religion.

Section 3 deals with God’s revelation in the course of history and how it is viewed by the two communities. It notes, in particular, that for Jews the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) is fundamental, while for Christians Jesus Christ is fundamental.

Section 4 deals with the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Section 5 deals with the universality of salvation in Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel.

Finally, section 6 deals with the Church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism.

In each of these sections there are a number of positive and encouraging points.

 

4) What are some of the positive and encouraging points?

There is too much material to unpack in detail, but some particular points of note deal with:

  • Supersessionism
  • The Old Covenant
  • Salvation
  • Evangelization

 

5) What is supersessionism, and what does the document say about it?

Supersessionism is the view that the Church has completely taken over the promises of God regarding Israel, so that today the Jewish people have no special status whatsoever.

The document notes that, although this view has been common in some periods of Church history, it is not the teaching of the Church.

In fact, the title of the document itself indicates a rejection of supersessionism: St. Paul’s point is that God still loves the Jewish people and they still have a special status before him, for he gave them gifts and a calling which are irrevocable.

Thus the document states:

The Church is called the new people of God (cf. “Nostra aetate”, No.4) but not in the sense that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist (GCGI 23).

 

6) What does the document say about the Old Covenant?

It repeats established Church teaching that the covenant God made with Israel remains valid and has not been revoked.

Interestingly, it points out that this teaching was not articulated by Nostra Aetate but was first taught explicitly by St. John Paul II in 1980 (GCGI 39).

The document thus quotes the Catechism when it says:

The Old Covenant has never been revoked (CCC 121).

What, precisely, this means is something that the document does not explore fully. However, here is a helpful discussion by Cardinal Avery Dulles.

 

7) What does the document say about salvation?

In the last few years a view has been proposed that there are two paths to salvation, one for Jews and one for Christians. We each have a covenant with God, the reasoning goes, so these are means of saving grace for both of us. There is no need for Jews to become Christians or for Christians to proclaim Jesus to Jews. They have their own arrangements with God, which are quite sufficient for them.

As attractive as this view might be for letting one off the hook with respect to evangelization, particularly in light of the historical persecution of Jews by Christians in many places, it is utterly inconsistent with the biblical data.

Jesus wasn’t a gentile, and he did not die just for the sins of gentiles. He was a Jew, he died to redeem the Jewish people as well, and he made sure that the gospel was proclaimed first and foremost to the Jewish people in his own day. His first followers were Jews, and he told them, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

Correspondingly, his Jewish followers understood that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The “two paths” view proceeds from a fundamentally mistaken understanding of the Christian message, made possible in part by severing Christianity from its Jewish roots and treating it in an ahistorical manner, as if it were purely a gentile phenomenon.

The good news is that the new document rejects the two paths view, both forcefully and repeatedly:

Therefore there are not two paths to salvation according to the expression “Jews hold to the Torah, Christians hold to Christ.” Christian faith proclaims that Christ’s work of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. God’s word is one single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each respective historical context. . . .

Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God’s salvation. The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith. Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of Christian faith. . . . [T]he Church and Judaism cannot be represented as “two parallel ways to salvation” . . .

[T]he Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation . . .

There cannot be two ways of salvation, therefore, since Christ is also the Redeemer of the Jews in addition to the Gentiles (GCGI 25, 35, 36, 37).

One gets the sense that the authors of the document really wanted to nail the coffin shut on the two paths view, and this is heartening, for they are correct: The unique role of Jesus as the Savior of all mankind—Jews included—is fundamental to the Christian faith.

 

8) Does the document imply that non-Christian Jews cannot be saved?

No, and one would not expect it to. The Church acknowledges that salvation is possible for people who, through no fault of their own, do not embrace the Christian faith in this life. Thus Vatican II stated:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience (Lumen Gentium 16).

In such cases, because Christ is the Savior of all men, it is still through Jesus that these people are saved. They simply do not realize that in this life.

Consequently, it is not a surprise when the new document states:

From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God (GCGI 36).

What is a bit surprising is that, instead of pointing to the Church’s established teaching that people who do not embrace the Christian faith through no fault of their own can be saved, the document points to elements in St. Paul’s thought in an attempt to show that he would have recognized the possibility of salvation for non-Christian Jews.

This part of the document is not repeating existing Church teaching, and so it is open to question. Personally, I need to think through the argument they make to see how well it works.

It also says:

That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.

The first part of that is true, but I am not sure what they mean by reference to it being an unfathomable mystery, unless they have in mind the mysterious way in which God applies his grace extra-sacramentally to all non-Christians who are saved.

 

9) What does the document say about evangelization?

It acknowledges that Christians have a duty to evangelize and that this includes Jewish people.

Many in the media and the blogosphere got this wrong (big surprise) and reported that the Holy See was saying that Christians should not evangelize Jews, but the document says otherwise.

The document did say that evangelizing Jewish people is a sensitive matter for multiple reasons, including the fact that for many Jews it seems to call into question their continued existence as a people and the fact that the history of Christian persecution of Jews, including the 20th century German Holocaust, hangs over the discussion.

It then draws a distinction between the Church supporting particular efforts directed to Jewish evangelization and the ordinary, organic efforts of individual Christians in sharing their faith with Jews.

Regarding the former, the document says:

In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews (GCGI 40).

The key word here is “institutional.” It’s saying that the Church doesn’t have a Pontifical Commission for the Conversion of Jews and that it does not provide support for independent institutions devoted to Jewish mission work (e.g., Catholic equivalents of Jews for Jesus).

The document goes on to say that “there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission.”

What principle they have in mind, I am not sure. One might understand why—for practical reasons—the Church does not have a dicastery of the Roman curia devoted to Jewish evangelization and not lend support to independent organizations doing this work.

For the Church to conduct or officially support institutional efforts at Jewish evangelization, in light of the history, could inflame Jewish sensibilities and serve as an impediment to the effective sharing of the gospel with Jewish individuals.

However, if they have something in mind beyond that, I am not sure what it is.

Despite the fact that the Church does not conduct institutional efforts directed to Jewish evangelization, the document acknowledges that Christians can and must share their faith with Jews, stating:

Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah [i.e., the Holocaust] (GCGI 40).

And thus membership in the Church is for Jewish as well as gentile believers in Christ:

Jesus . . . calls his Church from both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:11-22) on the basis of faith in Christ and by means of baptism, through which there is incorporation into his Body which is the Church (GCGI 41).

It is and remains a qualitative definition of the Church of the New Covenant that it consists of Jews and Gentiles, even if the quantitative proportions of Jewish and Gentile Christians may initially give a different impression [GCGI 43]

Far from rejecting the idea that the gospel should be shared with Jesus’ own people, the new document calls for individuals Christians—Jewish and gentile—to share it with them, and in a loving and sensitive way.

The Weekly Francis – 2 December 2015

popefrancisThis version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 6 August 2015 to 30 November 2015.

Angelus

Daily Homilies (fervorinos)

Homilies

Letters

Messages

Speeches

Papal Tweets

  • “Mungu abariki Kenya! God bless Kenya!” @Pontifex 25 November 2015
  • “May my visit to Africa be a sign of the Church’s esteem for all religions, and strengthen our bonds of friendship.” @Pontifex 26 November 2015
  • “The world is witnessing an unprecedented migration of peoples. I want to thank Uganda for its generosity in welcoming refugees.” @Pontifex 27 November 2015
  • “Uganda has experienced the witness of Christian martyrs. May they help us spread the joy of the Gospel without fear.” @Pontifex 28 November 2015
  • “I have great hope for Africa, and for the harvest of grace that the Lord is preparing in your midst.” @Pontifex 28 November 2015
  • “I come to the Central African Republic as a pilgrim of peace and as an apostle of hope.” @Pontifex 29 November 2015
  • “Where there is violence and hatred, Christians are called to witness to the God who is Love.” @Pontifex 29 November 2015