Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

The Logic of Baptism

water-baptismThere is a classic passage in the final chapter of Mark’s Gospel, where we read:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” [Mark 16:15-16].

Christians through the ages have seen in this passage a powerful statement of the importance of baptism. Taken at face value, it indicates that baptism is instrumental in salvation.

Or does it?

Some (though by no means all) in the Protestant community argue that this passage doesn’t do that. Let’s look at a few such arguments.

 

Jesus’ Statements and Logic

The first argument is based on the logical structure of what Jesus says. This will be clearer if we restate it more formally, using a few conventions of propositional logic.

In the example that follows, let us use the following conventions:

F = “John believes/John has faith.”

B = “John is baptized.”

S = “John will be saved.”

With these conventions in place, we can restate the relevant claims from Mark in the following form:

1)   If F and B then S

2)   If not-F then not-S

 

The Argument

Although many of our Protestant brethren, including Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Church of Christ members, and many Presbyterians are prepared to acknowledge that baptism has a role in imparting salvation, others do not. This viewpoint is principally found in groups that are popular in American Evangelicalism, including Baptists and many non-denominational Christians.

When they consider the above statements based on Mark 16:15-16, they might argue this way:

  • Statement (1) does not prove that baptism has a role in salvation. Logically speaking, it names two conditions (F and B) and says that if these two conditions are fulfilled in the case of a particular person then that person will be saved (S). This does not mean, however, that the two conditions are both necessary.
  • It might be that one of these conditions is not necessary. In propositional logic, you can name non-necessary conditions without affecting the truth of a statement.
  • For example, let B represent “John bakes a chocolate cake.” Chocolate cake baking is in no way relevant to salvation, but the statement “If (John has faith) and (John bakes a chocolate cake) then (John will be saved)” is still true. Perhaps baptism is in the same category as chocolate cake baking with respect to salvation.
  • In fact, statement (2) indicates that having faith (F) is the necessary condition, because Jesus says that not having faith will result in not being saved. He does not say the same thing about baptism. Therefore, baptism is not necessary for salvation.

 

How Irrelevant Can You Get?

It is true that, in propositional logic, you can name non-necessary and even irrelevant conditions and not affect the truth value of a proposition. In fact, you can name nothing but irrelevant conditions and still have a true statement. For example:

If (it’s Thursday at 2:00 p.m.) and (it’s raining outside) then (2 + 2 = 4).

This proposition is quite true, but the conditions of it being Thursday at 2:00 p.m. and it raining outside have nothing to do with whether 2 + 2 = 4.

What this shows us is that, while propositional logic can be a useful tool, it doesn’t always model human discourse well. That’s one reason that philosophers have explored ideas like relevance logic.

 

The Relevance Rule

A key aspect of human discourse is the commonly unstated but nearly universal implication that what you are saying is relevant to the topic at hand.

That’s why statements like the one above about 2 + 2 = 4 seem bizarre to us. If someone makes a statement to you that begins by appealing to the day and time and then to the weather, you will expect the conclusion they draw to be relevant to the time and the weather. If they suddenly conclude that 2 + 2 = 4 then you will be jarred, because that’s not the way that human discourse normally works.

You may wonder whether they are joking with you, by breaking the rule about relevance in discourse, or you may wonder whether they have very eccentric notions about mathematics, but either way, you have an in-built expectation that what they are saying will be relevant to the conclusion they draw.

The example of John baking a chocolate cake is similar. It’s the kind of example that one would make in an abstract discussion about propositional logic, but to appeal to this kind of reasoning when looking at normal human discourse would be rightly regarded as logic chopping.

Jesus would not name irrelevant conditions when telling people how to be saved, and especially not in a solemn statement like the Great Commission. In this, of all places, one would expect the implication of relevance to be followed.

In fact, if Mark had recorded Jesus saying, “He who has faith and bakes a chocolate cake will be saved” then that would give us reason to think that chocolate cake baking is relevant to salvation, and Christians down through the ages would have understood accordingly.

 

No Mention of Baptism in the Second Statement?

What about Jesus’ statement that he who does not believe will be condemned? Does this show that baptism is not relevant to salvation?

Strictly speaking, no. All the statement establishes is that faith is a necessary condition for salvation. It does not mean that baptism is not also a necessary condition.

For example, consider this pair of propositions:

  • If (you have eggs) and (you break the eggs) then (you can make an omelet).
  • But if (you don’t have eggs) then (you can’t make an omelet).

Either not having eggs or not breaking the eggs would prevent one from making an omelet. They are both necessary conditions, and the mere fact that only one is mentioned in the second statement does not mean that the other is not also necessary.

Indeed, it is proverbial that you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Why doesn’t the text say something like “He who does not believe or is not baptized will be condemned?”

Presumably for two reasons: First, the relevance of baptism for salvation has already been stressed in the previous statement. Second, in an evangelistic context, faith is naturally prior to baptism.

In the first century, the apostles and other evangelists were going out and preaching the gospel for the first time, and so the great majority of converts were adults. As a result, they first came to faith and then were baptized on the basis of their faith—the same way adult converts to Judaism first came to faith in the God of Israel and then were circumcised.

Failing to have faith was thus a conversion stopper. If someone didn’t come to faith then they would not go on to be baptized (or be circumcised). It thus wasn’t necessary to go into the second condition if the first was not fulfilled.

The situation is like our omelet example. You must first have eggs in order to break them, and so if you don’t have the eggs, that of itself means you can’t make an omelet. There is no need to mention that not breaking them will also result in the inability of make an omelet, because the importance of breaking them has already been established in the first statement.

 

Mark 16 and the Logic of Baptism

The passage on baptism in Mark 16 thus supports the idea that baptism is relevant for salvation:

First, given the implication of relevance that is present in normal human discourse, Jesus’ first statement indicates that baptism is relevant to salvation.

Second, given the presence of the first statement and the fact that faith is logically prior to baptism in this context, the fact that only faith is mentioned in Jesus’ statement does not mean that baptism is not relevant.

One could mount additional arguments against this passage, and some Evangelicals do.

 

The Hard Cases Argument

For example, one might ask about hard cases, where someone has faith but is unable to be baptized (e.g., because there is no one available to do it, as with a person who comes to Christian faith in the midst of a solidly Muslim society). Would these people automatically be damned?

Not according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, which acknowledges that there are exceptional cases.

The same thing would seem to be true about the condition of faith, though. Few if any Evangelicals would be willing to say that all dying infants are damned on the grounds that they don’t have faith in Jesus.

If it is possible for there to be exceptional cases with regard to faith, and yet this does not make faith irrelevant to salvation, then the same thing can be true of baptism.

 

The Canonical Argument

An argument that some Evangelicals might find appealing would be to point out that our early manuscript evidence suggests that the part of Mark 16 where the statements about baptism are found were not part of the original version of Mark’s Gospel.

The majority of New Testament scholars—Protestant and Catholic, conservative and liberal—hold that Mark 16:9-20 was written later than the rest of the Gospel—either in the late first century or in the second century.

There are good reasons for this view, which is supported by Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth (see vol. 2, pp. 261-262).

If this passage was not in the original edition of Mark then one might argue that it does not belong in the canon and so does not have divine authority as Scripture.

 

Problems with the Canonical Argument

There are three problems with this view.

First, just because the passage doesn’t appear to have been part of the original version of Mark does not mean that it isn’t canonical. This is true regardless of whether Mark or someone else composed the passage.

Single authors can prepare longer and shorter editions of their own work. This happened, for example, when Jeremiah prepared a second edition of his own work, after an earlier, shorter version was destroyed by King Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:28). Similarly, some canonical books are the product of more than one hand, as illustrated by several of Paul’s epistles, which had input from other members of his circle (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1, 2 Cor. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:1, 1 Thess. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:1).

From a Catholic perspective, the Magisterium of the Church can settle the canonicity of the longer ending of Mark, but this would not be authoritative for Evangelicals, which brings us to the second problem.

Second, even if one were to grant that the passage is non-canonical (something which I do not grant), it would still be an extraordinarily early testimony to what the early Christians thought about baptism.

On this view it might not be divinely inspired, but it would be a very impressive piece of patristic testimony dating from the first or second century showing that the early Church recognized the importance of baptism for salvation. This, then, would need to be taken into account when interpreting the New Testament teaching on baptism, which brings us to the third problem with the canonical argument.

Third, Mark 16:15-16 is far from the only New Testament text indicating the importance of baptism for salvation. In fact, there are too many to go into here, but let’s conclude by citing just one, which is as explicit as one might wish on the subject:

Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ [1 Peter 3:21].

Draft of Environmental Encyclical Leaked: 12 Things to Know and Share

dry_landscape_258900With just days to go before the release of Pope Francis’s highly anticipated encyclical on the environment, a draft copy has suddenly appeared on the Internet.

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What are the basic facts about this encyclical?

An encyclical is a teaching document issued by the pope. Encyclicals are among the more solemn and thus more authoritative papal documents.

This one is called Laudato Si (“Be praised”)—a line from the Canticle of the Sun by St. Francis of Assisi.

It is Pope Francis’s second encyclical. His first was Lumen Fidei, which was largely drafted by his predecessor, Benedict XVI. Laudato Si is thus the first encyclical prepared entirely at Pope Francis’s initiative.

It is devoted to ecology and related themes, and it is scheduled to be released on Thursday, June 18th.

 

2) Who leaked it?

Veteran Italian journalist Sandro Magister leaked it on the web page of his newspaper, L’Espresso.

For reasons explained below, we will not be quoting from the document, though since it is already all over the Internet and has now become part of this story, we will link Magister’s original story, which includes a pdf of the document in Italian.

Magister’s original story is here.

 

3) What was the Vatican’s reaction?

The Holy See Press Office quickly issued a statement that said:

An Italian text of a draft of the Pope’s Encyclical “Laudato Si’” has been published. Please note that it is not the final text, and that the rules of the Embargo remain in place. We ask journalists to respect professional standards, which call for waiting for the official publication of the final text.

 

4) What is “the Embargo”?

This refers to a journalistic practice in which advance copies of texts are made available to journalists and others to enable them to prepare commentary in advance of the public release of a document.

The practice of letting them see advance copies of texts allows them to read them, digest them, and provide more accurate reporting and commentary than if they got the text at the time of its official release and had to read and report in haste.

Or that’s the theory.

Prior to the official release, such advance copies are said to be “embargoed,” meaning that reporters, etc., are not to publish things based on them until the time the document is officially released, at which point the embargo is lifted.

Movie reviews work the same way: Critics are frequently invited to advance screenings or sent “screener copies” so that they can have their movie reviews prepared by the day the movie is released, as a service to the public. They are not usually supposed to publish their reviews before the day of release, though.

 

5) Is breaking an embargo considered bad?

You bet. It’s a breech of trust with the people who gave you the embargoed text.

I’ve had embargoed texts of various documents any number of times (even years before the final text was released), and I’ve never broken an embargo.

I was shocked to learn that a respected Vaticanista (i.e., journalist covering the Vatican) like Sandro Magister had leaked this one.

Even if he thought he was leaking a pre-final version of the text (which is not clear from his original story), it’s an astonishing breech of journalistic ethics, and his name will likely be mud at the Vatican for some time.

 

6) How did Magister get the text?

This is unknown at present. In his article, he refers to the text having a “troubled” history and alludes to the first copies that the Vatican publishing house made having been pulped (destroyed) because of various places where they needed to be corrected.

It is possible that someone rescued one of the copies meant to be pulped and gave it to Magister. If so, he may have gotten it from a lower level person, such as a worker tasked with arranging for the copies to be pulped.

On the other hand, they could have come from someone higher placed.

If Magister’s text came from the batch that was pulped then that could explain why the Vatican Press Office said that it wasn’t the final version.

On the other hand, Magister may have been given a copy from a different batch, after some corrections were made. In any event, the Holy See Press Office says it isn’t the final copy.

 

7) How different will the final version be?

There is no way to know until Thursday.

Assuming that Magister is correct that a batch was pulped, this may have been due to nothing more than typos that needed to be corrected.

It is not at all uncommon for publishers to pulp runs of a publication that have typos which are caught at the last minute, assuming that the typos are significant enough. In my own experience with publishers, I’ve seen it done.

On the other hand, there may be more than typo fixes. This could happen, for example, if Pope Francis asked for certain editorial changes to be made and then, in the editorial process, these fell through the cracks and their absence was caught only at the last minute.

 

8) Why was the text leaked?

Without knowing who leaked it, there is no way to tell.

If it was a janitor who plucked a copy from a batch that were on their way to be shredded, it may simply have been that he knew Magister would be interested in a scoop and he wanted to be part of an exciting story (or possibly even be paid for his efforts).

Such an employee may not have read the text and there may be no larger agenda on his part.

On the other hand, if a person of higher stature leaked it—someone who had been entrusted with working on the text and read the content of the document—then there might be a deliberate intention to undermine the encyclical and its message.

 

9) How could the leak undermine the encyclical?

Part of the point of having an official release, with a press conference and everything, is to create on opportunity to get the document off on the best footing.

The media hops on it all at once, creating something of a saturation effect in different news channels, and the Holy See has the chance—via the press conference and associated materials given out to the press—to frame the story its way.

For a text to appear early can let some of the air out of the official release, and it can allow the text to be framed in ways contrary to the spin that the Holy See wants put on it.

In this case, because we have a pre-final draft, it will also cause attention to zero-in on the changes that were made between this draft and the final one, which may cause people to speculate about why those changes were made and what significance they might have (if they’re just typos or edits that were accidentally omitted and later caught: not much).

Further, this event raises the specter of the VatiLeaks scandal, in which Benedict XVI’s own butler was funneling private Vatican documents to the press as part of his own agenda.

This event raises the question of whether there are additional leakers—or new leakers—who are in some way seeking to undermine Pope Francis.

 

10) Does the encyclical say anything supporting the idea of manmade global warming?

Yeah, but we knew it would, anyway. Previous statements coming out of the Holy See had made that clear. We didn’t need the leak to tell us that.

I won’t quote from the leaked version, but since it is out there and people are commenting on it, I can report that this isn’t a huge theme in the document.

A machine translation of the Italian original clocks in at around 42,000 English words. Of those, the word “warming” occurs four times, and the phrase “climate change” occurs 14 times.

So it’s not a huge theme. The vast bulk of the document is devoted to other things.

 

11) Does the encyclical oblige Catholics to believe in manmade global warming?

I’ll have more to say about this once the final, official, English version is out, but the short answer is no.

The idea that the planet is getting warmer and the idea that we are responsible for that are both empirical propositions that belong to the domain of science.

As a result, they are matters of science and not of faith.

There is even a place in the draft (no. 188), where Pope Francis makes the point that the Church does not pretend to settle scientific questions.

The Church has the responsibility to urge appropriate responses to what the best science available has to say on matters impacting mankind and the world under man’s care, and Pope Francis thinks that present science is sufficiently in favor of manmade global warming to urge cuts in greenhouse gasses, but if you think that the best science points in a different direction, you are not bound in faith to believe a particular scientific viewpoint.

 

12) Is the encyclical critical of the secular environmentalism that we hear so much about in the media today?

Yes. Again, not quoting it and keeping things at the level of general themes, the draft document is expressly critical of aspects of environmental ideologies that are incompatible with the Christian Faith.

This includes ideologies that would reject the unique place of mankind in creation.

The draft criticizes anti-human and pro-abortion ideologies, which often go hand-in-hand with secular environmentalism.

Did Pope Francis say it doesn’t matter what kind of Christian you are? 9 things to know and share

francis-readingRecently I’ve received several queries about a video message that Pope Francis sent to an ecumenical gathering in Arizona.

A Zenit news story implied that the pope stated that Jesus doesn’t care what kind of Christian you are.

But that’s not what he said at all.

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What were the circumstances of the video?

An ecumenical gathering was held in Phoenix, Arizona last Saturday (May 23), and the organizers—the John 17 Movement—had invited Pope Francis to attend.

He didn’t, but he did send a video message—mostly in Spanish.

You can read the full text of the message (in English) here.

 

2) What did Zenit say about the message?

The Catholic news agency Zenit did a piece reporting on the video message, which you can read here.

The piece was headlined

Pope to US Christian Unity Event: Jesus Knows All Christians Are One, Doesn’t Care What Type

At one point, the text of the story reads:

Francis pointed out that Jesus knows that Christians are disciples of Christ, and that they are one and brothers.

“He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care!” Francis said. “They are Christians.”

UPDATE: Zenit has issued a corrected version of the story here.

 

3) Did Pope Francis actually say that Jesus doesn’t care what kind of Christian a person is?

No. The Zenit story is flatly incorrect.

Both the headline and the passage quoted above mistake the pope as speaking about Jesus when he is actually speaking about the devil—that is, he is saying that the devil doesn’t care what kind of Christian you are.

Here is the relevant passage from the pope’s remarks:

Division is the work of the Father of Lies, the Father of Discord, who does everything possible to keep us divided.

Together today, I here in Rome and you over there, we will ask our Father to send the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and to give us the grace to be one, “so that the world may believe”.

I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps.

But there is someone who “knows” that, despite our differences, we are one.

It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom.

He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care! They are Christians.

As you can see, Pope Francis establishes a chain of referents for the pronoun “he” (in “He doesn’t care”) that repeatedly identifies the individual in question as the devil.

Jesus is not even mentioned except in the phrases “the Spirit of Jesus” and “disciples of Christ.”

 

4) Would it be a problem if the pope had said that Jesus doesn’t care what kind of Christian you are?

If intended in the absolute sense, yes. That would be a form of the error of indifferentism—the idea that it doesn’t matter what religion you are.

God is a God of truth, and so the truth of one’s religious beliefs matters to him.

 

5) Why does the pope describe his remark as something “that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps”?

Presumably because it’s an unfamiliar thought for many.

The idea that the devil stirs up persecution of Christians without respect to their particular affiliation, precisely because he knows that they are all Christians, is not something that one commonly hears—particularly in an age when many people aren’t even comfortable talking about the devil.

I can imagine any number of modernist theologians taking exception to this thought. That, of itself, could result in it sounding controversial.

 

6) Why did he say it might sound “even heretical, perhaps”?

The most likely explanation is that this is a touch of hyperbole, or exaggeration to make a point.

The pope is speaking informally, and his words have to be understood accordingly.

In Catholic theology, the term “heresy” has a precise, technical meaning: The obstinate post-baptismal doubt or denial of a truth that must be believed with divine faith (i.e., God has revealed it) and with Catholic faith (i.e., because the Church has infallibly defined it as such).

Since he is speaking to an ecumenical group that consists largely or principally of non-Catholics, he cannot expect them to interpret the word “heretical” in the technical, Catholic sense.

This is further confirmed by the fact that there would be no grounds on which to criticize his main proposition–that the devil stirs up persecution against Christians because they are Christians–as heretical in the technical sense. God has not revealed that the devil does not persecute Christians of all stripes because they are Christians, and the Church has not infallibly defined that God has revealed this.

As a result, the pope isn’t using the term “heretical” in its technical sense. He’s speaking informally and hyperbolically.

Properly speaking, his proposal not only isn’t heretical, it doesn’t even sound heretical.

In rhetorical terms, the function of including the statement is to draw a line under what he is about to say, to call attention to it and invite people to think about it rather than passing over it quickly.

 

7) Is there anything problematic about his statement that “despite our differences, we are one”?

No. He acknowledges both that Christians have differences (true) and that, despite these differences, we also are in another sense one (also true).

Elsewhere in his message, he says:

We will search together, we will pray together, for the grace of unity.

The unity that is budding among us is that unity which begins under the seal of the one Baptism we have all received.

It is the unity we are seeking along a common path. It is the spiritual unity of prayer for one another.

The idea that Christian unity is rooted in our common baptism is a commonplace of Catholic theology.

He also acknowledges that, despite being one in a sense he has already alluded to, we are also seeking “the grace of unity” and that this unity is “budding” (meaning: an incomplete reality).

He is thus seeking to acknowledge both the things that unite and divide Christians.

 

8) Doesn’t the devil hate all human beings?

Yes, but he hates Christians in a special way, because we love and serve Christ.

 

9) How does the pope see the growth of Christian unity unfolding?

He says:

This [the “ecumenism of blood,” our common persecution by the devil] must encourage us to do what we are doing today: to pray, to dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds of brotherhood.

I am convinced it won’t be theologians who bring about unity among us. Theologians help us, the science of the theologians will assist us, but if we hope that theologians will agree with one another, we will reach unity the day after Judgement Day.

The Holy Spirit brings about unity. Theologians are helpful, but most helpful is the goodwill of us all who are on this journey with our hearts open to the Holy Spirit!

The pope thus sees Christians working to grow closer to each other through prayer, dialogue, goodwill, and openness to the Holy Spirit.

He sees theologians as being able to play a helpful role in this, but he does not envision Christian unity being fully restored in this age simply because of Christian theologians getting together to talk.

Instead, Pope Francis is focusing on practical ways that Christians can “strengthen our bonds of brotherhood” and “shorten the distance between us” in the here and now.

Thank You for the Pre-Orders!

mark-under-development

I wanted to say thank you to everyone who has pre-ordered my commentary and study guides on the Gospel of Mark from Verbum Bible Software.

Enough pre-orders have been received that the set is now “under development,” as the label by the green status bar shows.

What that means is that they’ve raised enough money in pre-orders to pay for the process of converting the manuscripts into their format, so all of the cool Bible-study functionality will be there when you open the book in Verbum.

They’re doing the conversion now.

The kind folks there called me up as soon as they reached the “under development” stage and let me know the good news.

They were excited about it, as we set a record on this one. Products  often linger in the pre-publication phase for months or even years while the needed pre-orders are accumulating.

We did it in four business days, which is the fastest it’s ever happened for Verbum. Yay!

So thank you to everyone who ordered, and congratulations on setting a new record!

Seeing the reaction to this set has been very encouraging for me, and it’s gotten me back to working on the next commentary, which is on next year’s Gospel: Luke. (It’s already about half done.)

By the way, even though they have enough pre-orders to be converting the Mark set, it’s still available at the pre-publication price of $19.99 (which, to my mind, is a steal, since you’re getting almost 500 pages of Bible study materials!). That price will go up in the future, but you can still pre-order it for that price at the moment.

Thanks again, everybody!

Here are the order links:

CLICK HERE TO ORDER THE COMMENTARY ON MARK AND THE TWO STUDY GUIDES FOR $19.99

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT VERBUM AND SAVE 15% WHEN YOU USE THE PROMO CODE “JIMMY1”

 

My First Biblical Commentary!

jimmy-akins-studies-on-markOne of my long-term goals has been to write a commentary on the New Testament, and I’m very pleased to announce that this is starting to come to fruition.

A while back, the folks at Verbum Bible Software asked me if I would design some courses for one of their online platforms, and so I set to work writing the text for one.

The result is my very first biblical commentary, which is on the Gospel of Mark (selected because that’s the Gospel used in the Sunday readings for 2015).

 

Things I Learned

It was a fascinating project that I really enjoyed doing, and in the process I learned a lot. Going through a text word-by-word always results in new insights, and there are a bunch of gems hidden in Mark’s text.

Some of the things I learned included:

  • How Mark parallels the growth of Jesus’ reputation among Jews and Gentiles
  • How the Feeding of the Four Thousands is unexpectedly significant
  • How the story of the “widow’s mite” may have a significance that you almost never hear about
  • How the Transfiguration parallels the Agony in the Garden
  • How to understand Jesus’ prophecies in detail
  • How to respond to criticisms of Mark’s Gospel made by skeptics

 

Study Verse-By-Verse or with the Liturgy

I also produced two extensive study guides to help you get the most out of the Gospel:

  • One takes you through the Gospel section-by-section, with questions based on the text of the commentary.
  • The other goes through the liturgy—on Sundays, holy days, and weekdays—and gives you study questions for every day where Mark is used in the readings at Mass.

 

A One-Time Offer

I thought I’d let you know that right now the set of all three resources—the commentary and the two study guides—is available for pre-order for people who use Verbum or Logos Bible Software.

It’s available for only $19.99, and that’s the least expensive that this set will ever be. As a special reward to those who help in the pre-order period, Verbum/Logos gives a special discount that won’t be available again. It’s a one-time thing.

So if you’re interested, now’s the time to order! (And, at less than $20, I personally think it’s a steal. Between the commentary and the two study guides, you’re getting almost 500 pages of solid, Catholic biblical material!)

For the time being, the commentary and the study guides will only be available on Verbum/Logos. I hope eventually to bring them out in other formats, but I don’t know when that will be.

 

About Verbum Software

I’m a big fan of Verbum software, and I use it literally every day in my research.

If you’re not presently a Verbum user, you can learn about it here, and I can save you 15% when you order it if you use the promo code JIMMY1 at checkout.

 

Pre-Ordering the Commentary and Study Guides

If you’d like to pre-order the commentary and the two study-guides for only $19.99, click here.

The more people pre-order them, the sooner they can be converted to the Verbum format and released, so if you have friends who you think might be interested, let them know, too (e.g., by Facebook, Twitter, email, etc.)!

Thanks for doing so, and I hope you like them!

Your pal,

—Jimmy Akin

 

CLICK HERE TO ORDER THE COMMENTARY ON MARK AND THE TWO STUDY GUIDES FOR $19.99

 

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT VERBUM AND SAVE 15% WHEN YOU USE THE PROMO CODE “JIMMY1”

 

Shock Treatment or Selfishness?

surpriseRecently I heard a priest describe something that happened to him in the early days of his priesthood.

From his age, I’m guessing this would have been the mid-1970s.

He said that, for the first twenty-five years of his priesthood, he had really long hair (down to his waist, if he stretched it out) and a full beard.

At one point, he was assigned to a parish and came to know a local gentleman by phone but not by sight.

In one phone conversation the gentleman said that he really respected the priest and wanted his help with his son, who he felt was “going over to the other side.”

By this, he meant that his son was getting rebellious and not wanting to have his hair cut.

The gentleman asked if the priest could come over to dinner and perhaps talk to his son.

“I’d love to come to dinner,” the priest replied.

At this point in the homily, several people in the congregation laughed, knowing the kind of punchline that was coming.

So the priest went to dinner.

But, as for the topic of hair length, he said, “It never came up.”

Big laugh from the congregation.

Personally, I was cringing.

 

A Disclaimer

First, a disclaimer: I get the humor in this situation.

It’s a standard trope: Person A is unaware of a relevant fact about Person B, assumes the opposite, and then gets surprised.

Big laughs.

Comedy fish in a barrel.

I can think of lots of instances where this trope is used, like that episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show where Rob and Laura Petrie are driven frantic with worry by the thought that their newborn may have been accidentally switched with the baby of another couple with a similar last name.

They talk to the other couple by phone, and though the other couple is quite sure that the babies weren’t switched, they agree to come over.

When they do, Rob and Laura discover that the other couple is black and thus, if the children had been switched, it would have been obvious. All their worry was for nothing.

A contemporary use of a long-standing comedy trope. For some older ones, just think of all those plays where Shakespeare has women disguised as men and fooling even the men closest to them before the Big Reveal at the end of the play.

Big laughs in the 1500s. Shakespeare used the device in around a fifth of his plays.

Or go back a little further, to when the two disciples on the road to Emmaus suddenly discovered that they had been hosting Jesus himself.

So yeah, there is inherent humor in this kind of situation.

But I was still cringing.

 

What Was He Thinking?

Anecdotes told by priests in the course of homilies are often of dubious historicity and are frequently intended for rhetorical and entertainment value rather than factual accuracy, so the priest may have been embellishing what really happened.

I hope so.

But taking him at his word, what was he thinking?

I imagine that he was thinking he would teach his phone friend a lesson of some sort, such as that you shouldn’t look down on people with certain hairstyles.

After all, the man had come to respect the priest through their phone conversations—enough to ask for help with his son—and yet the priest had precisely the kind of hairstyle that wasn’t to the man’s taste.

Perhaps the priest thought that showing up would provide a dramatic illustration of the point and thus teach the man a lesson—maybe one that would let him get along better with his son.

Maybe these or similarly high-minded things were what were going through the priest’s head.

But if the story is as he told it, there’s something that seems not to have been going through his mind.

 

What He Wasn’t Thinking

What the priest wasn’t thinking about was what his sudden appearance with long hair would actually likely do to the gentleman.

It would likely humiliate him.

In his own home.

In front of his son.

At a time when generational tensions were especially high.

Think about it: The man had gone to significant lengths to set up an encounter between the priest and his son in which he hoped the priest will straighten out his son on the subject of hair length.

And the priest led the man to believe that he was amenable to that plan.

But really, the priest was planning to turn the tables on the father.

The father would have every right to feel betrayed by the priest.

Further, the man may well have told the son that the priest was coming over and would be discussing hair length with him. If so, the father would feel even more humiliated by the priest when the he showed up and reversed expectations.

Even if the father hadn’t told the son about the expected conversation, the son knew his father’s views about long hair. For the priest to show up without warning the father would not only put the father in an embarrassing position, it would enable the son ever after to say, “Well, that priest you like so much has long hair. Why can’t I?”

The priest thus undermined the father’s authority in his own home.

 

What the Priest Could Have Done

Instead of deciding to teach the father a lesson by shock treatment, the priest could have thought more about how he could really help the man.

Instead of simply saying, “I’d love to come to dinner,” he could have said, “I’d love to come to dinner—but there is something you should know first. I have long hair myself, and I don’t want to do anything that would undermine your authority with your son. If you’d like me to come, I’d be honored to be your guest, but I totally understand if you’d rather I not come. I know how delicate situations can be between parents and children, and I don’t want to make your situation any more difficult. I want to do whatever I can to serve you and your family.”

Taking this open, honest, and supportive approach would have done several things.

For a start, it would have avoided making the father feel humiliated, betrayed, and undermined by the priest.

It would have avoided throwing gasoline on a tense family situation (possibly even sparking a family argument after the priest left).

Most importantly, it would not have communicated to the man the message that priests may humiliate, betray, and undermine you in front of your family.

And, as an added bonus, it may have even opened the man’s eyes to the fact that not all longhairs are bad. They can even care about you and try to help and support you.

Taking this approach might have led the man to respect the priest even more.

But if the event happened as the priest related it, he chose a much riskier and less loving path.

 

A Warning for All of Us

Of course, the priest is not alone in taking the kind of approach he did.

We can all fall into that.

Sometimes we rationalize our actions by saying that we’re going to teach a person a lesson by “shock treatment” or “tough love” when in reality we’re just being selfish. We’re not genuinely thinking about how to help the other person.

This is a constant danger in apologetics, and I’ve fallen victim to it myself.

To my shame, I vividly recall times when I took this approach in responding to a non-Catholic or even a fellow Catholic who was being rude.

It’s a human temptation, and it doesn’t just apply in apologetics. It applies in all areas of life.

Of course, sometimes, there is just no way to avoid a blunt lesson.

But frequently, there is—and the fault is ours if we don’t look for ways to be helpful and supportive of others, even when they disagree with us or come off abrasively.

Did Mark base his Gospel on Matthew and Luke?

diagram griesbach hypothesisRecently I’ve been writing about the way that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are related to each other.

These three are known as the synoptic Gospels, and how they are related is known as the synoptic problem.

You can read what I’ve been writing here.

Today I would like to talk about the view that Mark based his Gospel on Matthew and Luke.

 

What This View Is Called

This view goes by a variety of names, but one of the most common is “the Griesbach hypothesis,” after Johann Jakob Griesbach, who proposed it in the late 1700s.

Today, some like to call it the “Two-Gospel hypothesis,” because Mark would have used two other Gospels in composing his own.

This name is problematic because it is not the only possibility: Luke could have used Mark and Matthew and Matthew could have used Mark and Luke. In each of these cases, one Gospel would have been based on the other two.

There is thus no reason why the first of these options should be called the “Two-Gospel” hypothesis, so we’ll call it the Griesbach hypothesis for the sake of clarity.

 

The View in History

Although Griesbach proposed this view, its advocates often claim that he was not the first to do so.

According to many translations, one early proponent may have been Clement of Alexandria, who wrote around A.D. 200 that the Gospels with the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first, suggesting that Mark wrote later and presumably used them in writing his own.

(However, see here for an argument that this is not what Clement said.)

If Clement did propose the Griesbach hypothesis at this early date, it did not end up becoming the most common view, historically.

Instead, a view proposed by St. Augustine, which holds that the four Gospels were written in their modern canonical order, became the most common view for most of Church history.

I’ve written about that view here.

Today the most common view is the “Two-Source hypothesis,” which holds that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke used both Mark and a second, hypothetical source that scholars have named “Q.”

I’ve written about my own skepticism that there was a “Q” source here.

The Griesbach hypothesis is, however, the second most popular view today.

In fact, the current popularity of the Griesback hypothesis is such that, if you are skeptical of the Two-Source hypothesis, many scholars will assume that you must be an advocate of Griesbach—which is a bit frustrating for those who hold alternative views.

The Griesbach hypothesis attracted a number of advocates in the mid-20th century, including—most notably—William R. Farmer.

William Farmer developed an argument for the Griesbach hypothesis which contains 16 “steps.” You can find a paraphrase of it online here. It is also found as chapter 4 in the book Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, edited by David Alan Black.

I’m not going to respond to Farmer’s argument in a point-by-point manner, because doing so would require too much space, but I would like to do a concise evaluation of the view.

(NOTE: I’ll be doing a separate piece looking at the variant of the Griesbach hypothesis proposed by Bernard Orchard, et al. It’s sufficiently different that it deserves its own treatment.)

 

A Thank You to the Advocates of Griesbach

Before that, I want to say how much I appreciate the work of Farmer and his colleagues, because prior to their efforts, the Two-Source hypothesis had become so dominant in 20th century New Testament scholarship that it was virtually unquestioned.

Because of their efforts, the world of scholarship was forced to confront the problems with the Two-Source hypothesis, and, even though it is still the most popular view, it is held more tentatively now than it was, and greater respect is shown to alternative views.

Thank you Farmer and colleagues!

Now, let’s look at the evidence concerning Griesbach . . .

 

The Patristic Evidence

Advocates of the view often point to Clement of Alexandria for support since he appears to say that Matthew and Luke were written before Mark.

This claim is significant not only because Clement wrote very early (c. A.D. 200) but because he was bishop of Alexandria, the see which reportedly had Mark as its first bishop. One would think that Clement would thus be in a good position to know the circumstances in which Mark’s Gospel was written.

However, there are several problems with this claim:

  • If Clement did make it, then he is very much alone in doing so. I can’t think of any other patristic source that makes the claim.
  • The most popular view in the later patristic age was the Augustinian hypothesis, which had Mark being written second rather than third. Clement’s contemporary Irenaeus of Lyons, seems to have advocated the Augustinian hypothesis. Clement’s student, Origen, also seems to have held the Augustinian hypothesis.
  • The earliest reference we have—from John the Presbyter—says that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter’s preaching, not based on Matthew and Luke. John the Presbyter may or may not have been John the Apostle, but he appears, in either event, to have been one of the authors of the New Testament, and thus was in an even better position than Clement to know about the composition of the Gospels.
  • It appears that the claim attributed to Clement may be based on a mistranslation. Stephen Carlson argues that the key Greek verb (progegraphthai) should be rendered “published openly” rather than “written first.” On this view, Clement was claiming that Matthew and Luke were published openly, while Mark was initially written for a group of private individuals, without Peter’s initial knowledge or authorization. This fits the context of what Clement says. See Carlson’s argument, here.

The patristic evidence thus does not provide significant support for the Griesbach hypothesis.

 

The Argument from Order

One of the major arguments used by advocates of the Griesbach hypothesis is based on the sequence in which the synoptic Gospels present their material.

It is pointed out that Mark’s sequence almost always agrees either with Matthew’s order or Luke’s order. He switches between these two orders in a zig-zag fashion.

Griesbach advocates have argued that this is best explained by the idea that Mark had both Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels before him, and at any given point he had to choose which of their two orders he would follow, since he obviously couldn’t follow them both when they sequenced the same material differently.

The problem with the argument from order is that the proposed explanation is not the only one.

For example, suppose that Mark and Matthew wrote first and that Luke used the two of them. In this case, Luke would choose between the order found in Mark and the one found in Matthew. This would also explain why one of the synoptics seems to zig-zag between the orders found in the other two.

Or suppose that Mark and Luke wrote first and that Matthew used the two of them. In that case, Matthew would choose between the order found in Mark and that found in Luke. Again, this would explain why one of the synoptics seems to zig-zag between the orders found in the other two.

And there are other options, still.

For a detailed look at why the argument from order isn’t sufficient to settle the synoptic problem, see David Neville’s book, Mark’s Gospel–Prior or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order.

 

What Is Mark’s Gospel Supposed to Be?

A fundamental question that the Griesbach hypothesis needs to answer is what Mark’s Gospel is supposed to be.

On the Griesbach hypothesis, Mark would have had to draw a significant amount of material from both Mark and Luke. Yet Mark is also shorter than either Matthew or Luke.

Mark would thus appear to be a conflation and epitome of the other two synoptic Gospels.

It’s a conflation (a fusion) since it includes material from both, and it’s an epitome (an abridgment) since it is shorter.

How well does this hypothesis stand up to examination?

 

Not A Plausible Epitome

I’ve written before about the question of whether Mark is a plausible epitome of Matthew, and the conclusion was that it is not.

The same considerations apply to Mark being an epitome of Matthew and Luke.

A combination of Matthew and Luke would be somewhat longer than Matthew alone. Matthew is around 18,000 words in the Greek New Testament, and an edition of Matthew that had been expanded by the 7,000 or so words in the unique passages of Luke would be around 25,000 words long.

This fused work would have fit on one scroll and could be read in about two and a half hours. It is thus not nearly long enough to require an epitome.

Epitomes were popular in the ancient world because they allowed people to get the gist of long works in a short amount of time. For example, 2 Maccabees is an epitome that condensed a five-scroll history by Jason of Cyrene into a single scroll.

That’s the kind of space savings that ancient readers expected in an epitome, and that’s not what we find in Mark. At a little more than 11,000 words long, it would only be about half the size of a combined Matthew and Luke, and it would only reduce the reading time by a bit more than an hour.

There is also the fact that Mark typically uses more words to tell an individual story than Matthew or Luke, which is the opposite of what ancient epitomists did. They typically told a story in fewer words and thus saved space. This was, in fact, one of the two principle tools used by epitomists.

The fact that Mark uses more words than the other two synoptic evangelists makes it look like Matthew and Luke were epitomizing individual stories from Mark so that they could fit supplement them with material not found in Mark and still keep their Gospels a reasonable length.

Besides telling a story in fewer words, the other major technique used by ancient epitomists was to simply omit material, which in this case would mean whole stories about or sayings of Jesus.

Naturally, epitomists would omit what they considered to be the less important material and retain what they considered to be the more important material. They might even include some new material if they thought it was particularly important.

When we look at Mark through the lens of the editorial choices he would have made in composing his Gospel from Matthew and Luke, we confront a baffling situation. In making an epitome of the two, Mark would have ejected large amounts of very valuable data, including:

  • The Genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38)
  • The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold (Luke 1:5-25)
  • The Birth of Jesus Foretold (Luke 1:26-38)
  • The Visitation (Luke 1:39-56)
  • The Birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:57-80)
  • The Birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:18-25, Luke 2:1-20)
  • The Circumcision and Presentation of Jesus (Luke 2:21-40)
  • The Slaughter of the Innocents (Matt. 2:1-23)
  • The Finding in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52)
  • Jesus Preaches the Gospel in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30)
  • The Beatitudes (Matt. 4:23-5:12, Luke 6:17-26)
  • The Value of the Law (Matt. 5:17-20, Luke 16:16-17)
  • Teaching About Killing and Anger (Matt. 5:21-24)
  • Make Peace with Your Accuser (Matt. 5:25-26, Luke 12:57-59)
  • Teaching on Adultery and Lust (Matt. 5:27-30)
  • Teaching on Divorce and Adultery (Matt. 5:31-32)
  • Teaching on Swearing (Matt. 5:33-37)
  • “Love Your Enemies” (Matt. 5:38-48, Luke 6:27-36)
  • Piety Before Men and Alms (Matt. 6:1-4)
  • Piety Before Men and Prayer (Matt. 6:5-8)
  • The Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9-15, Luke 11:1-4)
  • Piety Before Men and Fasting (Matt. 6:16-18)
  • “Treasure in Heaven” (Matt. 6:19-21, Luke 12:33-34)
  • “The Lamp of Your Body” (Matt. 6:22-23, Luke 11:33-36)
  • “You Cannot Serve God and Mammon” (Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:9-15)
  • “Do Not Be Anxious About Your Life” (Matt. 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-32)
  • “Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged” (Matt. 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-42)
  • Pearls Before Swine (Matt. 7:06)
  • “Ask, Seek, Knock” (Matt. 7:7-11, Luke 11:9-13)
  • The Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12)
  • The Narrow Gate (Matt. 7:13-14, Luke 13:22-30)
  • “No Good Tree Bears Bad Fruit” (Matt. 7:15-20, Luke 6:43-45)
  • Putting Jesus’ Teaching into Action (Matt. 7:21-27, Luke 6:46-49)
  • The Centurion’s Servant (Matt. 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10)
  • The Widow of Nain’s Son (Luke 7:11-17)
  • Jesus’ Travelling Companions (Luke 8:1-3)
  • Rebuffed in Samaria (Luke 9:51-56)
  • Excuses for Not Following Jesus (Matt. 8:18-22, Luke 9:57-62)
  • Healing Two Blind Men (Matt. 9:27-31)
  • Exorcizing a Mute Demoniac (Matt. 9:32-34)
  • Sending the Seventy (Luke 10:01)
  • “The Harvest is Plentiful” (Matt. 9:35-38, Luke 10:02)
  • Basic Instructions to the Seventy (Luke 10:3-11)
  • The Seventy Return (Luke 10:17-20)
  • Fear and Comfort (Matt. 10:26-33, Luke 12:2-12)
  • Jesus Brings Division (Matt. 10:34-36, Luke 12:49-53)
  • The Cost of Discipleship (Matt. 10:37-11:1, Luke 14:25-27)
  • A Question from John the Baptist (Matt. 11:2-19, Luke 7:18-35)
  • Woe to Unrepentant Cities (Matt. 11:20-24, Luke 10:12-16)
  • Hidden from the Wise (Matt. 11:25-30, Luke 10:21-24)
  • The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37)
  • “Mary has chosen the good portion” (Luke 10:38-42)
  • “By Your Words You Will be Justified” (Matt. 12:33-37)
  • The Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-8)
  • “Blessed Is the Womb that Bore You!” (Luke 11:27-28)
  • “The Sign of Jonah” (Matt. 12:38-42, Luke 11:29-32)
  • The Unclean Spirit Returns (Matt. 12:43-45, Luke 11:24-26)
  • The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30)
  • The Parable of the Weeds Explained (Matt. 13:34-43)
  • The Parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13-21)
  • Repent or Perish (Luke 13:1-9)
  • Healing a Crippled Woman (Luke 13:10-17)
  • The Parable of the Leaven (Matt. 13:33, Luke 13:20-21)
  • Jesus Warned That Herod Wants to Kill Him (Luke 13:31-33)
  • Dinner with a Ruler of the Pharisees (Luke 14:1-15)
  • Counting the Cost (Luke 14:28-33)
  • The Parable of the Treasure in the Field (Matt. 13:44)
  • The Parable of the Precious Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)
  • The Parable of the Net Thrown into the Sea (Matt. 13:47-52)
  • Does Jesus Pay the Tax? (Matt. 17:24-27)
  • The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Matt. 18:12-14, Luke 15:1-7)
  • The Parable of the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10)
  • The Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32)
  • The Parable of the Shrewd Steward (Luke 16:1-8)
  • Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31)
  • Forgiving the Brother Who Sins (Matt. 18:15-22, Luke 17:3-4)
  • “We Are Unworthy Servants” (Luke 17:7-10)
  • Ten Lepers Cleansed (Luke 17:11-19)
  • The Coming of the Kingdom (Luke 17:20-37)
  • The Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-8)
  • The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14)
  • The Parable of Unforgiving Debtor (Matt. 18:23-35)
  • The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)
  • Jesus in the Temple (Matt. 21:14-17)
  • The Parable of the Banquet (Matt. 22:1-14, Luke 14:16-24)
  • Woe to the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23:1-36)
  • “Your House Is Forsaken” (Matt. 23:37-39, Luke 13:34-35)
  • “The Son of Man Is Coming at an Unexpected Hour (Matt. 24:42-51, Luke 12:35-48)
  • The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)
  • Dinner with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10)
  • The Parable of the Talents/Pounds (Matt. 25:14-30, Luke 19:11-27)
  • The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt. 25:31-46)
  • Jesus’ Daily Schedule (Luke 21:37-38)
  • Who Is the Greatest? (Luke 22:24-32)
  • Preparations for the Future (Luke 22:35-38)
  • Jesus Before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:6-12)
  • Securing the Tomb (Matt. 27:62-66)
  • Explaining the Empty Tomb (Matt. 28:11-15)

Mark would have had to have judged all of that material not worth including in comparison to the following tiny handful of passages, which are unique to his Gospel and which he therefore chose to include:

  • Jesus Teaches by the Sea (Mark 2:13)
  • Jesus’ Family Hears (Mark 3:20-21)
  • The Kingdom Like Seed (Mark 4:26-29)
  • Healing a Deaf Man (Mark 7:32-37)
  • Healing a Blind Man (Mark 8:22-26)

Such an editorial choice seems inexplicable, given the high value of much of the material Mark would have chosen to omit and the low value of the additional passages he would have chosen to include.

Much more explicable would be editorial choices by Matthew and Luke to omit the handful of passages that are unique to Mark, which are of low value and which would allow them to include more of the valuable material that is found in their Gospels and that is not found in Mark.

 

Not a Plausible Conflation

There are also problems with the idea that Mark is a fusion of Matthew and Luke, and a particularly important one occurs on the level of the individual stories that Mark records about Jesus.

It has long been noted that, if Mark used the other two synoptic Gospels, he didn’t just switch between the two in their overall sequence of material about Jesus. Instead, he switched between the two within the course of a single story.

In other words, if you read through the Greek text of Mark, even within a single story, you’ll run into a short stretch of material that Mark would have taken from Matthew and later a short stretch of material he would have taken from Luke. This material might be a single word, a phrase, etc., but not the whole story.

Mark thus would have assembled his individual accounts of the things that Jesus did by piecing together material from Matthew and Luke like a puzzle.

How easy it is to do that kind of fusion of texts depends on the kind of writing techniques that are in use at the time.

Today, it is easier than it has ever been. Given the availability of word processors, a modern author can have two source documents open before him on his screen, and he can cut and paste fragments of text from the two into a third document that he is composing. When done on the level of words and phrases, the procedure is clunky, but it’s possible.

Before the advent of word processors, the process would have been more difficult. A hundred years ago, an author attempting this feat would likely have had his two source documents open in front of him on his writing desk, and he would have glanced back and forth between them, flipping pages when he needed to move forward in the text, and stitching together the phrases he was encountering to form a new, third document, which he would also have kept on the desk.

This would not have been nearly as easy as cutting and pasting in a word processor, but it would have been possible, and advocates of the Griesbach hypothesis have proposed that this was how Mark worked.

But there are problems with this image.

 

Working with Scrolls

The first problem is that it is not clear Mark would have been flipping pages. The codex—or modern form of a book that has pages attached to a spine so that they can be flipped—was not common in the ancient world, and it was only beginning to become popular in the first century.

As a result, it is quite likely that Mark would have been working with the form of book which was common in antiquity—the scroll. It is not as easy to advance the text in a scroll, which has to be rolled forward and back to consult different passages.

It’s nowhere near as easy as flipping pages, and the problem would become particularly acute if Mark were trying to fuse phrases from a story that occurs at one point in Matthew’s sequence and at a different point in Luke’s sequence. It would involve lots of manual scrolling to find the right place.

There is also the fact that, if a scroll is opened to a passage near the beginning or the end, it will have a tendency to curl itself up and obscure the text unless you hold it open with your hands or with a paperweight. (This tendency is lessened in the middle of the scroll, since you may have a sizeable roll on both sides, helping to keep the book open and the passage you want visible.)

Also, scrolls can tear in two if they aren’t properly supported—at least if they are made of papyrus, which many were (papyrus was cheaper than parchment, which was made from animal skin). When opened, the weight of one side of the scroll can be such that, if you lose your grip, it can twist the scroll and cause the papyrus to rip.

These problems could be overcome if you had paperweights and a writing desk, but that leads to a second problem . . .

 

No Writing Desks

Surprising as it may seem, they didn’t use writing desks in the first century, and all those classic paintings of the New Testament authors using them as they composed their works are historically anachronistic.

Instead, as revealed by illustrations from the ancient world—as well as by statements from the period—the ancients wrote without desks, either sitting on a stool or standing, holding the writing material in front of them or placing them on a knee.

This means that any sources they were consulting as they wrote were not within inches of their face as they sat at a desk.

The sources may have been laid on the floor or on another object, but they weren’t as conveniently displayed as they could be on a writing desk, and—given the distance and the tiny size that the hand printing often used (to save money on writing materials)—they would have been harder for an author to read, making him less likely to switch between them on a word-by-word or phrase-by-phrase basis.

Alternately, the sources an author was using could have been read out loud to him, and this method seems to have been used when scribes were making multiple copies of a single work, but it also would have made it very laborious to take individual words or phrases from each source and knit them together.

 

Ancient Conflation Practices

Because of the limitations of ancient writing methods, people in this period did not combine works in the way Mark is claimed to have done.

Instead, as studies of ancient literature show, the difficulty of borrowing tiny bits from two works and merging them together into a new work prevented this from being a normal practice.

What they would do is base a passage on one source and use its wording and then switch to another source for a new passage.

If the two sources had parallel versions of a single passage they wanted to use, they would stick with the wording used by one of the sources, not attempt to merge the wording of the two in an alternating manner.

(For more on this, and on ancient writing methods in general, see Robert A. Derrenbacker’s Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem, online in pdf here.)

The only notable exception to this is a work composed in the second century known as the Diatesseron. This was a harmony of the Gospels written by a Syrian named Tatian.

He actually did undertake the task of going through the Gospels line by line and trying to merge everything, retaining every small detail that he could.

The result was a work that, in English translation, is 62,440 words long (compared to 86,320 for the four Gospels), meaning that the Diatesseron is 72% as long as the Gospels combined (source).

Tatian’s example shows that it was possible to stich more than one source together in a low-level manner, but it was rare because of how difficult it was.

This raises the question of motive.

 

Tatian vs. Mark

Tatian was writing in the second century, after the four Gospels had come to be regarded as sufficiently sacred and inviolable that, although he wanted to create a new text by merging them, he also wanted to preserve virtually every detail contained in them. (He omits only 1.8% of their content, or 0.7% if you set the genealogies aside; source.)

As a result, the Diatesseron does not have the literary artistry of any of the Gospels. It is clunky and repetitious, as Tatian tries to jam everything in together.

Mark’s situation is entirely different.

On the Griesbach hypothesis, he clearly does not think that he has to retain all of the details found in Matthew and Luke. Indeed, he would have had to throw out huge chunks of the two Gospels, including many of their most valuable parts!

If that was his attitude toward his source material then it is inexplicable why he would feel so strongly about the phrasing of the two that he would undertake the physically laborious process of regularly merging their individual phrases.

Instead, he would have followed the ancient practice of someone combining two sources and used the wording of whichever source he had before him at the moment.

 

Conclusion

We thus find that—contrary to the Griesbach hypothesis—Mark’s Gospel does not work either like ancient epitomes or like ancient conflations, making it unlikely that it is a conflation and epitome of Matthew and Luke.

More plausibly, Matthew and Luke abridged material from Mark (both by omitting whole passages and by tightening up the wording of those they retained) and then expanded it with additional material they wished to include.

8 things you need to know about Easter Sunday

Easter is the most important day of the Christian calendar, even more important than Christmas. Here are 9 things you need to know.

The great day is finally here: Easter, the most important day of the Christian calendar. More important even than Christmas.

What happened on this day?

Was Jesus’ resurrection a real, historical event?

How does the Church celebrate this day?

Is Easter a pagan holiday?

Here are 8 things you need to know.

 

1. What happened on Easter?

Among other things:

  • The women went to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body.
  • They saw angels, who told them he wasn’t there.
  • They went to tell the apostles, who initially didn’t believe them.
  • Peter and the beloved disciple rushed to see the tomb and found it empty.
  • Mary Magdalen, in particular, had an encounter with the risen Christ.
  • So did the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
  • So did Peter.
  • So did all the apostles except Thomas (who would have one later).
  • Jesus had risen from the dead!

To read about the events in the New Testament, you can use these links:

 

2. Was Jesus’ Resurrection a real, historical event or something else?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

 639 The mystery of Christ’s resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testament bears witness.

In about A.D. 56 St. Paul could already write to the Corinthians:

“I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. . .”

The Apostle speaks here of the living tradition of the Resurrection which he had learned after his conversion at the gates of Damascus.

 

3. What is the significance of the empty tomb?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

 640 . . . The first element we encounter in the framework of the Easter events is the empty tomb. In itself it is not a direct proof of Resurrection; the absence of Christ’s body from the tomb could be explained otherwise.

Nonetheless the empty tomb was still an essential sign for all. Its discovery by the disciples was the first step toward recognizing the very fact of the Resurrection.

This was the case, first with the holy women, and then with Peter.  The disciple “whom Jesus loved” affirmed that when he entered the empty tomb and discovered “the linen cloths lying there”, “he saw and believed”.

This suggests that he realized from the empty tomb’s condition that the absence of Jesus’ body could not have been of human doing and that Jesus had not simply returned to earthly life as had been the case with Lazarus.

 

4. What significance to the post-Resurrection appearances of Christ have?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

641 Mary Magdalene and the holy women who came to finish anointing the body of Jesus, which had been buried in haste because the Sabbath began on the evening of Good Friday, were the first to encounter the Risen One.

Thus the women were the first messengers of Christ’s Resurrection for the apostles themselves. . . .

642 Everything that happened during those Paschal days involves each of the apostles – and Peter in particular – in the building of the new era begun on Easter morning.

As witnesses of the Risen One, they remain the foundation stones of his Church. the faith of the first community of believers is based on the witness of concrete men known to the Christians and for the most part still living among them.

Peter and the Twelve are the primary “witnesses to his Resurrection”, but they are not the only ones – Paul speaks clearly of more than five hundred persons to whom Jesus appeared on a single occasion and also of James and of all the apostles.

643 Given all these testimonies, Christ’s Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact.

 

5. What significance does Christ’s Resurrection have for us?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

651 “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”

The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ’s works and teachings.

All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.

 658 Christ, “the first-born from the dead” ( Col 1:18), is the principle of our own resurrection, even now by the justification of our souls (cf Rom 6:4), and one day by the new life he will impart to our bodies (cf Rom 8:11).

 

6. How do we commemorate this day?

The big celebration of Easter was on the evening of Holy Saturday. It was the Easter Vigil Mass. Consequently, Easter Sunday celebrations–at least as far as the Church is concerned (as opposed to all the egg hunts and baby ducks and marshmallow peeps)–is more restrained.

According to the main document governing the celebrations connected with Easter, Paschalis Solemnitatis:

97. Mass is to be celebrated on Easter Day with great solemnity.

It is appropriate that the penitential rite on this day take the form of a sprinkling with water blessed at the Vigil, during which the antiphon Vidi aquam, or some other song of baptismal character should be sung.

The fonts at the entrance to the church should also be filled with the same water.

 

7. What is the role of the “Paschal [i.e., Easter] candle”?

Paschales Solemnitatis explains:

99. The paschal candle has its proper place either by the ambo or by the altar and should be lit at least in all the more solemn liturgical celebrations of the season until Pentecost Sunday, whether at Mass, or at Morning and Evening Prayer.

After the Easter season the candle should be kept with honor in the baptistry, so that in the celebration of Baptism the candles of the baptized may be lit from them.

In the celebration of funerals, the paschal candle should be placed near the coffin to indicate that the death of a Christian is his own passover.

The paschal candle should not otherwise be lit nor placed in the sanctuary outside the Easter season.

 

8. Is Easter a pagan holiday?

Absolutely not!

Here’s a video I did on precisely that subject:

 

12 things you need to know about Holy Saturday

On Holy Saturday the earth waits in stillness for the Resurrection of the Lord. Here are 9 things you need to know about it.
On Holy Saturday the earth waits in stillness for the Resurrection of the Lord. Here are 12 things you need to know about it.

Everytime we say the creed, we note that Jesus “descended into hell.”

Holy Saturday is the day that commemorates this event.

What happened on this day, and how do we celebrate it?

Here are 12 things you need to know.

 

1. What happened on the first Holy Saturday?

Here on earth, Jesus’ disciples mourned his death and, since it was a sabbath day, they rested.

Luke notes that the women returned home “and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).

At the tomb, the guards that had been stationed there kept watch over the place to make sure that the disciples did not steal Jesus’ body.

Meanwhile . . .

 

2. What happened to Jesus while he was dead?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” – Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek – because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.

Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:

“It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”

Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

634 “The gospel was preached even to the dead.” The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment.

This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

 

3. How do we commemorate this day?

According to the main document governing the celebrations connected with Easter, Paschales Solemnitatis:

73. On Holy Saturday the Church is, as it were, at the Lord’s tomb, meditating on his passion and death, and on his descent into hell, and awaiting his resurrection with prayer and fasting.

It is highly recommended that on this day the Office of Readings and Morning Prayer be celebrated with the participation of the people (cf. n. 40).

Where this cannot be done, there should be some celebration of the Word of God, or some act of devotion suited to the mystery celebrated this day.

74. The image of Christ crucified or lying in the tomb, or the descent into hell, which mystery Holy Saturday recalls, as also an image of the sorrowful Virgin Mary can be placed in the church for the veneration of the faithful.

Fasting is also encouraged, but not required, on this day.

 

4. Are the sacraments celebrated?

For the most part, no. Paschales Solemnitatis explains:

75. On this day the Church abstains strictly from the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass.

Holy Communion may only be given in the form of Viaticum.

The celebration of marriages is forbidden, as also the celebration of other sacraments, except those of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick.

The prohibition on saying Mass applies to the part of the day before the Easter Vigil Mass (see below).

Baptism in danger of death is also permitted.

 

5. What is the Easter Vigil?

A vigil is the liturgical commemoration of a notable feast, held on the evening preceding the feast.

The term comes from the Latin word vigilia, which means “wakefulness,” and which came to be used when the faithful stayed awake to pray and do devotional exercises in anticipation of the feast.

Easter Vigil is the vigil held on the evening before Easter.

According to Paschales Solemnitatis:

80. From the very outset the Church has celebrated that annual Pasch, which is the solemnity of solemnities, above all by means of a night vigil.

For the resurrection of Christ is the foundation of our faith and hope, and through Baptism and Confirmation we are inserted into the Paschal Mystery of Christ, dying, buried, and raised with him, and with him we shall also reign.

The full meaning of Vigil is a waiting for the coming of the Lord.

 

6. When should Easter Vigil be celebrated?

Paschales Solemnitatis explains:

 78. “The entire celebration of the Easter Vigil takes place at night. It should not begin before nightfall; it should end before daybreak on Sunday.”

This rule is to be taken according to its strictest sense. Reprehensible are those abuses and practices which have crept into many places in violation of this ruling, whereby the Easter Vigil is celebrated at the time of day that it is customary to celebrate anticipated Sunday Masses.

Those reasons which have been advanced in some quarters for the anticipation of the Easter Vigil, such as lack of public order, are not put forward in connection with Christmas night, nor other gatherings of various kinds.

 

7. What happens at the Easter Vigil?

According to Paschales Solemnitatis:

81. The order for the Easter Vigil is arranged so that

  • after the service of light and the Easter Proclamation (which is the first part of the Vigil),
  • Holy Church meditates on the wonderful works which the Lord God wrought for his people from the earliest times (the second part or Liturgy of the Word),
  • to the moment when, together with those new members reborn in Baptism (third part),
  • she is called to the table prepared by the Lord for his Church—the commemoration of his death and resurrection—until he comes (fourth part).

 

8. What happens during the service of light?

According to Paschales Solemnitatis:

82. . . . In so far as possible, a suitable place should be prepared outside the church for the blessing of the new fire, whose flames should be such that they genuinely dispel the darkness and light up the night.

The paschal candle should be prepared, which for effective symbolism must be made of wax, never be artificial, be renewed each year, be only one in number, and be of sufficiently large size so that it may evoke the truth that Christ is the light of the world. It is blessed with the signs and words prescribed in the Missal or by the Conference of Bishops.

83. The procession, by which the people enter the church, should be led by the light of the paschal candle alone. Just as the children of Israel were guided at night by a pillar of fire, so similarly, Christians follow the risen Christ. There is no reason why to each response “Thanks be to God” there should not be added some acclamation in honor of Christ.

The light from the paschal candle should be gradually passed to the candles which it is fitting that all present should hold in their hands, the electric lighting being switched off.

 

9. What happens during the Easter Proclamation?

According to Paschales Solemnitatis:

 84. The deacon makes the Easter Proclamation which tells, by means of a great poetic text, the whole Easter mystery placed in the context of the economy of salvation.

In case of necessity, where there is no deacon, and the celebrating priest is unable to sing it, a cantor may do so.

The Bishops’ Conferences may adapt this proclamation by inserting into it acclamations from the people.

 

10. What happens during the Scripture readings?

According to Paschales Solemnitatis:

85. The readings from Sacred Scripture constitute the second part of the Vigil. They give an account of the outstanding deeds of the history of salvation, which the faithful are helped to meditate calmly upon by the singing of the responsorial psalm, by a silent pause and by the celebrant’s prayer.

The restored Order for the Vigil has seven readings from the Old Testament chosen from the Law and the Prophets, which are in use everywhere according to the most ancient tradition of East and West, and two readings from the New Testament, namely from the Apostle and from the Gospel.

Thus the Church, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets” explains Christ’s Paschal Mystery.

Consequently wherever this is possible, all the readings should be read so that the character of the Easter Vigil, which demands that it be somewhat prolonged, be respected at all costs.

Where, however, pastoral conditions require that the number of readings be reduced, there should be at least three readings from the Old Testament, taken from the Law and the Prophets; the reading from Exodus chapter 14 with its canticle must never be omitted.

87. After the readings from the Old Testament, the hymn “Gloria in excelsis” is sung, the bells are rung in accordance with local custom, the collect is recited, and the celebration moves on to the readings from the New Testament. An exhortation from the Apostle on Baptism as an insertion into Christ’s Paschal Mystery is read.

Then all stand and the priest intones the “Alleluia” three times, each time raising the pitch. The people repeat it after him.

If it is necessary, the psalmist or cantor may sing the “Alleluia,” which the people then take up as an acclamation to be interspersed between the verses of Psalm 117, so often cited by the Apostles in their Easter preaching.

Finally, the resurrection of the Lord is proclaimed from the Gospel as the high point of the whole Liturgy of the Word.

After the Gospel a homily is to be given, no matter how brief.

 

11. What happens during the baptismal liturgy?

According to Paschales Solemnitatis:

88. The third part of the Vigil is the baptismal liturgy. Christ’s passover and ours is now celebrated.

This is given full expression in those churches which have a baptismal font, and more so when the Christian initiation of adults is held, or at least the Baptism of infants.

Even if there are no candidates for Baptism, the blessing of baptismal water should still take place in parish churches. If this blessing does not take place at the baptismal font, but in the sanctuary, baptismal water should be carried afterwards to the baptistry there to be kept throughout the whole of paschal time.

Where there are neither candidates for Baptism nor any need to bless the font, Baptism should be commemorated by the blessing of water destined for sprinkling upon the people.

89. Next follows the renewal of baptismal promises, introduced by some words on the part of the celebrating priest.

The faithful reply to the questions put to them, standing and holding lighted candles in their hands. They are then sprinkled with water: in this way the gestures and words remind them of the Baptism they have received.

The celebrating priest sprinkles the people by passing through the main part of the church while all sing the antiphon “Vidi aquam” or another suitable song of a baptismal character.

 

12. What happens during the Eucharistic liturgy?

According to Paschales Solemnitatis:

90. The celebration of the Eucharist forms the fourth part of the Vigil and marks its high point, for it is in the fullest sense the Easter Sacrament, that is to say, the commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross and the presence of the risen Christ, the completion of Christian initiation, and the foretaste of the eternal pasch.

92. It is fitting that in the Communion of the Easter Vigil full expression be given to the symbolism of the Eucharist, namely by consuming the Eucharist under the species of both bread and wine. The local Ordinaries will consider the appropriateness of such a concession and its ramifications.

9 things you need to know about Good Friday

If Jesus died on the cross in A.D. 33 and made forgiveness possible, how does that apply to people who lived before or after this event? (Like us!)

Good Friday is the most somber day of the Christian year.

It is the day our Savior died for us.

It is the day we were redeemed from our sins by the voluntary death of God Himself at the hands of man.

Here are 9 things you need to know.

 

1. Why is this day called “Good Friday”

It’s not for the reason you might think.

Despite the fact that “good” is a common English word, tempting us to say the name is based on the fact that something very good (our redemption) happened on this day, that’s not where the name comes from.

Precisely where it does come from is disputed. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

The origin of the term Good is not clear. Some say it is from “God’s Friday” (Gottes Freitag); others maintain that it is from the German Gute Freitag, and not speciallyEnglish.

It is also argued that the name is based on a Medieval use of the word good where it meant “holy.” Thus “Good Friday” would have come from “Holy Friday,” the same way we have Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday.

 

2. What happened on the first Good Friday?

Quite a number of things. During the night, Jesus had been arrested and taken before the high priests Annas and Caiaphas. It was during this time that Peter denied him.

According to the gospels, Jesus:

  • Was taken before Pilate in the morning
  • Sent to Herod
  • Returned to Pilate
  • Was mocked and beaten
  • Saw Barabbas released in his stead
  • Was crowned with thorns
  • Was condemned to death
  • Carried the crushing burden of his cross
  • Told the weeping women what would happen in the future
  • Was crucified between two thieves
  • Forgave those who crucified him
  • Entrusted the Virgin Mary to the beloved disciple
  • Assured the good thief of his salvation
  • Said his famous seven last words
  • Cried out and died

In addition:

  • There was darkness over the land
  • There was an earthquake
  • The veil of the temple was torn in two
  • Many saints of the Old Testament period were raised
  • A soldier pierced Christ’s side and blood and water flowed out
  • Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus went to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body
  • He was buried in Joseph’s own tomb
  • A guard was set over the tomb
  • All Jesus’ friends and family grieved at his death

If you’d like to read the gospel accounts themselves, you can use these links:

 

3. How do we celebrate Good Friday today?

According to the main document governing the celebrations connected with Easter, Paschales Solemnitatis:

58. On this day, when “Christ our passover was sacrificed,” the Church:

  • meditates on the passion of her Lord and Spouse,
  • adores the cross,
  • commemorates her origin from the side of Christ asleep on the cross,
  • and intercedes for the salvation of the whole world.

 

4. Are fast and abstinence required on Good Friday?

Yes. Paschales Solemnitatis notes:

60. Good Friday is a day of penance to be observed as of obligation in the whole Church, and indeed through abstinence and fasting.

For more information on the requirement of fast and abstinence, you should click here.

 

5. Are the sacraments celebrated on Good Friday?

For the most part, no. Good Friday is the only day of the year on which the celebration of Mass is forbidden.

Paschales Solemnitatis notes:

59. On this day, in accordance with ancient tradition, the Church does not celebrate the Eucharist.

Holy Communion is distributed to the faithful during the Celebration of the Lord’s Passion alone, though it may be brought at any time of the day to the sick who cannot take part in the celebration.

61. All celebration of the sacraments on this day is strictly prohibited, except for the sacraments of Penance and Anointing of the Sick.

Funerals are to be celebrated without singing, music, or the tolling of bells.

Baptism in danger of death is also permitted.

 

6. What liturgical celebrations occur on this day?

The principal one is known as the Celebration of the Lord’s Passion. It includes:

  • A liturgy of the word
  • The adoration of the cross
  • A Communion service using hosts already consecrated.

Paschales Solemnitatis notes:

63. The Celebration of the Lord’s Passion is to take place in the afternoon, at about three o’clock.

The time will be chosen which seems most appropriate for pastoral reasons in order to allow the people to assemble more easily, for example shortly after midday, or in the late evening, however not later than nine o’clock.

 

7. How is the cross venerated?

Paschales Solemnitatis notes:

68. For veneration of the cross, let a cross be used that is of appropriate size and beauty, and let one of the forms for this rite as found in the Roman Missal be followed.

The rite should be carried out with the splendor worthy of the mystery of our salvation: both the invitation pronounced at the unveiling of the cross, and the people’s response should be made in song, and a period of respectful silence is to be observed after each act of veneration—the celebrant standing and holding the raised cross.

69. The cross is to be presented to each of the faithful individually for their adoration since the personal adoration of the cross is a most important feature in this celebration; only when necessitated by the large numbers of faithful present should the rite of veneration be made simultaneously by all present.

Only one cross should be used for the veneration, as this contributes to the full symbolism of the rite.

During the veneration of the cross the antiphons, “Reproaches,” and hymns should be sung, so that the history of salvation be commemorated through song. Other appropriate songs may also be sung (cf. n. 42).

 

8. What happens after the Celebration of the Lord’s Passion?

Paschales Solemnitatis notes:

71. After the celebration, the altar is stripped; the cross remains however, with four candles.

An appropriate place (for example, the chapel of repose used for reservation of the Eucharist on Maundy Thursday) can be prepared within the church, and there the Lord’s cross is placed so that the faithful may venerate and kiss it, and spend some time in meditation.

 

9. Are other devotions appropriate to Good Friday?

Paschales Solemnitatis notes:

72. Devotions such as the “Way of the Cross,” processions of the passion, and commemorations of the sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary are not, for pastoral reasons, to be neglected.

The texts and songs used, however, should be adapted to the spirit of the Liturgy of this day.

Such devotions should be assigned to a time of day that makes it quite clear that the Liturgical celebration by its very nature far surpasses them in importance.