Does this piece of papyrus prove that Jesus had a wife?
The New York Times is carrying a story of a scholar who has a piece of papyrus which refers to Jesus having a wife.
She’s even dubbed it “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.”
Isn’t that “special.”
Does this mean that Dan Brown was right all along? That Jesus was married? To Mary Magdalen even?
Are we going to have to deal with all that nonsense again?
Before things get too far out of hand, let’s take a look at this issue and what it means . . .
The Basic Facts
According to the NYT:
A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …’ ”
The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”
The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.
The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous [Source].
Okay, let’s stop right there. That leads to the very first question . . .
The ancient world was very far from being politically correct by modern standards, and as a result, the Bible contains passages that seem politically incorrect today.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, St. Paul seems to suggest that women should be totally silent in church.
Is this true?
If so, how do we square it with the practice of the Church today?
I would appreciate your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This is difficult to address in front of a group of women.
I understand the difficulty.
Reading the Passage Itself
Let’s begin by looking at what the passage says, with a bit of the immediate context:
1 Corinthians 14
[33b] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
[37] If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
[38] If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
The immediate context does not, in this case, make things easier. It actually seems to make them harder.
St. Paul appears to “up the ante” by saying that this is a commandment from the Lord (Jesus himself), and that anyone who rejects this view should have his view rejected.
But perhaps the broader context of St. Paul’s thought may put things in a different light.
And, in fact, it does. Even just a few chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul indicates that women do not have to remain literally silent in church . . .
One of the distinctive Protestant principles is expressed in the slogan sola scriptura, which is Latin for “by Scripture only.” The idea is that every teaching on faith or morals must be directly or indirectly based on the Scriptures.
That leads to the common question, “Where’s that in the Bible?”
It’s an important question. In fact, it’s a question that needs to be asked about the doctrine of sola scriptura itself. Because if every teaching on faith or morals has to be based on the Bible then sola scriptura must be based on the Bible.
If it’s not, then it is a self-refuting claim and is false.
So what passages do Protestant Christians appeal to in support of sola scriptura?
Berean Christianity!
One that is sometimes cited is Acts 17, which deals with an incident that happened when St. Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue in the Greek city of Berea.
St. Luke writes:
Acts 17
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Many in the Protestant community have found this an inspiring story, and some have even named their ministries after the Berean Jews. If you go online you can find all kinds of Berean churches, schools, ministries, and bookstores.
The idea is that we should imitate the Berean Jews and take a skeptical attitude of theological ideas we are presented with. Instead of just accepting them, we should search the Scriptures daily to see if what we are being told is true or not. If it’s not, then we should not accept it.
If that’s what the passage means—if it is commending the Bereans for their skeptical attitude and refusal to believe a teaching unless it can be found in Scripture—then this would be good evidence for sola scriptura.
But that’s not what it means, and it’s easy to show that.
What About Thessalonica?
You’ll notice that Acts 17:11 says that the Berean Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, which raises an immediate question: “What were the Thessalonian Jews like?”
If they are less noble in contrast to the skeptical Bereans, presumably they were credulous individuals who accepted what they were told without Scriptural proof.
That’s not what they were like at all. To see this, let’s back up to the beginning of the chapter, where we read:
Acts 17
[1] Now when [Paul and his companions] had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
[2] And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,
[3] explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
[4] And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.
[5] But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also,
[7] and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”
[8] And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this.
[9] And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
[10] The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
It’s in that context that we now return to the verse where we started:
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
The Real Reason the Bereans Were Praised?
So the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question.
Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
This understanding is confirmed by the following verses, where we read:
[12] Many of [the Bereans] therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
[13] But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroea also, they came there too, stirring up and inciting the crowds.
[14] Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there.
So the Thessalonians forced Paul to flee Berea, just as they had forced him to flee from their own town.
Thus it wasn’t the Bereans who were skeptical. It was the Thessalonians.
“By the Old Testament Alone?”
There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament.
What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.”
While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith.
What the Berean Jews were willing to do, therefore, was to open-mindedly look at the Old Testament Scriptures, see if they confirmed Paul’s preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, and then go on to accept the new, Christian revelation that Paul also imparted.
And he imparted it by preaching, because the books of the New Testament were not all written yet.
The True Attitude of Berean and Thessalonian Christians
If we were to follow the example of the Bereans, we would look at whether the Scriptures we do have support a particular message and, if they do, then be willing to accept further revelation not found in those Scriptures.
We would, ironically, embrace the attitude of those at Thessalonica who did accept the Christian faith, for in 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul told them:
2 Thessialonians 2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
In other words, we would recognize the authority of all of the traditions passed on from Christ and the apostles, whether they were written or not.
And this is what the Catholic Church says we should do.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about these and other matters, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out fascinating information on a variety of topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign up form:
The Virgin of Guadalupe displays the sun, moon, and stars symbolism of the Woman of Revelation 12
The book of Revelation contains a passage in which St. John sees a great sign in the sky. He wrote:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne [Rev. 12:1, 5].
Who is this mysterious Woman clothed in the sun?
In the following video–and the accompanying audio (see the bottom of the post)–we explore that question and look at different theories that have been proposed.
In particular, we look at the view advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, both in his personal writing and in his teaching as pope.
The answer may surprise you!
Is She the Virgin Mary?
Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. That’s a reference to the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2, where we read:
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron [Ps. 2:8-9].
Jesus fulfilled this Messianic prophecy.
The fact that the male child is caught up to the throne of God is a reference to Jesus’ Ascension into heaven, so we have another confirmation that the male child is Jesus.
And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.
But there is more to the story.
Is She Israel . . . or the Church?
The symbolism connected with the Woman is drawn from the book of Genesis, where the patriarch Joseph has a dream involving the sun, the moon, and the stars.
Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”
But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him, and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?” [Gen. 37:9-10].
The symbolism of the sun, moon, and twelve stars comes from Genesis, where it refers to the family of Jacob and the twelve patriarchs, who headed the twelve tribes of Israel.
That has led some to say that the Woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.
You could go further and note that the Church is the spiritual Israel. So some have suggested that the Woman as the Church.
Figuring out Which View is True
Which view is true?
Is the Woman Mary?
Is the Woman Israel?
Is the Woman the Church?
You could try to solve this problem by making some of the symbols primary and some secondary.
For example, you could make the Woman’s role as the mother of Jesus primary, so she’s his literal mother, Mary, and the sun, moon, and stars imagery only means that Mary was a Jewish woman.
Or you could make the sun, moon, and stars imagery primary and say that she’s Israel, and the fact that Mary was the particular Jewish woman who gave birth to Jesus is secondary.
Either/Or Vs. Both/And
We don’t have to make that choice, because if you study the way symbolism is used in the book of Revelation, it often uses a single symbol points to more than one thing.
For example, Revelation 17 tells us what the seven heads of the beast represents:
This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the [Whore of Babylon] is seated; they are also seven kings (Rev. 17:9-10).
If the seven heads can be seven mountains and seven kings then the Woman clothed with the sun might be the Virgin Mary and Israel and the Church.
Pope Benedict’s View
That’s what Pope Benedict suggests. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, volume 2, he writes:
When the Book of Revelation speaks of the great sign of a Woman appearing in heaven, she is understood to represent all Israel, indeed, the whole Church. . . .
On the basis of the “corporate personality” model—in keeping with biblical thought—the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the Woman, on the one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time, the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into history [Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 2:222].
On another occasion, Pope Benedict said:
This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ ever anew [General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].
As Pope Benedict shows us, we don’t have to make a forced choice between the possible meanings of what the Woman represents.
In keeping with the richness of the way Revelation uses symbolism, to use Pope Benedict’s phrases, she can be Mary and “all Israel” and “the whole Church” in different ways.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
The very first thing you’ll get is a free “interview” with Pope Benedict where I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings.
He has lots of interesting things to say!
You’ll also get lots of additional information on fascinating topics, absolutely FREE, so you should join now using this handy form:
Is everything in the Bible historical? What do the teachings of Jesus reveal?
Everything in the Bible is historical in the sense that it was written in historical times. The Bible is a small library of literature that was written over the course of about 1,000 years–a period that ended nearly 2,000 years ago. So the biblical books are historical documents in that sense.
But what about the content of the biblical books? If you open up the Bible to a random passage, does that mean what you are reading is automatically history?
An Obvious No
In one sense, the answer is an obvious no. Not all books in Scripture are trying to recount historical events.
The Gospels are. The Acts of the Apostles is. Many books of the Old Testament are. But relating history is not the purpose of other books.
For example: the epistles of St. Paul or the epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. These are concerned with building people’s faith, but they aren’t narratives. They don’t tell the story of what happened in a particular period in history the way that Matthew, Acts, or 1 Kings does.
We can learn certain historical facts from them, but these historical items are things mentioned in passing, not the principal purpose of the epistles.
Similarly, in the Old Testament we find books like Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. These also may make passing references that are of value to historians, but they aren’t intended to tell us the story of particular historical periods.
What About Prophecy?
What about the prophetical books? Don’t these tell us about history?
Yes, but they also are not straightforward historical texts.
The book of Revelation contains information about both the beginning and the end of Church history, and so it relates to history in a definite way.
The Old Testament prophetical books contain material that relates to the events of their own day, to times soon after, to the time of Christ, and to the end of the world, so they also relate to history.
But they convey this material in advance and through symbols. That makes them different than straightforward historical records.
The Example of the Gospels
Consider just the Gospels. These books are historical in the sense that they relate what Jesus did during his earthly ministry. But they also contain Jesus’ teachings. While these were given at a certain point in history, they aren’t about history. Jesus was not serving as a history professor. The content of his teachings deal with God and our relationship with him.
Consider in particular Jesus’ parables. These are lessons that communicate theological truths in an allegorical way.
When Jesus says, “A man left on a journey,” or “A sower went out to sow,” or “There was a man who had two sons,” he is not intending to tell us about about particular historical events. It would be a mistake, when told about the man with two sons, to ask, “What were their names?”
Instead, Jesus is using allegory told in the form of a story to reveal a spiritual truth. The parables thus show us something very significant . . .
A Story Is Not Enough
The fact we are reading a story in the Bible does not automatically mean that we are reading history.
Jesus’ parables contain stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, but Jesus is not intending to tell us about a specific historical event that really happened.
That means that when we read a story in the Bible, we must examine it to see whether it is meant to be a historical account or something else. We must look to the cues it gives the audience to signal what kind of account it is.
Taking Your Cues from the Text
It is notable that, in his parables, Jesus almost never names anyone involved in the story. (The only exception is Lazarus in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.) Instead, he leaves the principal figures anonymous: a king, a master, a son, a servant.
That is one of the conventions Jesus uses to tell us that what we are reading is a parable rather than a historical narrative. But this is not the only way that the Bible signals something other than history.
Another signal is obvious symbolism. If you open the Bible to certain prophetic passages, you will find passages in describing monsters–dragons, wild beasts that combine the features of different animals, things with many heads.
This kind of obvious symbolism can also serve as an indicator that what you are reading isn’t straightforward history but something else.
Subtler Cases
Jesus’ parables and the prophetic texts are obvious cases that contain cues which even people today, raised in a totally different culture, can pick up on. But there are texts in the Bible that use cues subtle enough that it is easy for people today to miss them.
Consider this: Suppose we took the parable of the Prodigal Son and gave names to the characters. Suppose we added the name of the village where they lived–a real village. Suppose we even said the year in which the events took place (according to the ancient way of reckoning years). What would we make of the story then?
We might well conclude that Jesus was telling us about an actual historical event.
There might be cues in the tales that would signal their allegorical nature, but in the absence of the familiar cues of nameless characters in a nameless place at a nameless time, we might mistake what we were reading for straightforward history.
So here’s something interesting to think about: If, within the Gospels, Jesus told short allegories that could be taken as historical accounts if a few details were supplied, could God inspire an entire book–not just part of a book–that is an allegory? Could he even supply names, dates, and places, trusting the ancient audience to recognize the allegorical nature of the text where we might miss it?
And not just could God do this, but has God done this?
John Paul II was of the opinion that he has.
John Paul II on Allegorical Books of the Bible
He didn’t give an exhaustive list of allegorical books (many would put the book of Job into that category), but in 1985 John Paul II gave a brief review of the books of the Old Testament in which he stated:
The Books of Tobit, Judith, and Esther, although dealing with the history of the Chosen People, have the character of allegorical and moral narrative rather than history properly so called [General Audience, May 8, 1985].
Why would he say this?
Tobit, Judith, and Esther all contain named figures–some of whom are known to history. They mention real places. And they refer to datable events. So why would he say they are allegorical rather than history proper? What cues in the text would reveal that?
In coming posts, we’ll take a look at that, and it will give us a chance to learn some interesting things about the Bible.
In the meantime, though, allow me to mention . . .
Pope Benedict’s Recommended Reading
Would you like a book recommendation from the pope?
Like many of us, Pope Benedict takes a vacation in the summer to rest, recuperate, and catch up on projects.
Like the rest of us, he finds himself looking for things he can profitably read during this time.
So does Pope Benedict have any thoughts about what people might profitably read during this time?
He does.
That’s why I’ve prepared a special “interview” with Pope Benedict on just this subject that I’ll be sending to members of the Secret Information Club on Saturday, August 18th.
To find out what Pope Benedict recommends for summer reading (and it’s not big heavy theological works but stuff anybody can read–sometimes in an hour or less), sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy form:
If Moses and Elijah were present in the Transfiguration, why don't we call them saints?
Recently I received the question: “Why don’t we call Moses and Elijah ‘Saint'”?
In other words: Why aren’t they referred to as St. Moses and St. Elijah?
Evidence for Sainthood
After all, we have it on pretty good authority that they are holy and in heaven.
Both Old and New Testament attest to the holiness of both individuals. We have a clear indication that Elijah was taken directly into heaven, without dying, and while Moses did die, there’s no serious doubt about his making it to heaven (at least after heaven was generally opened to the righteous of the Old Testament).
Most impressively, both Moses and Elijah get to appear with Jesus in the Transfiguration.
That’s kind of a giveaway.
So why don’t we call them saints?
Old Testament Saints in General
A basic answer would be that we tend not to use the honorific “Saint” for human beings who lived in the Old Testament period.
We do use it for angels we read about in the Old Testament–St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael–but not human beings.
That is probably just an artifact of how the term “Saint” evolved. Originally it was an adjective, meaning “holy” (Latin, sanctus). People started prefixing it to the names of notably holy individuals (holy Peter, holy Paul), and eventually it came to be used as an honorific–like “Mister” or “Doctor” (thus St. Peter, St. Paul).
But for whatever reason, people tended not to do this for Old Testament figures.
Perhaps this was because holy figures of the Old Testament were thought to already be sufficiently hallowed by their inclusion in Scripture–although that would not explain why the apostles and other New Testament figures got the title “Saint.”
More likely, Old Testament figures were seen as less directly relevant as examples to Christians, because they lived before the Christian age. Those living in the Christian age, like the apostles and later saints, are more like us and thus more direct examples for us in a certain sense.
However that may be, Old Testament figures were generally not called “Saint.”
But sometimes they were. . . .
Meet St. Moses and St. Elijah
The Latin Church maintains an official list of saints and blesseds known as the Roman Martyrology, and it actually lists some humans from the Old Testament, including Moses and Elijah.
On Mount Carmel, [was the departure of] the holy prophet Elijah.
Latin or English?
The Roman Martyrology, of course, is in Latin, and the translation offered above is accomodated to standard English usage, which avoids using “Saint” for Moses and Elijah. The Latin original is a bit different.
Here is the Latin for these two entries, along with a more word-for-word translation:
In monte Nebo, terræ Moab, sancti Móysis, legislatóris et Prophétæ.
On Mt. Nebo, of the land of Moab, [was the death] of saint Moses, lawgiver and Prophet.
In monte Carmélo sancti Elíæ Prophétæ.
On Mt. Carmel [was the departure] of saint Elijah the Prophet.
This is the same construction that is used to report the deaths of other saints in the Matyrology. For example, a bit later on September 4th, we read:
Tréviris sancti Marcélli, Epíscopi et Mártyris.
Which would be:
At Treves [was the death] of saint Marcellus, Bishop and Martyr.
You might note that the term “saint” is lower-case in the Latin, and you might argue from that that it should be translated as an adjective–“holy”–but the point is that the Martyrology is applying to Moses and Elijah the same terminology that it applies to other saints.
It’s listing them in the same way, despite the fact that they’re Old Testament figures.
And then there’s this . . .
Meet Mar Musa and Mar Elia
English and Latin aren’t the only two languages in the Church, and the Latin Church isn’t the only body in union with the pope. Consider, for example, the Chaldean Church, which is one of the Eastern Catholic churches.
It uses a dialect of Aramaic as its liturgical language, and it refers to Moses and Elijah as saints, using the standard Aramatic term fors “saint”–“mar”–as a title for both of them.
They are referred to as “Mar Musa” (St. Moses) and “Mar Elia” (St. Elijah).
You will find various Chaldean institutions, like churches and monasteries, named after them the same way you find them named after other saints.
And Mar Musa and Mar Elia don’t just have particular days celebrating them on the Chaldean liturgical calendar. They actually have liturgical seasonsdevoted to them.
I should note that the term “mar” also has other meanings. Its root meaning is “lord.” And you can see it in the term “maranatha” (Marana tha = “Our Lord, come!”).
By extension it also is used as a title for saints, as with Mar Musa, Mar Elia, and all the other saints honored in the Chaldean Church.
Finally, it is also used as a title for bishops, but nobody is under the impression that Moses and Elijah were bishops.
We thus have to be a bit careful about who the “we” is when we ask why we don’t refer to Moses and Elijah as saints.
Some of us do, because the practice can vary from one language to another and from one Catholic rite to another.
Anyone starting to read the Bible for the first time quickly encounters a frustration: Why are these books, which have strange sounding names, organized this way?
It seems maddening. They aren’t organized in any familiar way. It’s not alphabetical. It’s not chronological. It’s not topical. It’s not by author. It’s not any familiar way of organizing books.
Actually, and even more maddeningly, the organization seems to change at different times between chronology, topic, and author, but it won’t stick to any one scheme. And then there are sequences that just seem mystifying.
But there is a hidden plan within the Bible’s Table of Contents. So let’s take a look at why they are organized the way they are.
Here we will look at how the New Testament books are organized.
The Biggest Division
The biggest organizational division in the New Testament is between those books that are of a historical nature–meaning, the have recording historical events as their primary purpose–and those books that don’t.
Into the first category are the Gospels and the book of Acts and into the second category go everything else.
The historical books are placed first in the New Testament because they describe the founding of the Christian faith. All of the other books, which are written in the form of letters, are placed afterward, so that if you are reading your way through the New Testament you will be able to better understand them after you’ve learned about the foundational events of the faith. Plunging into the letters (epistles) without a grounding in the gospel story would be regarded as a serious mistake.
The Historical Books
Among the historical books, the Gospels come first, because they deal with the beginning of the Christian story–the life of Jesus Christ, his ministry, and his death and resurrection.
The book of Acts comes later, because it deals with later historical events, focusing on what happened after the earthly ministry of Christ.
The Order of the Gospels
St. Augustine of Hippo
Within the Gospels, why are they placed in the order they are?
The basic reason is that this is the order that, for much of Church history, this is the order people thought they were written in. In his Harmony of the Gospels, St. Augustine explains:
Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four—it may be for the simple reason that there are four divisions of that world through the universal length of which they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the advancing extension of the Church of Christ—are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John Harmony of the Gospels I:2:3).
This opinion was not universal in the early Church. Indeed, Eusebius reports concerning Clement of Alexandria:
The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e., Matthew and Luke], he says, were written first [Ecclesiastical History: 6:14:6].
Clement lived earlier than Augustine, and so his represents earlier testimony, but it was Augustine’s opinion that came to dominate.
Most modern scholars think that the order in which the Gospels were composed was actually different, but that discussion would take us too far afield.
For now suffice it to say that the reason the Gospels are organized the way that they are was because that was historically the dominant view of the order in which they were written.
The Epistles
All of the books after Acts are written in the form of letters, which means that they technically qualify as epistles. How are these organized?
For the most part, they are organized by author, like this:
The ones attributed to Paul
The one attributed to James
The ones attributed to Peter
The ones attributed to John
The one attributed to Jude
The book of Revelation
You’ll notice that Revelation is separated from the epistles attributed to John. You could explain this by the fact that Revelation deals (in part) with the end of the world, making it a fitting end piece for the Bible, but that’s not the whole story.
It would not explain why Jude comes directly before Revelation, separating it from the other epistles of John. Why not just put Jude before the epistles of John and letting them lead directly into Revelation?
The reason seems to have to do with the order in which the books became popularly received by churches in different areas. Revelation, like a few other books toward the end of the New Testament, was not immediately received as Scripture by everyone, everywhere. Some had doubts about it, and it took a while for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church as a whole into recognizing its inspiration.
Things that people were less sure of tended to get put toward the back of whatever collection they were being included in, with the more certain works first. That’s a phenomenon we’ll see again.
The Epistles of Paul
St. Paul: Most Prolific New Testament Author
Why do St. Paul’s epistles come first, right after the book of Acts? It’s because he wrote more epistles than anyone else. The other writers penned fewer, and so theirs go later.
Okay, but why are Paul’s epistles arranged the way they are?
The basic division is between those he wrote to churches (Romans through 2 Thessalonians) and those he wrote to individuals (1 Timothy through Philemon), with the book of Hebrews added on at the end.
Why is Hebrews at the end? Because some disputed its scriptural status early on and, as we said before, things that people were less certain of tended to get put in the back of the collection.
Eventually the Church was convinced of the canonicity of Hebrews, and it was included among St. Paul’s writings because it has some similarities to his thought and because the dominant view came to be that he was the one who wrote it. (More recent scholars, including Pope Benedict, think it was written by someone else, but it is still sacred and canonical.)
That explains Hebrews, but what about the epistles to the churches and those to individuals? Why are these two collections organized the way they are?
Believe it or not: Size.
It’s the length of the book that determines where it goes in the collection. The longest ones go first and the shortest last. There are other collections of ancient works organized like that, too. It was a somewhat common way of organizing things in antiquity.
Here are the books with the number of words they contain in the Greek New Testament:
Romans: 7,111
1 Corinthians: 6,829
2 Corinthians: 4,477
Galatians: 2,230
Ephesians: 2,422
Philippians: 1,629
Colossians: 1,582
1 Thessalonians: 1,481
2 Thessalonians: 823
There’s a bit of a hiccup in the pattern with Ephesians coming after Galatians, but size is still the overall criterion. The same applies to the epistles written to individuals:
1 Timothy: 1,591
2 Timothy: 1,238
Titus: 659
Philemon: 335
The Catholic Epistles
Some Mystery Remains
The Catholic epistles make up the remainder of the New Testament (excepting Revelation, which we’ve already covered).
In different periods of Church history these were arranged several different ways, but the current order is largely dominated by length–just like St. Paul’s epistles–only with individual collections being kept together by author. Here’s the breakdown:
James: 1,742
1 Peter: 1,684
2 Peter: 1,099
1 John: 2,141
2 John: 245
3 John: 219
Jude: 461
The size pattern explains everything here except why 1 John comes after James and Peter instead of first. If the size rule explained everything then you would expect the author collections to be sequenced John (1-3) > James > Peter (1-2) > Jude, but that’s not what we find in a typical modern New Testament.
So . . . there is some mystery after all.
But there’s also more order than at first meets the eye.
Learning More
He has interesting things to say on the Book of Revelation
I’m currently writing a book–titled Secret History of the Bible–which will go into this kind of information and more, revealing fascinating facts that bear on how, when, and by whom the Bible was written.
That’s not out yet, though, so until then you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.
Most scholars today think that the book of Revelation was written around the year A.D. 95, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian.
Historically, though, many thought it was written earlier than that, and there is a surprisingly strong case that the book was written in the late A.D. 60s or the early part of A.D. 70. Let’s take a quick look at the evidence . . .
“Five Are Fallen”
In Revelation 17, John sees a vision of the Whore of Babylon seated on the beast with seven heads, and he is told:
[9] This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated;
[10] they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.
There’s pretty good evidence that the beast represents the Roman empire and that these seven kings represent the line of first century Roman emperors.
Assuming that identification is accurate, that gives us a pretty strong clue about when the book was written. If five of the kings (emperors) are fallen (dead) and one is (living/reigning) then that means Revelation was written during the reign of the sixth emperor. So which would that be?
Here are two possibilities . . .
The Reign of Nero?
The Emperor NeroIf you start the count with Julius Caesar then the sixth emperor would be Nero:
Julius Caesar
Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Nero certainly fits well with the description of the beast that is given in the book (see the two videos), but there is a possible problem: Julius Caesar was not technically an emperor. He was a dictator (meaning: the Roman Senate voted him the title “dictator”–which was an actual political office back then, before the term came to mean “tyrant”), but he wasn’t voted the title “emperor.”
Still, it’s possible that this might not have made a lot of difference from the perspective of first century Jews and Christians.
Technically, the Roman emperors weren’t kings at all (the Romans were very proud of the fact that they had ended the line of Roman kings and set up a republic), but they functioned as kings, and everybody understood that.
This is why the crowd cried “We have no king but Caesar!” during the trial of Jesus.
So if the count starts with Julius then we have reason to think Revelation was written in the reign of Nero, which was between October 13, A.D. 54 and June 9, A.D. 68.
But there’s another possibility that may be even more likely . . .
The Reign of Galba?
The Emperor GalbaThe first person to be voted the title “emperor” was Augustus, and he could well be regarded as the starting point of the count by people all across the empire, including Jews and Christians. If so, then this is what we would get:
Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Galba
I know. You may be saying, “Who?”
Galba isn’t a very famous emperor, and one reason is that he didn’t reign very long. In fact, he reigned only a few months, during a disastrous period known as “the Year of Four Emperors,” in which Rome was torn apart by a series of bloody civil wars in which one emperor toppled another in rapid succession.
But if that’s the case then, since Galba reigned such a short time, we’d actually be able to date the writing of Revelation very precisely.
It would have to be between June 8, A.D. 68 and January 15, A.D. 69. (Galba actually began reigning the day before Nero died, because Nero had been declared an enemy of the state by the Senate and went on the lam before being coerced into committing suicide.)
So it could be that Revelation was written during a very short span in late 68 or (very) early 69.
Is there other evidence that has a bearing on this?
“He must remain only a little while”
The Emperor OthoYou’ll recall that the seventh king was said to remain (reign) only a little while. Does that fit the situation?
Yes. In fact, it fits both of the possibilities we’ve mentioned.
If Nero was reigning then Nero’s successor, Galba, certainly reigned a short time–just barely over 7 months.
If Galba was reigning then, since he was reigning in the Year of Four Emperors, his own successor–Otho–lasted only a short time as well, just 3 months (from January 15 to April 16, A.D. 69).
“Do not measure the court outside the temple”
The Jerusalem Temple, including the broad, outer courtyardBack in Revelation 11, John was told:
[1] Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,
[2] but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.
This passage speaks of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem as if it is still standing.
The text speaks of the gentiles (or nations, same word in Greek) trampling the holy city (Jerusalem) and invading the temple courtyard.
They also invaded and destroyed the temple itself, but the text speaks of this as not having happened yet, since John is told to measure the temple, its altar, and those worshipping there. So it was still functioning.
Since the temple was destroyed on August 5, A.D. 70, that also suggests that Revelation was written before this date.
Learning More
I’m currently writing a book–titled Secret History of the Bible–which will go into this kind of information and more, revealing fascinating facts that bear on how, when, and by whom the Bible was written.
That’s not out just yet though, so until then you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.
The question of whether women need to wear head coverings (mantillas, chapel veils, etc.) at Mass keeps coming up.
With the greater freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy, it poses the question anew, since prior to the current rite of Mass head coverings were required for women.
If a woman is going to an Extraordinary Form Mass, does she have an obligation to wear one, in keeping with the law at the time?
But the question keeps coming up, and with the new twist based on the broadened permission to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, it’s worth looking into again.
So what’s the answer?
Head Coverings at Mass in Canon Law
The requirement that women wear head coverings at Mass was part of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided:
Canon 1262
§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
Notice that this didn’t establish a requirement for any particular form of head covering. It could be a mantilla, a veil, a hat, a scarf, etc.
But when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was released, it provided:
Canon 6
§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
Laws which had been part of the 1917 Code, including canon 1262, thus lost their force and the legal requirement was officially ended. (The custom had already fallen into disuse in many places.)
Since it was the 1917 Code and not the Church’s liturgical documents that established the requirement, it would seem that when the 1917 Code lost its force, the obligation ceased for Latin Rite liturgies in general, regardless of whether they were celebrated according to the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.
But wait . . . what about St. Paul’s mention of them in 1 Corinthians?
Head Coverings in the Bible
If St. Paul’s directive that women wear head coverings were binding today then it would apply to both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Forms (as well as non-Latin Rite liturgies).
However, in 1976 the Congregation for the Faith dealt with the issue and judged that St. Paul’s directive on this point is not binding. In its declaration on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood (Inter Insigniores), the CDF stated:
Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
So it would appear that neither canon law nor the Church’s liturgical books nor Scripture establish a requirement that women today must wear head coverings, at either Ordinary or the Extraordinary Form Masses.
Of course, women are still absolutely free to do so, and doing so can be a beautiful expression of devotion.
Common Sense & the Extraordinary Form
Given the natural expectations of many people at Extraordinary Form Masses, one can see a certain appropriateness to wearing them in that context.
People there would commonly expect the use of head coverings–precisely because there was an obligation in 1962–and not using them could cause puzzlement or consternation.
Still, it would be nice to have some additional insight on Rome’s thinking into this question, which leads us to . . .
Cardinal Burke on Head Coverings & the Extraordinary Form
I was pleased recently when I discovered that Cardinal Burke had addressed this question in a private letter that is now available on the EWTN web site.
This letter does not represent an official ruling, but since Cardinal Burke is head of the Holy See’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, his opinion carries weight and certainly gives insight on the kind of thinking that Rome applies to these issues. So here is what he said on the subject:
The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.
Cardinal Burke thus seems to envision a middle category of “expectation.” Not a legal requirement. And not something that must be fulfilled on pain of sin. But not a matter of complete indifference, either.
That corresponds to my sense as well. At the Ordinary Form there is neither a requirement nor an expectation that head coverings be used, though women are totally free to do so. And at the Extraordinary Form there is and expectation but not a requirement, certainly not one binding on pain of sin, that they be used.
What do you think?
Learning More
By the way, if you’re interested in liturgical matters like this, they are one of the topics I cover in my mailings to the Secret Information Club. If you’re interested, you should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:
If you read some older English translations of the Bible, like the Catholic Douay-Rheims (pub. 1609) or the Protestant King James (pub. 1611) you come across some passages that seem a bit mysterious. For example in the Douay-Rheims, in Psalms 91:11 we read:
But my horn shall be exalted like that of the unicorn.
In the equivalent verse in the King James (Ps. 92:10) we read:
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn.
In reading such passages, you might think, what on earth does that mean? In these cases, the horn is being used as a symbol of strength or vigor. The Psalmist is saying that thanks to God, I’m going to be given a lot of strength and vigor, so praise God.
Fine, but what’s this stuff about unicorns? I, mean does this mean unicorns are real?
In this video we go to the heart of the matter and reveals the startling truth about what the Bible might be referring to in these passages.
We also look at how the word “unicorn” got into these passages in the first place and what ancient but real creature the translators may have been referring to. (Unless you’ve heard this before, it can come as a real surprise.
