Another Voice

POPE LEO XIV

Robert Francis Prevost was born on September 14, 1955, at Mercy Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. His mother, Mildred (née Martínez) Prevost, graduated from DePaul University with a bachelor’s degree in library science in 1947, while his father, Louis Marius Prevost, was a United States Navy veteran of World War II and superintendent of Brookwood School District 167 in Glenwood, Illinois.

Robert Prevost has two older brothers, Louis and John. His father was born to immigrants from Italy and France, while his mother was the daughter of the Haitian-born mixed-race landowner Joseph Martínez and the New Orleans-born Louise Baquiet), a mixed-race Black Creole.

Raised in Dolton, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, Prevost grew up in the parish of St. Mary of the Assumption, where he went to elementary school, sang in the choir, and served as an altar boy. He was known as “Bob” or “Rob” in childhood and to friends. He completed his high school education at St. Augustine Seminary High School, a minor seminary in Holland, Michigan, in 1973. He consistently appeared on the honor roll, served as yearbook editor-in-chief, secretary of the student council, and a member of the National Honor Society.

Prevost’s brother John, who lives in the Chicago area, says that Robert aspired to the priesthood from a young age. In September 1977, Robert joined the Order of Saint Augustine as a novice, at Immaculate Conception Church in the Compton Heights neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri. He took his first vows in September 1978 and solemn vows in August 1981.

Prevost earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in mathematics from Villanova University, an Augustinian university in Pennsylvania. He obtained a Master of Divinity (MDiv) from Catholic Theological Union in Chicago in 1982, also serving as a physics and math teacher at St. Rita of Cascia High School in Chicago during his studies.

In Rome, on June 19, 1982, Robert Prevost was ordained a priest by my friend Archbishop Jean Jadot, about whom I wrote the book Jean Jadot: Paul’s Man in Washington.

Fr. Prevost then earned a Licentiate of Canon Law in 1984, followed by a Doctor of Canon Law degree in 1987 from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Known as the Angelicum, the Dominican university embraces academic freedom, but its traditional Thomistic philosophy has given it a generally conservative orientation. Prevost’s doctoral thesis was titled “The Role of the Local Prior in the Order of Saint Augustine.”

In 1987, after obtaining his doctorate in church law, Robert Prevost was appointed vocation director and missions director for the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel in Olympia Fields, Illinois. Shortly thereafter he went to Peru in 1988.

In Peru Prevost spent a decade heading the Augustinian seminary in Trujillo, Peru, teaching canon law in the diocesan seminary, serving as prefect of studies, acting as a judge in the regional ecclesiastical court, and working in parish ministry in the city’s outskirts.

 On November 3, 2014, Pope Francis appointed Prevost to be the apostolic administrator of the Diocese of Chiclayo, Peru. Then on September 26, 2015, he appointed bishop of Chiclayo. Following a diplomatic treaty, Prevost had to become a naturalized Peruvian citizen before becoming bishop. (U.S. citizens can hold citizenship in other countries without losing their U.S. citizenship.)

Within the Episcopal Conference of Peru, Bishop Prevost served on the conference’s permanent council (2018–2020) and was elected president of its Commission for Education and Culture in 2019. He had a private audience with Pope Francis on March 1, 2021, which created much speculation about a new role for him in Chicago or Rome.

In Peru he criticized the political leadership for supporting inhumane political movements. He backed the 2018 campaign led by the Peruvian bishops against pardoning former terrorists. During his time at Chiclayo, however, Prevost was accused of covering up sexual abuse. In 2022, women who had been victims of abuse in 2007 by two priests, said Prevost had failed to investigate their case. The Diocese of Chiclayo, however, said that Prevost had followed proper procedures. In 2024, the victims stated that no full penal canonical investigation occurred, and an article from América Televisión agreed with them that the church’s investigation was not thorough.

In statements to the newspaper La República, Prevost said: “If you are a victim of sexual abuse by a priest, report it.” Journalist Pedro Salinas, who investigated and exposed crimes committed by members of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae highlighted that Prevost always expressed his support for the victims and was one of the most reliable clerical authorities in Peru. The lay society, founded in the 1971 in Lima, Peru, was suppressed by the Vatican in April 2025, following the scandal of abuse and corruption alleged against some of its leaders.

CARDINAL PREVOST: On September 30, 2023, Bishop Robert Prevost was created a cardinal. He played a critical role in evaluating and recommending episcopal candidates worldwide, increasing his visibility within the Catholic Church. In this role, he recommended that the arch conservative U.S. bishop and strong critic of Pope Francis, Joseph Strickland, be removed from his office as bishop of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, in November 2023.

Before the 2025 papal conclave, Prevost was considered a dark horse compared to more prominent candidates. But he was known to be a friend of Pope Francis and a possible compromise candidate. His American nationality was thought to be a stumbling block to his candidacy. Supporters argued that he represented a “dignified middle of the road” candidate.

At 18:08 Central European Time on May 8, 2025, in the fourth round of voting, on the second day of the conclave, Prevost was elected pope, thereby becoming the first American and first Peruvian pope. The day after his election, on May 9, Pope Leo XIV presided at his first Mass as pope in the Sistine Chapel before the assembled College of Cardinals. During the Mass, he spoke of a Church that would act as a “beacon that illuminates the dark nights of this world.”

Taking the name Leo, the new pope was expressing his esteem for Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903). The earlier Pope Leo, who was pope from 1878 to 1903, was the father of modern Catholic social teaching. He called for the church to address social and economic issues, and emphasized the dignity of individuals, the common good, community, and taking care of marginalized individuals. In the midst of the Gilded Age, when America and much of Europe shifted from an agricultural society to an industrial one, Leo XIII defended the rights of workers and said that the church had not just the duty to speak about justice and fairness, but also the responsibility to make sure they happened. He is best remembered for his famous 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum (“Of New Things”).

But it is also important to remember that Pope Leo XIII was theologically conservative. He emphasized, for example, the authority of the Church and kept very traditional views about the role of women and their place in the Church.

I am happy to see an American-born pope.But we do need to observe and see who he is and what he is doing. As we move ahead, the big questions for me are what Pope Leo XIV will do about women’s ordination, support for LGBTQIA+ people, and a genuine openness to contemporary theological exploration and doctrinal change and development.

In any event, I conclude this week’s reflection with hopeful words from the new Bishop of Rome:

I don’t come to offer you perfect faith.

I come to tell you that faith is a walk with stones, puddles, and unexpected hugs.

I’m not asking you to believe in everything.

I’m asking you not to close the door. Give a chance to the God who waits for you without judgment.

I’m just a priest who saw God in the smile of a woman who lost her son… and yet she cooked for others. That changed me.

So if you’re broken, if you don’t believe, if you’re tired of the lies…

come anyway. With your anger, your doubt, your dirty backpack.

No one here will ask you for a VIP card. Because this Church, as long as I breathe, will be a home for the homeless, and a rest for the weary.”

 

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

 

 

During my “Easter vacation” I did a lot of thinking about God. Ok, not so unusual for an old theologian. But I re-read an excellent book by my friend William Joseph An Evolutionary Biography of God. The focus of his book is to arrive at a mature and adult understanding of God that can equip us to flourish in the twenty-first century. I strongly recommend it.

Perspectives on God are important. In Genesis, first book of the Hebrew Bible, we read that God created humanity “in God’s own image.” (Genesis 1:27) But periodically over the years, some people have re-made their image of God in their own image and likeness.

I don’t understand God as a vindictive and hard-nosed authoritarian: a God who even had to have his own Son brutally sacrificed. Did God really want and demand that Jesus suffer terrible torture and death on the cross? In the New Testament, such an understanding of God does not resonate with the historical Jesus’ understanding of God, as his loving Father. A loving parent does not demand the torturous suffering and death of a son or daughter.

Unfortunately, some medieval Christian theologians did have distorted authoritarian notions about God, and they passed them on to future generations. Anselm (1033 – 1109) of Canterbury is a good example. He was a theologian and the Archbishop of Canterbury for sixteen years. Unfortunately, Anselm did not have a very benevolent understanding of God. He saw God as a nard-nosed judge and stern taskmaster. 

Anselm believed that human sin and human disobedience to God, going back to the Adam and Eve account, had defrauded God of the honor that God was due. That offense to God’s honor had to be compensated for and repaired. God, Anselm said, could only be satisfied by having a being of infinite greatness, God’s very own Son, acting as a human, repay the debt owed to God and thereby satisfy the injury to God’s honor. In other words, God would only be happy when God’s own Son was tortured and suffered a cruel death. Strange. What an image of God.

Anselm was made a “saint” and unfortunately many later Christians inherited Anselm’s theological distortions about Jesus and about God. Catholic theology called it the “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.”

Anselm’s vision of God was distorted. Jesus and early Christians clearly understood God as loving and kind. That is essential. That is where we begin. As my Nijmegen theological mentor, the Belgian Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009), often said: “Christianity began with an experience, an encounter with Jesus of Nazareth, which caused people to discover new meaning and to direct their lives in a new direction.” That new meaning and direction was anchored in forgiveness, compassion, mutual support, and collaboration.

Today, unlike “back then,” we are very empirical. Some contemporary people, who should read William Joseph’s book, still suggest that “science and God do not connect.” In fact, however, there have been notable scientists of the 20th century, like Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Max Planck (1858-1947, Max Born (1882-1970, and others, who were very open to an understanding of God in their concepts of life, the universe, and human beings.

The Anglo-American mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) developed a metaphysical creativity framework for his scientific study. He suggested that God’s own process of continually emerging into reality serves as the “divine lure” that guides and sustains everything else in creation. 

The American philosopher Charles Hartshorn (1897 – 2000) and the American  theologians Bernard M. Loomer (1912 – 1985), longtime Dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School, and David Ray Griffin (1939-2022), who co-founded the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology, paved the way to what would become know as “process theology.” They understood God as omnipresent and immanent in such a way as to be intricately related to and bound up with a continually evolving creation. Many process thinkers argue that the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881 – 1955) should be included among process theologians. Many contemporary Protestant and Catholic theologians resonate with “process theology.”

Our earth, our universe, and humanity are very much in process: still evolving. I see natural disasters as part of our earth in process but also very much a part of human responsibility or irresponsibility. Climate change, for instance, is our responsibility. Earthquakes and tsunamis are often part of our earth still in process. Although, even with earthquakes, we now know some have had human origins. A database created by geophysicists at Durham and Newcastle Universities in the United Kingdom, has tracked down 730 cases of human-made earthquakes over the last 150 years. The primary causes have been mining, heavy water locked behind reservoir dams, and conventional oil and gas extraction.

So where does prayer fit into this process perspective? The clear message of the Incarnation is that the Divine Presence is here, with us, and with all of creation. God is not simply “out there” in some far-off realm.

Over the centuries, the understanding of prayer has often been somewhat narrow. Too often people have seen prayer as just an action, a behavior, a recitation, or participating in a gathering where God and Jesus are mentioned. In all religious traditions there are indeed people who appear to say lots of prayers and yet live very self-centered lives rooted in hatred, racism, and even terrorism.

Prayer first of all refers to an inner state, a state of consciousness, a loving union with God. I do pray. In good times and bad times. In prayer I express my concern for family members and friends who are going through difficult days. In my prayer I try, as well, to travel faithfully with the loving God, even when I don’t understand the twists and turns in life: in the lives of my friends, and in my own life. And I realize that my understanding of God is very incomplete. My understanding is still in development, in process, even though I know so very well all the classic God doctrines.

The Jesuit philosopher and theologian Karl Rahner (1904 – 1984) stressed that people do not come to know God by solving doctrinal conundrums, proving God’s existence or engaging in an abstruse metaphysical quest. Rahner stressed the importance of Divine mystery as very simply an aspect of our humanity.

Sometimes we must simply live that Mystery, with openness and calm reflection. Sometimes we limit ourselves, relying too much on just rational knowing. That Mystery, which defies description, is God. Religious doctrines can never totally explain or define that Mystery.They are simply symbolic or analogous pointers toward God. When people focus only on the pointers, however, they really miss the point.

Contemporary theologians really do have to ask how we can develop better pointers towards God. We need pointers anchored in all the complex realities and needs of our time, enabling people to believe and deal with human suffering with serenity and courage. Many of us learned about God at about the same time we also learned about the Easter Bunny. As we grew in awareness, our understanding of the Easter Bunny phenomenon evolved and matured. But for many people their religious belief has remained somewhat static and adolescent. 

Divine revelation is not an event that happened once in the past. It is an ongoing and creative process that requires human perception and contemplation. Revelation is a part of reality. We are called to be open, alert, and contemplative. Faith means trust, commitment, and engagement. But too often it is mistakenly understood as an intellectual assent to ecclesiastical propositions.

Today, as science itself says there is so much we still don’t know. It is time perhaps to return to a theology that asserts less and is more open to mystery and calm and reflective exploration. This may not be easy for contemporary people so used to getting instant information with a click on a cellphone or checking their favorite website or social network.

The image of a domineering and controlling God is an archaic image. We journey today with a different and more of a traveling-companion God, even if we struggle with descriptive words about God. “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12) The true and essential work of all religions, but especially Christianity, is to help us recognize the divine image in everyone and everything.

My concluding reflection this week comes from the priest and theologian Ronald Rohlheiser OMI, a friend who also completed his doctorate at the Catholic University of Leuven: “God lies inside us, deep inside, but in a way that’s almost non-existent, almost unfelt, largely unnoticed, and easily ignored. However, while that presence is never overpowering, it has within it a gentle, unremitting imperative, a compulsion towards something higher, which invites us to draw upon it. And, if we do draw upon it, it gushes up in us in an infinite stream that instructs us, nurtures us, and fills us with endless energy.”

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

Just before Easter a friend wrote to wish me a Happy Easter but then added that he hoped I would write something on Another Voice about the “crazy feminists” who think they can be priests because, as he wrote, “…we all know that Jesus only ordained MEN at the Last Supper.” He then reminded me that Pope John Paul II (1920 – 2005) had stressed in his 1994 document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.”

My friend’s comment inspired this week’s reflection. I realize that I have written before about the sacraments but ask your patient understanding, if you are a long-time follower. Perhaps you will have some questions, after reading this somewhat longer reflection. The issue is important and contemporary, especially when it concerns women in church history, women’s ordination, and certainly ecumenical understandings of sacramental life. Christ’s Church is much larger than just the Roman Catholic Church.

FACTS and SUPPOSITIONS: When people really don’t know what happened in the past, they often use their creative imaginations to presume what happened. In the history of the sacraments, we see this as well. The sixteenth century Counter Reformation Council of Trent is a good example. The Catholic bishops met, off and on, in the northern Italy town of Trento (Trent) for twenty-five sessions between December 13, 1545 and December 4, 1563. In 1547, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that there are seven sacraments — Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony — and that all seven were personally instituted by the historical Jesus.

The Protestant Reformation had significantly affected sacramental doctrine, primarily shifting the focus from the Catholic Church’s seven sacraments to a limited number of “means of grace.” Martin Luther (1483 – 1546), John Calvin (1509 – 1564), and other Protestant reformers emphasized the primacy of scripture and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion).

HOW MANY SACRAMENTS: The number of sacraments prior to Trent, in fact, was variable and undefined. The Italian Benedictine monk and later cardinal, Peter Damian (c.1007 – 1072) for example, listed twelve including the ordination of kings. Hugh of Saint Victor (c. 1096 – 1141) a theologian and writer on mystical theology, who spent most of his life at the Abbey of Saint Victor in Paris, listed thirty sacraments. But he put Baptism and Holy Communion first with special relevance. Interestingly, Hugh also said the ideal Christian marriage was one of union between husband and wife, but preferably without any sexual intercourse! He focused on the spiritual communion and covenant between the couple as the core of marriage.

CHRIST THE SACRAMENT: Considering the sacraments, what I find most helpful is the theological observation of my former professor and long-time acquaintance, Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009). In his 1963 book Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, Schillebeeckx emphasized that Jesus Christ is the primary sacrament because he is the visible expression of God’s love. He is the ultimate revelation of God, making God and God’s love present on earth through his person, actions, and words. Schillebeeckx stressed as well that the sacraments are more than one-time-completed rituals. Sacraments are Christian life experiences, and their validity comes from the presence of Christ in the Christian community.

In 1986, Edward Schillebeeckx was reprimanded by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (1927 – 2022) who, at that time, was Prefect of the CDF, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

According to the CDF document from Ratzinger dated September 15, 1986, Schillebeeckx: “continues to conceive and present the apostolicity of the Church in such a way that the apostolic succession through sacramental ordination represents a non-essential element for the exercise of the ministry and thus for the bestowal of the power to consecrate the Eucharist – and this in opposition to the doctrine of the Church.” The Ratzinger document concluded with: “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to conclude that the conception of ministry as put forward by Professor Schillebeeckx remains out of harmony with the teaching of the Church on several important points.” In the end, however, no further action was taken against Schillebeeckx.

A couple years later, I remember talking with Professor Schillebeeckx, when he was visiting Leuven. I asked what a community should do if they did not have a priest for liturgy. He smiled and said: “let the community select its own liturgical presider from within the community.”

 

EARY CHRISTIAN RITUALS: The earliest existing writings about Jesus’ teachings and early Christianity are the letters of Paul the Apostle. They predate the Four Gospels. Not all of the letters attributed to Paul are genuinely Pauline. Scholars do agree that seven of the thirteen “Pauline epistles” (Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) were written by Paul, who was beheaded in Rome, some time between 64 and 68 CE. In his letters, Paul mentions early Christian rituals, most notably the immersion of converts in water (Baptism) and the sharing of a commemorative meal “The Lord’s Supper” (Eucharist).

ORIGIN OF EUCHARIST: The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, written between c. 70 and c. 90 CE, describe Jesus’ Last Supper with Jesus’ disciples, during which Jesus instructs them to continue the bread and wine ritual practice in his memory. It became the model for the early Christian Lord’s Supper, which was part of an agape (“love feast”). It was a communal meal shared among early Christians.

BAPTISM: The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–23) mention the ritual immersion practiced by John the Baptizer in which Jesus himself took part. Matthew 29:18–20 also portrays the risen Lord, in a post-Resurrection narrative, commanding his disciples to baptize using a Trinitarian formula. Biblical scholars suggest that the words most probably did not come from the historic Jesus, but from early church practice around the year 80 CE. 

Acts of Apostles, composed around 80-90 CE, enlarges the scriptural picture of early Christianity with references to the Lord’s Supper and several stories about baptisms. Acts also mentions another ritual action, the laying on of hands, which in this context usually resulted in charismatic activities such as speaking in tongues, described as “receiving the Holy Spirit.” See for instance Acts 2:4: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.”

The laying on of hands was an action mentioned many times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It involved placing one or both hands palms down on the top of another person’s head, usually while saying a prayer or blessing. It was a customary practice used by parents blessing their children. Jacob in the book of Genesis, for instance, blesses his two grandsons by laying his hands on their heads (Genesis 48:14). The laying on of hands was also used to bless someone for service. In Numbers, the people of Israel lay hands on the Levites to dedicate them to the Lord’s service (Numbers 8:9-10). Moses laid hands on Joshua as his successor in leadership (Numbers 27:18-23; Deuteronomy 34:9). 

JESUS AND LAYING ON OF HANDS: Jesus followed the laying on of hands tradition. His most customary practice in healing was touch, often described as “laying his hands on” the one to be healed (Matthew 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:22–25; Luke 13:13). Jesus also “lays his hands” on the little children who come to him, to bless them (Matthew 19:13–15; Mark 10:16).

CONFIRMATION:  Confirmation as a separate sacramental ritual in western Christianity did not exist before the 3rd century. But it did not become a regular practice in Europe until after the 5th century. Before the third century it was part of the baptismal ritual.

PENANCE: In the New Testament there is no description of a ritual or ceremony associated with Penance or reconciliation. Even a quick reading of the Gospels, however, shows that Jesus was concerned with the forgiveness of sins and the reconciling of sinners. And Jesus clearly told his followers to forgive sinners. See Matthew 6:14-15, for example.

In Early Christianity, however, Penance was seen as part of Baptism. There was no separate sacrament as we have it today. If a baptized person sinned seriously after Baptism, that person was excluded from the Christian Community. The sacrament of Penance evolved over time, transitioning from public penance to private confession, and was formally recognized and defined in the 13th century as Confession.

MEDIEVAL EUCHARISTIC METAMORPHOSIS: Between the eighth and ninth centuries, the place of the altar and worship space arrangements in church buildings changed. The presider, now called the “celebrant” of Eucharist, no longer faced the people but, with his back to them, faced the eastern end of the church. What was lost, of course, was the sense that the congregation was the Body of Christ.

The purpose of the “Mass” (from the Latin word missa) became to consecrate and preserve the Blessed Sacrament, as the consecrated bread was called. It was also called the “host” from the Lain word hostia meaning “sacrificial victim.” The host, a small wafer, was carried in processions and put on display in a golden display case called a “monstrance” so it could be adored. Monstrance is derived from the Latin “monstrare” (to show). Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was the priority. People rarely if ever received communion. Communion was for the celebrant, away at his altar and often far removed from the congregation.

Unfortunately, the medieval Eucharistic rituals ignored the biblical understanding of the Body of Christ as the community of believers. Recall, for instance, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:27: “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” And of course we have the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” And we have, for example, the wonderful words of Jesus in John 15:5: “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”

ANOINTING OF THE SICK, LATER CALLED “EXTREME UNCTION”: Up until the eighth century, Anointing of the Sick was a widespread if not uniform practice. It was done by Christian people for their relatives, by men and women with a reputation for healing, and by monks, women religious, and ordained ministers. Especially noteworthy, however, is the fact that anointing of the sick was done primarily by lay people.

In the twelfth century, thanks to Peter Lombard (c.1096 – 1160) theologian and bishop of Paris, Anointing of the Sick , done by priests, was officially named Extreme Unction, and it became an end-of-life sacrament. Then in the early 1970s, following the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965), the official name was changed to Anointing of the Sick.

MARRIAGE: The very first official declaration that marriage is a sacrament was made in 1184 at the Council of Verona. However, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments.

HOLY ORDERS: The historical Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. Today historical theologians would say that we have no direct evidence of  ordinations until the early third century. In the Apostolic Tradition by Bishop Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235 CE) we find the first extended evidence of early Christian ordination in which the laying on of hands was understood as a uniquely Christian “ordination ritual.” But when ordination began, it was not understood as a way to pass on “the sacred power to consecrate the Eucharist” but as a form of quality control – a way to assure communities that their leaders were competent and people of genuine and solid faith.

WOMEN: What historical theologians now realize, as well, is that for centuries women had been ordained as deacons and abbesses, and even as presbyters and bishops. This was certainly the case until the 12th century. Gary Macy, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, at Santa Clara University, is very helpful here especially in his book: The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West. What Macy points out is that references to the ordination of women exist in papal, episcopal, and theological documents of the time; and the rites for these ordinations have survived. But as Gary Macy says: “This is a history that has been deliberately forgotten, intentionally marginalized, and, not infrequently, creatively explained away.”

 

So, with open minds we examine and move forward, realizing that educated Christians are essential for Christianity to thrive.

• Jack

 

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

The very first Easter taught us that life never ends and love never dies.

Jack

The Gospel According to John differs from the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke in style and content in several ways.

John’s Gospel omits a large amount of material found in the Synoptic Gospels, like the temptation of Jesus, Jesus’ transfiguration, and the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. The sermon on the mount and the Lord’s prayer are also not found in the Gospel of John, and we do not see proverbs and parables but symbolic discourses.

Jesus’ miracles, considered “signs” in the Gospel of John, are designed to provide insight into Jesus’ identity and his relationship to God the Father. Jesus is clearly the Wisdom of God, the source of eternal life, and most importantly still living within the community of faith.

Seven and Perfection: The author of the Gospel of John was no stranger to the Hebrew tradition and symbolism. The author understood the use of the number seven throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. In biblical numerology, 7 symbolizes completion or perfection. In Genesis, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7^th: the sabbath.

This “system of seven” is used three times in the Gospel of John. In addition to Jesus’ seven miracle “signs,” there are seven major discourses given by Jesus, and seven “I am” claims. The goal of the Gospel’s author was to lead believers to the realization that Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of the Hebrew law and the prophets. 

In the Gospel of John, the Greek word “semeion” (σέμειον), better translated as “sign” but also as “miracle,” is used to describe the acts performed by Jesus, emphasizing their symbolic meaning and pointing towards his identity and mission. The “signs” point to Jesus as the giver of life. They stress that all hopes and aspirations for the fullness of life are met in Jesus.

The seven miracle “signs” are: (1) Turning Water into Wine (John 2:1-12), (2) Healing the Nobleman’s Son (John 4:46-54), (3) Healing the Man at the Pool (John 5:1-11), (4) Feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:1-15), (5) Walking on Water (John 6:16-21), (6) Healing a Man Born Blind (John 9:1-12), and (7) Raising Lazarus (John 11).

Jesus’ Ministry in John: In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ public ministry appears to extend over a period of at least three years. During that time, he went, several times, from Galilee to Jerusalem in Judaea. The Synoptics, on the other hand, have Jesus making only one journey to Jerusalem, where he was crucified. Most of his ministry in the Synoptics took place within just one year and it was primarily in Galilee.

The Gospel of John uses a “post-resurrection” point of view. The author looks back on the Jesus events — after Jesus’ death and resurrection — and emphasizes the inability of the apostles to understand the things that were happening at the time they occurred. See for instance: John 2:17-22, where there are obvious references to the Resurrection, “He was speaking of the sanctuary that was his body, and after he rose from the dead his disciples remembered.” See John 12:16-17: “At the time his disciples did not understand this but later, after Jesus had been glorified, they remembered….” And John 20:9: “Until this moment they had failed to understand the teaching of scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” Perhaps we do not always clearly see and understand?

Prologue: The prologue in John’s Gospel Gospel, that begins with: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. (John 1:1-18) is most likely an elaboration of an early Christian hymn. Interestingly, the rest of John’s Gospel does not speak of Jesus as the pre-existent, creative Word. Scholars believe the prologue was added as an introduction after the rest of the Gospel had already been written.

The Gospel of John’s Authorship and Locality: The old tradition was that the Gospel’s author was the Apostle John, son of Zebedee. Most contemporary scholars are not of this opinion. In fact, Scholars began debating the authorship of John since already in the third century. Contemporary biblical scholars, such as the Catholic priest and scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998), have proposed that the original author of an oral tradition that evolved into the Gospel of John, was a companion of Jesus, the Beloved Disciple. The Beloved Disciple formed a community, most probably in Ephesus, which today is an ancient city in Turkey’s Central Aegean region, near the modern-day Selçuk. Scholars call this “the Johannine community.”

The oral tradition of eye-witness recollections of the Beloved Disciple evolved and began being written down around 90 CE. The final redaction occurred ten to twenty years later, giving us a composition date of between 90 and 110 CE.

Biblical scholars are really uncertain who the Beloved Disciple was. There is quite a variety of opinions: a truly unknown disciple, the Apostle John, Jesus’ brother James, or even Jesus’ close friend Mary the Magdalene. Raymond Brown has likened the quest to identify the author of the Fourth Gospel to a good detective story. While the idea that Mary the Magdalene wrote the Fourth Gospel is a popular and intriguing theory, most biblical scholars today do not attribute the authorship to her.

The Johannine Community: Mostly Gentile Christians: The final version of the Gospel of John was composed after the crisis created by the expulsion of Christians from the synagogue. A parting of the ways between Hebrew and Christian believers had occurred. The early Christians no longer went to the synagogue for the basic reason that more Christians were Gentile converts and the distinction between Hebrew and Christian belief had become clearer. John 9:22 describes how “the Hebrew people had agreed that if anyone confessed Jesus as the Christ or Messiah that person was to be excluded from the synagogue.”

Turning Point: John 13:1-4 is a turning point in this Gospel. Jesus’s “hour” had come “for him to pass from this world to the Father.”

A key moment is in John 13:1-5: “Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God. He got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.” People wore sandals in the days of Jesus, with wooden soles and fastened with straps of leather, which allowed their feet to get dirty. But they did not wear sandals indoors. They removed them upon entering the house and washed their feet.

Then, in John 13:12-15, Jesus stresses: “‘Do you understand what I have done for you?’ he asked them. ‘You call me Teacher and Lord, and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.’”

Jesus Real Presence: For centuries, in my Roman Catholic tradition, people have developed various explanations about Jesus’ “Real Presence” in the Eucharistic bread and wine. In the Gospel of John there is no mention of Jesus instituting the Eucharist. Nevertheless, the Gospel is very clear about Jesus’ abiding presence. The primary “Real Presence” of Jesus is in the community. Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches (John 15). The branches cannot survive without the vine. But the vine cannot survive without the branches. (And a contemporary observation: the branches cannot survive without the support of other branches.)

Humanity Taking on Divinity:  In Mark, Matthew, and Luke the stress was on Divinity taking on humanity. In John, however, we see another emphasis: humanity taking on Divinity. God is truly with us: in the very heart of our being.

Some of the old images of God may no longer speak to contemporary people. But God has not abandoned us. We should not abandon God. We simply need to reflect on better ways of conceptualizing and speaking about our experience of the Divine.

Crucifixion: The account of the crucifixion in John does not stress Jesus as the one who suffers, as we saw for example in Mark 15.25–39. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is the one who is exalted: “lifted up” in his moment of glorification.

In John 13 to John 16, Jesus prepares his disciples for his imminent departure followed by his “high priestly prayer” in John 17. Here we see a very strong and confident Jesus. “I have glorified you on earth and finished the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, it is time to glorify me…” (John 17:4-5)

Final Chapters: The final chapters in the Gospel of John contain the accounts of Jesus’s trial, crucifixion, and resurrection. The Jesus who stands before Pilate is strong. Note that, on the way to Golgotha, Jesus carries his own cross. He does not need the help of a Simon of Cyrene as we saw in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Also in John, unlike the other three gospels, Jesus’ crucifixion occurs on the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14) rather than on the Passover holiday itself. Here Jesus prepares himself for the departure to the Father and seems to be in complete control of his destiny, even to the extent of commending his mother to the Beloved Disciple (John 19:26–27).

Conclusion: The Gospel concludes with the discovery of the empty tomb by the women and other disciples (John 20:1–10), Jesus’s appearance to them (John 20:11–18), and the narrative of the “Doubting” Thomas (John 20.24–29).

The last two verses contain what many scholars think was most likely the Gospel’s original ending: “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31)

 

Appendix: Chapter 21 is stylistically very different from the main body of the Gospel. Raymond Brown, and others, have suggested it was a later addition to John. It is now known as the Johannine Appendix. It not only contains resurrection appearances in Galilee, but it also emphasizes the authority of the Beloved Disciple. Recall that, in John 18:15-27, Peter had denied knowing Jesus three times. Now, in John 21:15, Jesus in a way reinstates Peter. But when Peter questions Jesus about the Beloved Disciple, Jesus, perhaps a bit annoyed, responds: “If I want that one to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

This appendix quite possibly reflects a controversy among some in the Johannine community who may have considered the Beloved Disciple inferior to Peter. But chapter 21 reinforces the Beloved Disciple’s role as the authorized witness of the Jesus tradition for the Johannine community. In John 21:24 we read about the Beloved Disciple: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that the testimony is true.”

 

I titled today’s reflection “Courageous and Confident.” That is how I perceive Jesus in the Gospel of John. With courage and confidence, Jesus spoke out against the hypocrisy of the self-centered arrogant. In conflicts with his contemporary religious leaders he stressed that religiosity is not faith.

 

 

Happy Easter my friends!

The great gift of Easter is hope. May we remain courageous and confident, and hopeful, in difficult times.

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

P.S. I will be away from Another Voice for a couple weeks of “Easter Vacation.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Testament accounts of the birth and early life of Jesus – the “Infancy Narratives” — are found in Matthew 1:1–2:23 and Luke 1:5–2:52. The Infancy Narratives are certainly not fairytales. But they are not strictly historical either.

The Bible contains a variety of literary forms by which the truths of our faith are expressed and communicated. We find poetry, drama, symbolism, metaphors, imaginative recreations of past events, and varying degrees of historical narration.

When it comes to the New Testament Infancy Narratives, I suspect that most people simply ignore the differences found in Matthew and Luke. They easily combine the accounts without noticing the differences. Nor do they realize that imaginative infancy suppositions, that arose centuries after Jesus’ birth, got thrown into the mix.

In reality, most of our contemporary Jesus-birth imagery comes from the Catholic friar, Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone (c. 1181 – 1226), known today as St. Francis of Assisi.

Francis created the Christmas Creche tradition in Greccio, Italy, where he had visited a community to celebrate Christmas. Francis had wanted to create a scene that would be symbolic of Jesus’ birth and have an impact on the community. He therefore prepared a manger — the feeding trough for animals —and even brought an ox and a donkey to the location where he prepared the altar. He put a statue of baby Jesus on the altar so all could see it. The scenery created by Francis clearly symbolized the poverty and simplicity associated with the birth of Jesus.

Over the centuries, of course, misconceptions have crept into accounts about Jesus’ birth. The “three kings” stories are a good example.

Neither Matthew nor Luke mention “three kings.” Matthew mentions “wise men,” magoi in Greek, from which we get the English word “magi.” He does not say there were three “wise men.” That number was a medieval creation. Although the “Magi” are now commonly referred to as “kings,” there is nothing in Matthew that implies that they were rulers of any kind. In addition, nowhere in the New Testament do we find them called “Balthasar, Melchior, and Casper.” Those names first appeared in the Chronographia Scaligeriana, an early medieval historical compilation composed in Greek between 527 and 539. The only surviving text is a Latin translation from the late 8th century.

Most contemporary historians and biblical scholars regard the Magi as legendary figures. Nevertheless, in Germany’s Cologne Cathedral, since the 13^th century, there has been a reliquary that tradition says holds the bones of the Biblical Magi.

Summary of what we find in Matthew:

• In Matthew we find: the visit of the wise men, the star, and Herod’s plot to kill Jesus. Herod I (c. 73 BCE – 4 BCE) also known as Herod the Great, was the tyrant King of Judea from 37 to 4 BCE.
• In Matthew 2:16–18, we read that Herod the Great ordered the execution of all male children who were two years old and in the vicinity of Bethlehem. In fact, there is no historical evidence that it ever happened other than this passage in Matthew. But it is certainly congruous with Herod’s violent character.
• Clearly the author of Matthew’s Gospel – who saw Jesus as the new Moses — modeled the Herod episode on the biblical story of Pharaoh’s attempt to kill the Hebrew children in Exodus 1:15-22. Pharaoh’s scribes had warned him of the impending birth of the man who would be a threat to his crown, i.e., Moses.

Comparing Matthew and Luke:

• In Matthew we see the visit the wise men, the star, and Herod’s plot. They are not found, however, in Luke.
• In Luke we do find the shepherds and the presentation of Jesus in the Temple. But these are not found in Matthew.
• The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile, although they do share some similarities.

The American biblical scholar and Catholic priest, John P. Meier (1942 – 2022), often stressed that accounts of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem are not to be taken as historical facts. In his 1991 book, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Meier describes the Infancy Narratives as “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.” In other words, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of a story about his birth in Bethlehem, because King David (c. 1010 – c. 970 BCE) was born and raised in Bethlehem.

Concluding this week’s reflection, I would like to offer some reflections about the virginal conception of Jesus.

The Virgin Birth doctrine of traditional Christianity maintains that Jesus had no natural father but was conceived by Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine that Mary was the virginal mother of Jesus is expressed in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. The two passages in the Infancy Narratives are: Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38.

Traditionally, Christian theologians writing about the “virgin birth,” have referred to a passage from the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures produced between the third century BCE and the first century CE: Isaiah 7:14, which is found in Matthew 1:23, “Behold, the virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Emmanuel.”

Examining both the original Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 and the later Greek translation version, biblical scholars point out, significantly, that the Hebrew word ’almâ, meaning “a young woman of marriageable age” found in the original Hebrew Scriptures text was not so carefully translated into the Greek Septuagint text which used the word parthenos, which means “a virgin.”

In short, using only historical research one cannot come to any conclusion, either for or against a virginal conception of the baby Jesus. An excellent book that discusses this is The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus by the respected American Catholic priest and biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1988).

Years ago, I decided to not get into the occasionally heated debate about the virginal conception of Jesus. I understand the issues, but for me the all-important fact is that Jesus of Nazareth in his life, death, and resurrection is the revelation of divinity and authentic humanity. That truth keeps me going.

 

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

P.S. Next week we look at a courageous and confident Jesus in the Gospel of John.

 

 

 

 

 

 

While Mark focused on the mostly Gentile Christian community in Rome and Matthew was more focused on the Hebrew-Christian community in Antioch, Luke stresses that Christianity is a way of life for Gentile as well as Hebrew-Christian believers; and that it warrants legal recognition in the Roman Empire. Luke is about healing and reconciliation: actions greatly needed in our own contemporary society.

Luke’s author was a highly educated Gentile Christian who came from a thoroughly Greco-Roman environment. Unlike Matthew’s author he is not well-grounded in the Hebrew tradition. Scholars speculate on whether his “ordered account” was written for a Christian community in Antioch or some other location in Asia Minor, like Ephesus or Smyrna. Luke and Acts of Apostles make up a two-volume work often called simply Luke–Acts; and they are addressed to the “most excellent” Theophilus.

Theophilus’ identity is unknown, but there are conjectures. Some interpreters suggest he was a wealthy man who paid to have Luke-Acts written. Other biblical interpreters have concluded that he was a Roman official who had been initiated into the church’s teachings, for whom Luke now provided a full narrative Another tradition maintains that Theophilus was not a person. But since the name in Greek means “Friend of God,” both Luke and Acts were addressed to anyone who fits that description. In this tradition the author’s targeted audience was the learned but unnamed men and women of the era. Theophilus was also quite a common name in the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century.

For documentation, Luke’s author drew from the Gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the “Q” source, and a collection of material called the “L” (for Luke) source. Most contemporary scholars maintain that the author of Luke is anonymous. A tradition dating from the 2nd century did suggest that the author was the Luke who was a companion of Paul. While this view is still occasionally put forward, most biblical scholars today question that supposition. Textual analysis suggests that Luke-Acts was written not earlier than 80–90 CE; and most likely as late as 90–110 CE, because the text was still being revised well into the 2nd century.

Last week I stressed that Matthew saw Jesus as the fulfillment of Hebrew history. He began his infancy narrative with a genealogy of Jesus from Abraham down to Joseph and Mary. Luke, on the other hand, understands Jesus as the high point in all human history. His genealogy is presented at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry and runs backwards from Joseph to Adam.

Luke is also more Mary-oriented than Joseph-oriented. In Matthew’s infancy narrative the light is on Joseph. In Luke’s account, it is Mary who shines. She is the one who hears and keeps God’s word. In Luke 1:46-55, we find Mary’s Song of Praise: “The Magnificat.”

What strikes you, as you re-read this Gospel? Three themes caught my attention: women, building bridges, and religious hypocrisy.

WOMEN: In Luke Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39), a 12-year-old girl (Luke 8:41-42, 49-56); a woman with a 12-year infirmity (verses 43-48); and a woman who had been crippled 18 years (Luke 13:10-17). In Luke we see Mary the Magdalen, an early disciple of Jesus. She sits before Jesus and listens to him. Her sister Martha complains to Jesus that Mary should be helping her with serving. Jesus replies: “Martha, Martha…it is Mary who has chosen the better part.” (Luke 10:38-42). In the Resurrection accounts, women not men are most important: Women were among those who observed the crucifixion (Luke 23:27, 49). Women prepared spices to anoint Jesus’ body (Luke 23: 55-56). Women were the first to find Jesus’ tomb empty (Luke 24:1-3) and angels told them Jesus had been raised from the dead (Luke 24: 4-8). Women were the first to proclaim the Resurrection to Jesus’ other disciples (Luke 24: 9-11). [Catholic upper-level ecclesiastics who still oppose women’s ordination should reflect on these passages. ]

BUILDING BRIDGES NOT WALLS: Luke’s stress on peace-making implied a new relationship with the Roman Empire. Dialogue had to start, and destructive polarization had to end. In Luke’s Infancy Narrative, angelic messengers proclaim: “Good news of great joy for all people. To you is born this day . . . a Savior! . . . Peace on earth among those whom God favors!” (Luke 2:10-11,14] These words echo and go far beyond the Roman monument inscriptions that had praised Augustus Caesar (63 BCE – 14 CE) as “god” and “savior.” Luke hereby stresses that Jesus had completed more fully and uniquely the work of Augustus. Later in this Gospel, Luke offsets the fact that Jesus was executed by the Romans, by having the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (who died after 36 CE) declare Jesus innocent three times (Luke 23:4,14,22). Only Luke, unlike Mark and Matthew, has the Roman centurion at the foot of the cross exclaim: “Surely, this man was innocent.” (Luke 23:47) Building bridges. In Luke’s narration, Herod Antipas (c. 20 BCE – c. 39 CE), who publicly identified himself as a Hebrew and was the 1^st century ruler of Galilee, and Pontius Pilate become unlikely friends, after being in Jesus’ presence (Luke 23:12). And finally, only in Luke’s Gospel does Jesus pray for forgiveness for his crucifiers (Luke 23:34).

RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY: Some observers accuse Luke of antisemitism, because he regularly shows Jesus criticizing Hebrew religious leaders (Pharisees, scribes, and Levites). I think these critics miss the point. Jesus was strongly critical of the arrogant religious hypocrisy of the religiously elite in his day.

During Jesus’ time, the Pharisees were a prominent Hebrew religious group known for their strict adherence to the Law and were often viewed as overly legalistic.

When invited to dine in the home of a Pharisee, for example, the religious leader accused Jesus of not washing ahead of time. Jesus replied: “Now then, you clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people!…give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you…you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God….Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.” (Luke 11:37-44)

Luke speaks strongly to our own contemporary society, in which many praise God but ignore the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized.

Next week we take a look at the Infancy Narratives in Luke and Matthew.

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

 

 

Last week I stressed that the Gospel According to Mark was designed for Gentile Christians in Rome, and composed by an anonymous author, after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Mark’s Gentile Christians in Rome faced and feared persecution and death at the hands of Roman authorities. But they also had to live with discrimination from superior-acting Hebrew-Christians living in Rome.

 

Matthew written for Hebrew Christians in Antioch:

This week, we look at Matthew. The final version of the Gospel According to Matthew, was most likely written by an anonymous Hebrew-Christian scribe between 80 and 90 CE. He was not an eyewitness to the Jesus events but collected various traditions and sayings by and about Jesus and put them in one long essay. Some scholars say the final edition could even have been written as late as 110. The most probable location for the Matthew community was Antioch, whose ruins today lie close to Antakya, Turkey. The community was strongly Hebrew-Christian.

There were Gentile Christian members in the community, but they were expected to obey Hebrew norms. Some scholars say even circumcision.

The Gospel of Matthew, with its strong Hebrew-Christian orientation, contains five sermons of Jesus (Matthew 5:1-7:29; 10:1-42; 13:1-52; 18:1-35; and 23:1 through 25:46) which, for the authors’ audience symbolized the first five books – Pentateuch — of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These five books, known as the Hebrew Torah, were also called the “Five books of Moses.”

Why Moses?

For centuries, it was widely accepted, both within Hebrew/Jewish and Christian communities, that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. The European Enlightenment saw a rise in critical biblical studies, leading to the emergence of theories questioning Mosaic authorship.

The majority of scholars today see the biblical Moses as a legendary figure, while retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13^th century BCE. The Pentateuch, however, was composed and compiled during the 6^th-5^th century BCE, thus a good 500 years after “Moses.”

Jesus the Great Teacher

In Matthew 5:17-28, Jesus explains his understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures as related to his ministry. He says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17) Jesus is the great teacher. Notice how he so often says “you have heard it said of old . . . but I say to you . . .” Like a rabbi, Jesus takes a teaching found in the Scriptures and then intensifies and expands on it.

Genealogy:

For Matthew, Jesus is the great embodiment of all preceding Hebrew history. In two weeks, we will take a careful look at the creative Infancy Narratives in Matthew as well as in Luke. Today, I want to point out that Matthew constructed an infancy narrative that begins with “A genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of David, son of Abraham.” (Matthew 1:1-17) Matthew’s genealogy features four notable Hebrew women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah” Bathsheba. It includes a number of “fulfillment” passages that relate Jesus to prophetic texts. And it makes allusions to famous Hebrew men of the past.

Note for instance that Jesus, like the Moses figure, was rescued as an infant from a murderous king (Matthew 2:16-18). In Matthew’s creative narration, Jesus’ ministry begins with three temptations in the desert. They correspond to the experiences of Israel in the desert, after the Exodus. Jesus is God’s great liberator.

A question about Peter and the Rock in Matthew 16:16-19:

This brief text – Matthew 16:16 to 19 — has often been cited by Roman Catholic authorities as the scriptural basis for the papacy. Nevertheless, the significance of this uniquely Matthew material has been widely discussed by Catholic and Protestant scholars and challenged on the basis that verses 16–19 are found only in Matthew. Nowhere in the New Testament is Peter described as being supreme over the other apostles. Historians stress that Peter did not establish the Christian community in Rome and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and certainly not “the first pope.” The Roman Catholic theologians Raymond Brown (1928 – 1998) and John P. Meier (1942 – 2022) were quite emphatic about this in their book Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity, (Paulist Press 1983).

What draws my attention in Matthew:

As I have been re-reading the Gospel According to Matthew, what stands out for me is Jesus the great teacher, like a great Hebrew rabbi.

I conclude this week’s post with my contemporary reflections on Matthew 5:1-10, where Jesus goes up a hill with his disciples and begins to teach what we have come to know as the “Sermon on the Mount.” It is truly a charter for Christian life today.

 

The Charter for Christian Life based on the Sermon on the Mount:

1. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

How fortunate are those people, who are humble in spirit.

The humble in spirit realize that greatness is achieved through service not domination. Power and control over people have no place in the community of faith. The humble in spirit realize they are not masters of the universe. They understand they cannot survive on their own.

2. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”

Many people grieve in sorrow today.

There are people in frightening times: war situations, people suffering abuse, job loss, or deportations. Jesus assures all, even if they cannot see it at the moment, that they are not abandoned. The historical Jesus knew abandonment, suffering, and a painful death. He overcame them. He travels with all overwhelmed with sorrow, assuring them that their lives are not meaningless.

3. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

How fortunate are the meek.

Meekness is not weakness. The meek have compassion. They can feel the pain of another. They put an arm around the fearful and the oppressed. They lift oppressive burdens from the shoulders of the abused, the old, the sick, and the impoverished.

4. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”

How fortunate are those whose greatest desire is to do what genuine Christianity requires.

We are fortunate if we have high ideals, strong values, noble goals, and the motivation to build up what is best in others and in ourselves. But the temptations are strong: to conform, to do what everyone else does, to simply read the news and then not rock the boat.

5. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”

Merciful love is assistance without conditions.

Genuine Christians are not fear mongers who scapegoat Hispanics, feminists, blacks, gays, transgendered, or immigrants.

6. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

How fortunate are the pure of heart.

The pure of heart are honest-hearted. They are not two-faced, with hidden agendas or secret desires to advance themselves by using and abusing other people. The pure of heart honor and search for truth. They do not lie, creating dishonest “facts.”

7. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children^, of God.”

How fortunate are those who work for peace.

Those who work for peace do not erect walls. They are bridge builders. They cooperate rather than compete. They struggle to resolve political, social, and religious polarization through tolerance, dialogue, and mutual respect.

8. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

How fortunate are those who suffer persecution because they truly live the Gospel.

There are a lot of phony “Christians” in high places these days, who denigrate and oppress their critics. Matthew’s Jesus speaks of leaders who talk about God’s values but never live God’s values. “Do not do what they say,” Jesus says “for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for people to see.” (Matthew 23:3-5)

******

Next week we take a look at Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. Luke’s author was a highly educated Gentile Christian who came from a thoroughly Greco-Roman environment. Luke’s Gospel, like Matthew’s, focuses on the life and teachings of Jesus, but Luke emphasizes Jesus’s role as a universal savior for all peoples.

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

 

 

 

 

 

All four Gospels evolved from oral traditions, passed on from person to person and from place to place. More than one single person composed the final versions of the four Gospels, as we have them today. Mark is the oldest. Matthew and Luke both drew upon Mark as a major source for their works.

Originally, the Gospels were circulated without titles. That changed around185 CE, when the theologian, Irenaeus of Lyon (c.139 – c.202), labeled the four Gospels as “Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.” Irenaeus was the second bishop of Lyon, France from 177 until his death.

Although Mark is older, Matthew was listed first in the official “canonical” list of the four Gospels by the Council of Rome in 382 and the Synod of Hippo in 393, because the bishops mistakenly considered it the first Gospel to be written. They accepted the “Augustinian hypothesis” proposed by the well-known theologian and philosopher, Augustine (354 – 430), the Bishop of Hippo Regius, the ancient name of today’s Annaba, Algeria.

What we call Mark’s Gospel was composed around 70 CE, probably after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in the year 70. Mark was written for Gentile Christians in Rome. They suffered Roman persecution but also discrimination from Hebrew-Christians, who felt superior to Gentile converts.

The Gospel of Matthew, which we will examine next week, was most likely written by an anonymous Hebrew-Christian scribe between 80 and 90 CE.

In Mark’s Gospel we see, very early, a Jesus confronted with difficulties and rejection. It is a Gospel for those who are suffering and need to find consolation: people who resonate with the fearful cry of those disciples in the sinking boat (Mark 4:35-40). They were frightened by the storm. They woke-up the sleeping Jesus and asked him if he is just going to let them all drown. Jesus calms the storm, and then says to his disciples “Why are you so frightened? How is it that you have no faith?”

Having faith in difficult times is key to Mark.

Up until the nineteenth century, and in some circles even later, the general understanding was that the author of Mark’s Gospel was “John Mark” mentioned in Acts of Apostles. (Acts 12:12 and 12:25) Contemporary scholars, however, generally agree that the final author of Mark remains anonymous. Although it is the oldest of the four, Mark’s Gospel is also much shorter than the other gospels, with just 16 chapters compared to Matthew’s 28, Luke’s 24, and John’s 21.

It is interesting to note that of the Synoptic Gospels, only Mark’s starts with the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (transliteration: euaggelion) the Greek word for “good news”: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1) As part of the vocabulary of early Christians, this word did not refer to a specific type of literature nor to a book. The term (“gospel” in English) had a more dynamic meaning. It was a proclamation of an event of major importance. The “Gospel of Jesus” for early Christians designated God’s saving actions in and through the person of Jesus.

Mark’s Gospel narration begins with John the Baptizer, who died c. 30 CE. John was an itinerant preacher, “a voice crying in the wilderness,” (Mark 1:3) preparing the way for the Messiah. He had many followers, and it appears, from Mark’s Gospel, that Jesus from Nazareth was one of them. But John says that Jesus is far greater than he: “I am not fit to kneel down and undo the strap of his sandals.” (Mark 1:8) When John baptizes Jesus in the Jordan, a voice from the heavens speaks to Jesus: “You are my son, the Beloved. My favor rests on you.” (Mark 1:11) Note, the Spirit is speaking directly to Jesus. It is his call to public ministry moving far beyond that of John the Baptizer.

Throughout his life, Jesus comes to a gradual realization of who he is as Human One (“Son of Man”) and Son of God. His disciples as well come to a gradual realization of who he is, just like us today.  We are called to grow in faith, wisdom, and understanding.

Mark’s Gospel has no account of Jesus’ virgin birth or his infancy. The focus is on the adult Jesus as Messiah. The Gospel does mention that Jesus had brothers and sisters in Mark 6:3.

At the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE, when church authorities – strongly believing in the superiority of celibacy over marriage — proclaimed the perpetual virginity of Jesus’ mother, the text in Mark 6:3 became problematic. “Brothers and sisters” came to be interpreted as meaning Jesus’s “cousins.” (I have no desire to get into this discussion right now but do find it interesting that the Pauline epistles, the four Gospels, and Acts of Apostles all mention the brothers of Jesus, with both Mark and Matthew mentioning the brothers’ names and unnamed sisters.)

Mark’s Gospel also has a rather abrupt ending. Like the other three Gospels, Mark does report the visit of Mary the Magdalene, and her companions to the tomb of Jesus early Sunday morning. When they arrive at the tomb, however, they find the entrance stone removed and a young man (not an angel) tells them: “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And the Gospel concludes with “And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing, because they were afraid.” (Mark 16:8)

Most scholars today really believe that the Gospel of Mark originally ended with Mark 16:8. Yet some scholars contend there was in fact a lost ending.

Already in antiquity there were editors and copyists, uncomfortable with such an abrupt ending. They provided three different endings for Mark to “correct” the abruptness of 16:8. Although now understood as a later addition to the text, the most favored of these added endings is Mark 16:9-20, called the Markan Appendix, or the Longer Ending. It records three appearances of Jesus raised from the dead: to Mary the Magdalene; to two disciples; and to the eleven. It mentions Jesus’ ascension into heaven and his sitting at God’s right hand.

There do remain critical questions concerning the authenticity of the verses in Mark 16:9–20 which center on stylistic and linguistic issues. When was the Markan Appendix added is a good question. Later than many think. Eusebius of Caesarea, historian and bishop, in what was then Roman Palestine and who died in 339, as well as Jerome, theologian and well-known biblical translator, who died in Bethlehem in 432, indicated the absence of the verses from Greek manuscripts known to them. 

 

Re-reading Mark’s Gospel, two thoughts struck me: (1) Jesus in Mark’s Gospel is a rejected and suffering Son of God, and (2) following Jesus is a discipleship of the cross. Life is not always easy. Many people today still live, as did Mark’s congregation, in fearful and threatening times. 

Mark is clearly a Gospel of the suffering Messiah and of suffering and fearful discipleship.

On the night he was betrayed, Jesus goes to the garden of Gethsemane to pray. A sudden fear comes over him and he is in great distress. Like a loving child he speaks to his father: “Abba everything is possible for you. Take this cup away from me….” (Mark 14:35-36). Judas betrayed him. Other disciples abandoned him. People spit on Jesus. He is blindfolded and beaten. Even Peter rejects him three times. (Mark 14:53-65)

The Gospel of Mark’s message for us today is that fear and uncertainty, if one allows them to take control, can disable, blind, and paralyze people. But Christianity is not a religion of fear. Jesus’ words to his disciples in Mark 8:18-21 speak to us today as well: “Do you not yet understand? Have you no perception? Are your minds closed? Have you eyes that do not see, and ears that do not hear?”

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

The historical-critical method, also known as higher criticism, investigates the origins and nature of ancient texts. Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The primary goal of the historical-critical method is to discover the text’s historical meaning in its original social and cultural context. Then, to explore the text’s contemporary meaning. Here correct translations are critically important. For example: What the early Christians called “ekklesia” in Greek is very different from “church.” The modern word “church” carries overtones of an official and legalized institution. The New Testament “ekklesia” was neither. The word “ekklesia” means “the called out ones.” Thus, the better New Testament translation in English should be “assembly” or “congregation.”

While often discussed in terms of Hebrew and Christian writings from ancient times, historical criticism applies as well to Islamic and other religious writings.

Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. (1940 – 2014), who served as professor of New Testament and chair of the Biblical Studies department at Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, formerly known as Weston Jesuit School of Theology, defined biblical historical criticism as “the effort at using scientific criteria, historical and literary, and human reason to understand and explain, as objectively as possible, the meaning intended by the biblical writers.”

As I mentioned last week, biblical texts contain a variety of literary forms such as history, symbol, folklore, and presumed or imagined historical scenarios. The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, which we will look at more closely in April, are good examples.

One legacy of biblical criticism in U.S. American culture was the fundamentalist movement of the 1920s and 1930s. Fundamentalism in the USA began, at least partly, as a Protestant response to the biblical criticism of the nineteenth century. Some fundamentalists believed that historical-critical believers had invented an entirely new religion completely at odds with the Christian faith.

In terms of my own Roman Catholic tradition, throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Roman Catholic theology avoided biblical criticism because of its reliance on rationalism, preferring instead to engage in “traditional” biblical understandings based on the narrow-focused works of the “Church Fathers.” The Catholic Church showed strong opposition to biblical criticism during that period.

The Roman Catholic dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (“Son of God”), approved by the First Vatican Council in 1871, rejected biblical criticism, reaffirming that the Bible was “written by God” and that it was “inerrant.” But that began to change in the final decades of the nineteenth century when, for example, the French Dominican Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855–1938) established a school in Jerusalem called the École prátique d’études biblique, which became the École Biblique, to encourage study of the Bible using the historical-critical method.

At the same time, my alma mater the Catholic University of Leuven was exploring the historical-critical methodology that would become its hallmark. A major step was taken in 1889 with the creation of a course entitled “Critical History of the Old Testament” by Albin Van Hoonacker (1857 – 1933). This course was an early attempt to apply the historical-critical method to biblical texts. At a time when the historical-critical exploration of the Bible among Catholics was still highly controversial, Van Hoonacker became the first professor to teach an historical-critical understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

On 18 November 1893, Pope Leo XIII, pope from 1878 to 1903, promulgated the encyclical  Providentissimus Deus (“The most provident God”). That letter gave the first formal authorization for the use of critical methods in biblical scholarship.

The Catholic situation changed greatly, however, after Leo’s death and the election of Pope Pius X in 1903. A very staunch traditionalist, Pius X, who was pope from 1903 to 1914, saw biblical criticism as part of a growing and destructive “modernist” tendency in the Church. The École Biblique was shut down and Lagrange was called back to France.

Finally, in 1943, the lights came back on. Pope Pius XII, pope from 1939 to 1958, issued the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (“Inspired by the Holy Spirit”) sanctioning historical criticism and opening a new epoch in Catholic critical scholarship.

Divino Afflante Spiritu encouraged scholars to investigate biblical texts utilizing recent discoveries in archeology, ancient history, and linguistics.

Then, in 1965, the dogmatic constitution Dei verbum (“Word of God”), approved by the Second Vatican Council, and promulgated by Pope Paul VI, further promoted biblical criticism.

The Second Vatican Council (“Vatican II”) was the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. It was convened by Pope John XXIII and had four sessions from October 1962 to December 1965. John XXIII, born in 1881, died in June 1963.

Pope Paul VI, born in 1897, was pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1968. Succeeding John XXIII, he continued the Second Vatican Council, implementing its numerous reforms. The resulting reforms were among the widest and deepest in the Church’s history.

Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998), Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1920 -2016), and Roland E. Murphy (1917 – 2002) were the most famous U.S. Catholic scholars to apply biblical criticism and the historical-critical method in analyzing the Bible: together, they authored The Jerome Biblical Commentary in 1968 and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary in 1990.The latest version, The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century was published in 2022, edited by John J. Collins, Gina Hens-Piazza, Barbara Reid OP, and Donald Senior CP (1940 – 2022).

And so, we move forward in faith as critical-historical observers.

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian