Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels
By Rev. Randy Soto, SThD
I. Etymology of the word = Gospel.
A Greek word:
1. The word Gospel derives from the Greek word (euvagge,lion), evangelion which is a
compound word formed by: a) the prefix (euv) meaning good if used as an adjective, or
well if used as an adverb; b) the verb (avggellw/) angelo meaning to announce, to proclaim.
Consequently, He who has the mission of announcing is called both in the Old Testament
and in the New (a;ggeloj) ángelos an angel or messenger.
2. So euangelion in Greek means Good News. Now we must ask ourselves Good News
of what? Certainly, the evangelists were given the mission to proclaim, or announce a
very important message… God’s Revelation to his People… The Definite Salvation from
all bondage… the liberation from all chains of sin, which kept all mankind in prison and
separated from God’s presence.
3. The messenger has the important mission of conveying faithfully the message that
is confided to him. This becomes a conditio sine qua non for someone who wants to be a
disciple of Jesus Christ. The message announced is not his but Jesus’.
II. The Gospel and the Gospels.
A. One Gospel or Four Gospels:
1. We read in the Mk 1:1 the following expression: “The beginning of the gospel of
Jesus Christ (the Son of God).” Notice that Mark describes the Gospel with what it is
called in Greek grammar a pronominal phrase in the Genitive Case. 1 In Greek, the
Genitive case can be used to convey different meanings: a) Possession = Cup of John; b)
Content = Cup of water; c) Matter = Cup of glass.
2. In our quote, Mark is trying to tell us three things: a) that the Gospel belongs to
Jesus, it is his very own possession; b) that the Gospel message contains Jesus, He is the
As with most Romance languages, English as is not an inflectional language but rather, a prepositional
one. That is to say that we construct our language based upon prepositions and prepositional phrases.
Words in English do not change when they function differently in a sentence: e.g., the house is red… that is
my red house… I bought the red house… in the red house there is an old man… Notice that in all instances
the word house remained the same, even though it functioned differently in each sentence. On the contrary,
words in Latin and in Greek do change when their function in the sentence changes. Those changes are
called inflections or declensions, so there is a different ending to the word depending on the function it
plays in the sentence. Thus, a word could have 6 different endings: Subject – Nominative case; Direct Object
– Accusative case; Indirect Object – Dative case; Prepositional phrase – Ablative case; Direct address –
Vocative case; Possession – Genitive Case.
1
object of the announcement; c) that the Gospel is made of Jesus that is, there cannot exist
a gospel without a reference to Jesus.
3. So the Good News that Mark is about to proclaim is defined right from the
beginning so there is no confusion among his readers. His book is all about Jesus and his
message.
III. The Literary Genre Called Gospel.
A. An Original Christian Genre.
1. The Church holds that the Bible is God’s Word revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.
The Church also teaches us that the Lord used human beings to convey his message of
salvation, called Revelation.
2. And while we continue to retain that what we read in the Bible is God’s Word
(matter), we also acknowledge the fact that in order to study the Bible we must pay
attention to its human form (genres).
3. So we find in the Bible, the same genres found in other types of literature, such as:
letters, farewell discourses, poetry, legal contracts, sayings, hymns, lamentations, praises,
curses, imprecations, metaphors, prosopopoeia2, diatribes3, rhetorical argumentation,
panegyrics4, eulogies, sermons, exhortations, parenesis5, warnings, blessings, etc.
4. The Gospel is a new literary genre in the history of literature. The Gospel genre as
such is original to Christianity for there is no equivalent in Ancient the Near East or
Hellenistic worlds.
5. We must grasp the gospel’s literary traits in order to understand the message
properly. The gospel is not a modern biography for we do not have access to the sources
used by the evangelists to compose the gospels. Furthermore, the gospels leave out stages
in Jesus’ life, and according to today’s standards this would make our gospels poor and
insufficient as biography. The gospel is not a chronicle written as events took place,
otherwise it would be very difficult to explain certain discrepancies existing among our
four canonical Gospels (e.g. between Lk 6 and Mt 5; between Jo 2:13 ff and Mc 11:15-17;
Mt 21:12 ff; Lk 19:45 ff).
6. The Gospel is a theological reinterpretation of what Jesus said (dicta) and Jesus did
(facta). Notice that when we say theological we mean a reflection based on divine
inspiration (in Greek Theos = God and Logos = Word), and therefore touching the realm of
the God’s Mystery and Transcendence.
7. The gospels were intended to address questions posed by Christians in the
apostolic era with regard to their faith, and therefore they respond only to those questions
and not to all questions.
8. The gospels presuppose the existence of a community in need of instruction, so it
is an error to go looking in the gospels for proof that will make legitimate this or that
tradition in the Church, as many fundamentalists do. We must keep this in mind: “An
A figure in rhetoric by which things inanimate are spoken of as animated beings; personification.
A type of argumentation based on rhetorical questions.
4 A discourse given to exalt the virtues of someone.
5 A moral exhortation
2
3
existing community gave birth to the gospels, rather than the gospels giving birth to the
Christian community.”
B. The Synoptic Problem.
1. Proposed Solutions
“There are many suggestions and still more variations that attempt to explain the
relationship between the Gospels. Even with these, ranging from simple to complex, they
can basically be seen in terms of four basic approaches. These are not specific proposals,
but categories under which the various proposals can be grouped for convenience. (Since
the issues are complex, specific textual evidence will not be given for any of the proposals;
consult a good New Testament introduction, such as Raymond Brown, An Introduction
to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997).
a) Oral Tradition. This approach suggests that all of the differences in the Gospel
tradition can be explained in terms of a pre-existing Aramaic oral tradition. The early
preaching of the gospel was quickly reduced to a selected set of core traditions that soon
evolved into a rather fixed form in the church because it was repeated so often. The
differences arose because that core tradition was preached in different circumstances that
required adaptation of the tradition.
While this reflects the second stage of the formation of the Gospel tradition outlined
above, it does not take seriously enough the specific similarities and parallels of the
written Gospel accounts in Greek. A preexisting oral Aramaic tradition simply does not
explain how the Gospels could be so similar in the Greek text, which probably explains
why few people hold this position today.
b) Interdependent. This approach suggests that in some way the later Gospels are
more or less dependent on one or more of the previous Gospels. That is, there is some
sort of sharing of material between the Gospels. While there are many variations of the
specifics of this approach, usually it assumes that Mark was the first Gospel written, and
that Matthew and Luke used the written form of Mark. This also generally assumes that
Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other for their own purposes.
c) Proto-Gospel. This approach generally assumes that the Gospels were composed
from a hypothetical written source that no longer exists. Again, there are variations of
this approach, but they generally revolve around two basic suggestions, either that all of
the Gospels were dependant on a posited original Aramaic Gospel, perhaps an Aramaic
version of Matthew, or that they used a proposed collection of sayings (logia) of Jesus.
d) Fragmentary. This approach suggests that the Gospels used various hypothetical
sources that were available to them in the early church. These would have been various
collections or summaries or short accounts of Jesus' actions and teachings that were
preserved in various forms and places in the church. For example, there may have been
a collection of miracle stories, or parables, or accounts of the crucifixion, or even a
collection of the sayings of Jesus. The various Gospel writers, who could have had access
to different documents or different versions of the collections, then used these to compile
their accounts.
2. The Early Church: The Priority of Matthew
The specific formulation and study of these issues as "the Synoptic Problem" is a
relatively recent endeavor, dating to the 18th century and the rise of the analytical study
of Scripture as a result of the Enlightenment. Yet, there had been previous observations
about the relationship of the Gospels and "traditional" conclusions had been reached
about them.
One of the earliest traditions comes from Papias writing around AD 125, preserved
in the writing of Eusebius. Papias concluded that the Gospel of Mark was an
interpretation (or perhaps translation) of the preaching of Peter. He also observed that
Mark was not a follower of Jesus but of Peter, and that he wrote accurately but not in
order. Only slightly later, Justin in the mid second century referred to Mark as "Peter's
memoirs."
Papias also observed that Matthew was written in a Hebrew style (dialektô) of
writing. Some have taken that comment to mean that Matthew was originally written in
Hebrew or Aramaic and only secondarily translated into Greek, a theory that persists
today.
From the order in which Papias treated the Gospels, we could infer that he thought
Mark was written before Matthew. However Clement of Alexandria writing around AD
200, also preserved in the writing of Eusebius, commented that the Gospels with
genealogies, presumably Matthew and Luke, were written first. By the fifth century, the
traditional order of Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been established. Augustine writing
around AD 400 asserted that each Gospel was dependent on those previous, with Mark
simply an abbreviation of Matthew, Luke drawing on both Matthew and Mark, and John
using all three.
There have been some modifications to this basic view, such as J. Griesbach's
suggestion that the order should be Matthew, Luke, and then Mark (called the Griesbach
Hypothesis, 1783). This was an attempt to explain some of the unique features of Luke as
well as to explain why Luke should be written at all if after Mark's abridgement of the
tradition. He also concluded that Mark was not just an abridgement of Matthew, but
actually a conflation of both Matthew and Luke. Strauss and Baur (c. 1835) continued to
support a variation of the Griesbach Hypothesis, only proposing a late date for the
writing of all the Gospels (early to mid-second century) and assuming that they were
non-historical.
This basic view of the priority of Matthew as the first Gospel written has remained
the popular traditional view well into the 20th century. It still has defenders among
scholars who have posited a very complex matrix of sources to explain the relationships
between the Gospels based on the assumption of Matthew's priority. Still, the main
argument for the priority of Matthew is the almost unanimous voice of the early church
tradition that places Matthew first.
3. The Rise of Analytical Study: A Proto-Gospel
However, with the rise of more analytical investigation of Scripture in the 18th
century, the problems with the traditional order of the Gospels as well as their
relationship became more apparent. Without as many constraints of dogma and tradition
concerning authorship and the order of the Gospels, historians and biblical scholars of
the late 18th and early 19th century began to look more closely at the Gospels themselves.
They began to discover the features that pointed to a more complex relationship between
the Gospels.
The first attempt to address this issue was to posit a primitive version of the gospel
traditions. There are two basic directions in which this proposal developed: early
proposals that saw a no longer extant Aramaic original, and much more recent variations
that propose various non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels that have been discovered as
the original source.
a) An Aramaic original
In some ways, Augustine's idea of the priority of Matthew used as a source by the
Gospels written later was the first formulation of the idea of an original Gospel. But the
first real analytical proposal that attempted to trace sources beyond the canonical Gospels
was toward the end of the 18th century. G. Lessing (1784) proposed that all of the Gospels
were dependant on an original proto-gospel (Urevangelium, original or primitive
gospel). He thought that this pre-canonical gospel was likely written in Aramaic and was
used by the Synoptic writers. J. Eichorn (1794) refined Lessing's proposal and suggested
that the original Aramaic Gospel was a full account of the life of Jesus, and existed in four
slightly different versions, which would explain the differences between the Synoptics.
There is still discussion today of the possibility that the Gospel of Matthew might
have been originally written in Aramaic. However, the idea that the entire gospel
tradition originated from a "master" Aramaic original has few supporters.
b) Apocryphal gospels
With the explosion of interest in the Ancient Near East in the 19th century, there were
many new archaeological discoveries that included hoards of ancient manuscripts. Some
of these proved to be various early Christian writings that included epistles and Gospels
that were not accepted into the canon of the New Testament. At first these apocryphal or
pseudigraphical Gospels (pseudipigraph = a document written under the name of a wellknown person, such as The Gospel of Thomas), were viewed as interesting historical
documents, but were obviously different from the canonical Gospels.
However, in recent years, there has been renewed interest in the apocryphal gospels
as a source of information about the formation of the gospel tradition. M. Smith (1973)
and H. Koester (1983) have proposed that Secret Mark, a second century writing
preserved in only small fragments, was actually the original written form of the gospel
tradition. J. D. Crossan (1985) has suggested that both Secret Mark and an early version
of the Gospel of Peter were the original sources of all four canonical Gospels. These are
all variations of the idea of a proto-gospel, although none of these proposals has gained
acceptance.
A much more popular suggestion revolves around the idea of "Q" (from the German
word Quelle, "source," J. Weiss, 1890). This is a designation given to a hypothetical
document thought to be a collection of various sayings of Jesus from which the Gospel
writers compiled at least parts of their Gospels. There are various proposals for both the
content of Q and how it fits into the formation of the Gospels with some suggesting a
larger role than others. Some scholars have attempted a reconstruction of what Q might
have contained, although there is disagreement on the details.
The discovery of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas in 1945 lent support to the idea of a Q
document. Thomas is a collection of various sayings of Jesus without any connecting
narrative. About one half of the 114 verses of Thomas have no parallel in the canonical
Gospels, and another one third only appears in rough correspondence. Yet the number
of similarities between Thomas and the Synoptics gives some support to the idea of an
independent collection of sayings of Jesus that could have been a source document for
the Gospels. Of course, the date of writing of Thomas is an important consideration. Some
suggest that Thomas was written much later than any of the Gospels, which would
suggest that it used the Gospels as sources rather than being a source for any of the
Gospels.
4. The Priority of Mark: The Two Document Hypothesis
As scholars worked more with the Gospels, the complexity of the Gospel traditions
became more apparent. Many scholars concluded that the questions raised about the
relationship for the Synoptics could not be adequately explained by assuming that
Matthew was the first Gospel written.
As a result, a new proposal for Gospel formation emerged based on the view that
Mark, or some early form of Mark (Urmarkus), was the first Gospel written. Weiss, in a
series of proposals in which he gradually refined his view (1838-1856), concluded that
both Matthew and Luke were written independently from each other using two basic
sources. The early form of Mark that contained material shared by all three Synoptics was
supplemented by a separate collection of the sayings of Jesus (logia) that contained
material shared by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark (the Double Tradition). This
became known as the Two Source Hypothesis.
This understanding of Gospel formation continued to be refined and challenged
throughout the 19th and early 20th century. The major debates about this theory revolved
around how much the posited early form of Mark (Urmarkus) differed from the canonical
Mark. Hawkins (1899) and Burkitt (1906) concluded that they were virtually identical,
while Abbott (1901) argued for a later edited version of the canonical Mark (recession)
that was used by the other Synoptic writers. Others modified other aspects of the
hypotheses, for example R. Gundry (1979; earlier proposed by Holtzmann, 1880) who
suggested that Luke also used some material from Matthew, which would functionally
yield a three-source hypothesis.
These ongoing debates reveal that not all the details had been addressed, and that
the Two-Source Hypothesis could not explain all the features of the Gospels. Still, it
remains today the simplest and one of the most widely accepted ways to understand the
literary relationship of the Synoptics.
5. The Priority of Mark: The Four Source Hypothesis
Scholars kept trying to refine the theories to explain more of both the similarities and
differences in the Synoptics. That search led B. Streeter (1924) to modify the Two Source
Hypothesis by expanding the number of posited sources. He rejected the idea of an early
form of Mark, and saw Matthew and Luke using the canonical Mark as a source. Yet, for
the material unique to each of those two Gospels, he also posited a separate source that
he labeled M for Matthew and L for Luke. In other words, Matthew had access not only
to Mark but also to his own M source, while Luke also had access to Mark but also to his
own L source. Both Matthew and Luke depended on Mark, but were written
independently of each other. He agreed with the earlier Two Document theory that both
Matthew and Luke had access to a sayings collection (logia or Q) unavailable to Mark,
but also posited that the L and Q sources were combined first into an early version of
Luke that was later combined with the material from Mark to produce the canonical
Luke.
This became known as the Four Source Hypothesis. The four original sources were
Mark, L, M, and Q, with Matthew using Mark, M, and Q while Luke used Mark, L, and
Q. Through the remainder of the 20th century there were various challenges and
refinements of Streeter's hypothesis, such as: a) Parker (1953) who posited an early
version of Matthew (proto-Matthew) as the primary source of both Matthew and Mark,
and a Q source used by Matthew and Luke, with Mark also providing material for Luke;
b) Boismard and P. Benoit (1973) of the École Biblique de Jérusalem, who basically
introduced the 4 source theory into Catholic circles.
6. Summary and Prospect
What is clear from this brief survey of the Synoptic tradition is that there is no certain
picture of how the Gospels were formed in terms of sources. There is no single theory of
documents or sources that definitively demonstrates how all the similarities and
differences in the Synoptic tradition can be explained. Today, most people accept either
the Two Document or Four Source Hypotheses as being most reasonable, probably with
the majority leaning to the Four Source Hypotheses. Today most allow a role for some
form of a Q document, although there remains little agreement on the details of how it
was used or what it contained.
But this should not be taken as saying that there is no value in any of this research.
What Synoptic studies have shown us is that the Gospel traditions were truly living
traditions passed on by a living community of Faith and used in that community. That
has tremendous implications not only for how we study the Gospels, but also how we
formulate our view of the nature of Scripture. For example, any view of the inspiration
of Scripture must take into consideration the features of the biblical text that give rise to
the Synoptic Problem. None of those proposals demand allegiance in the service of any
particular theory of inspiration. But an honest formulation of any theory of inspiration
that goes beyond dogma and ideology must consider the results of Synoptic research.
A further implication of an examination of the Synoptic Problem yields one of the
most important insights for the study of the Gospels. With this recognition of the
complexity and interrelationship of the Synoptics, any detailed study of the Synoptics
must consider the differences between the Gospels and the implications those differences
have for interpretation. No matter which theory of composition we consider, since we are
dealing with material that has identifiable sources, a major focus of exegesis must be how
the individual authors have used, adapted, changed, or applied the material (redaction
criticism or analysis).
For example, the differences between parallel accounts may reveal a particular
theological emphasis as we examine what changes were made and what effect they have
on the message. In one of the Beatitudes in Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount
Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Mt 5:3). Luke's version reads simply, "Blessed
are you who are poor" (Lk 6:20). In a later Beatitude Matthew's version reads, "Blessed
are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled" (5:6). Luke's
version of the same saying is: "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled"
(6:21). It is obvious that Luke used the tradition to focus on physical needs, while
Matthew used it to focus on spiritual needs.
At this point we might ask which version was the "original" version, and therefore
which one was "true." But that makes some assumptions about the nature of the biblical
material that leads us to ask the wrong questions of the text. That kind of question does
not consider what closer examination of Synoptic sources suggests: that the individual
authors were working with a living tradition and proclaiming it to a living community
to meet the needs and concerns of that community. It was not a matter of which saying
is "true." The better question is: "What was this author trying to say by telling us the
tradition in this way?"
This assumes that the Gospels with all their diversity are a faithful witness to the
tradition, and then proceeds to try to understand the differences. The way particular
authors omit or include material, place a saying into a certain context, add interpretative
comments, or emphasize certain features of the tradition by expansion may reveal not
only creativity in writing but a certain theological concern. Careful study of those features
will enable astute students of Scripture to hear and understand the testimony of the
Synoptics on a deeper level.
This emphasis on redaction analysis that grows out of study of the Synoptic Problem
also allows us to see the various strands of the Gospel tradition in terms of different
authors who were themselves each theologians in their own right rather than simply
being static conduits of a tradition. They were not simply editors or compilers who
passed on what they had heard without comment. They took an active role in trying to
bring the Gospel tradition alive within a certain context and for a certain purpose and
likely for a certain audience.
We are compelled to see the Gospels, not as a single story that can be conflated into
an epic script or harmonized into one story line (e.g., Tatian's Diatessaron), but as a living
tradition, a testimony to God and his work in the world that is given to us out of the life
of the early church. The various Gospels are each voices of that tradition, faithfully
bearing witness to us of the truth that they had come to see in Jesus, as God had helped
them understand that truth (inspiration). And, as John says, we believe their testimony is
true!
But they are not the same voice no more than the church today speaks with a single
voice. Of course, they bear witness to the same revelatory acts of God, but in a form that
speaks of the same diversity of life and circumstances with which we are all familiar. That
unity in diversity to which the Gospels so adequately bear witness might suggest that we
not only hear the Gospel message in its own diversity, but that we also learn to do what
the Gospel writers did and interpret that tradition amid the diversity of culture and
history in our own world.
The Gospels writers did not change the basic truth of the tradition in its testimony to
Jesus as the Christ and God's self-revelation of Himself in Jesus. But they did treat its
message as a living tradition that could be applied and reapplied in the life of the
community of Faith to call people to faithful response to that revelation, and to God. That
may be the greatest insight we can learn from the study of the Synoptic Problem, because
finally, for most of us, that is still our task today and is the purpose for which we study
Scripture.”6
6
The Synoptic Problem Webpage: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/: Cfr.,: http://catholicresources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm; http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic-problem-and-q/websites/.
C. The Church’s teaching on the Gospel (Doctrine of the Dei Verbum).
1. “The word God, which is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe (see
Rom. 1:16), is set forth and shows its power in a most excellent way in the writings of the
New Testament. ‘For when the fullness of time arrived (see Gal. 4:4),’ ‘the Word was
made flesh and dwelt among us in His fullness of graces and truth (see John 1:14).’
2. Christ established the kingdom of God on earth, manifested His Father and
Himself by deeds and words, and completed His work by His death, resurrection and
glorious Ascension and by the sending of the Holy Spirit. Having been lifted up from the
earth, He draws all men to Himself (see John 12:32, Greek text), He who alone has the
words of eternal life (see John 6:68).
3. This mystery had not been manifested to other generations as it was now revealed
to His holy Apostles and prophets in the Holy Spirit (see Eph. 3:4-6, Greek text), so that
they might preach the Gospel, stir up faith in Jesus, Christ and Lord, and gather together
the Church. Now the writings of the New Testament stand as a perpetual and divine
witness to these realities. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even
those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for
they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.
4. The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four
Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the
commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the
inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith,
namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
5. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues
to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church
unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men,
really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven
(see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their
hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which
they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and
taught by the light of the Spirit of truth.
6. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels with four things in mind: a) selecting
some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing;
b) reducing some of them to a synthesis; c) explaining some things in view of the situation
of their churches; d) preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that
what they told us was the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that
either from their own memory and recollections or from the testimony of those who
"themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might
know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see
Luke 1:2-4).
7. Besides the four Gospels, the canon of the New Testament also contains the epistles
of St. Paul and other apostolic writings, composed under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, by which, according to the wise plan of God, those matters which concern Christ
the Lord are confirmed, His true teaching is more and more fully stated, the saving power
of the divine work of Christ is preached, the story is told of the beginnings of the Church
and its marvelous growth, and its glorious fulfillment is foretold. For the Lord Jesus was
with His apostles as He had promised (see Matt. 28:20) and sent them the advocate Spirit
who would lead them into the fullness of truth (see John 16:13).” DV 17-20.
D. Four Fundamental Principles.
1. Apostolic Origin of the Gospels: The Gospels are documents, which date back to
the time of the Apostolic Preaching.
2. Historical Value of the Gospels: The Gospels are documents historically reliable,
as inasmuch they transmit faithfully even though not always literally what Jesus did and
said (Dicta et Facta Iesu).
3. Theological Dimension of the Gospels: The Gospels are documents in which the
evangelists interpret historical facts through the scope given by the experience of the
Paschal Mystery of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Then, by impulse of the Holy Spirit they set
themselves to teach (catechesis) the Good News to their communities.
4. The Purpose of the Gospels is Discipleship or Sequela Christi: The main purpose
of the Gospels is to instruct believers in their faith, nourishing the community in its desire
to grow in wisdom and holiness. So the Gospels are meant to be instruments of
discipleship. Discipleship is the relation between a Master and a disciple; therefore it is a
personal relationship. And in our case it is a personal relationship between our Savior
Jesus Christ and each and every one of us.
IV. Our study the Gospels = Method of Interpretation.
Allow me to use an analogy to explain the methodology we are going to be using in
this class to study the gospels. We all know what a pizza is, And we all know that in order
call a meal pizza it must have four basic ingredients: a) dough; b) sauce; c) cheese; d)
toppings. Without any of those four basic things there is no pizza. But the problem is, we
are so used to see those four ingredients combined together that we do not pay attention
to the individual properties and dietary components: carbohydrates, starches, proteins,
vitamins, dairy, iron, potassium, anti-oxidants, etc., etc.
The purpose of this class is to introduce to you each and every one of the four
ingredients that make what we called the Gospel today. And just as someone with studies
in nutrition would explain the dietary properties contained in the flour, the tomato, the
cheese, and in toppings so that one can see learn how good pizza is for his or her
nutritional intake. So in the same way we will make an effort to understand each of the
gospels in their own idiosyncrasies and designs. And only after we have studied them
one by one, we can have a better assessment of who Jesus is and what his Gospel is all
about.
The Gospel According to Mark
I. The Person of Mark
A. Internal Data
The name Mark comes from the original Greek Marko,j, and the Latin Marcus. It
is assumed in this article that the individual referred to in Acts as John Mark (12:12, 25;
15:37), John (13:5, 13), Mark (15:39), is identical with the Mark mentioned by St. Paul (Col.
4:10; 2Tim 4:11; Phlm 24) and by St. Peter (1Peter 5:13). Their identity is not questioned
by any ancient writer of note, while it is strongly suggested, on the one hand by the fact
that Mark of the Pauline Epistles was the cousin (o` avne,psioj) of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), to
whom Mark of Acts seems to have been bound by some special tie (Acts, 15:37-39); on the
other by the probability that the Mark, whom St. Peter calls his son (1 Peter, 5:13), is no
other than the son of Mary, the Apostle's old friend in Jerusalem (Acts, 21, 12). To the
Jewish name Johannin was added the Roman pronomen Marcus, and by the latter he was
commonly known to the readers of Acts (15:37, to.n kalou/menon Ma,rkon) and of the
Epistles.
Mark's mother was a prominent member of the infant Church at Jerusalem; it was to
her house that Peter turned on his release from prison; the house was approached by a
porch (pu,lon), there was a slave girl (paidiske), probably the portress, to open the door,
and the house was a meeting-place for the brethren, “many” of whom were praying there
the night St. Peter arrived from prison (Acts 12:12-13).
When, on the occasion of the famine of A.D. 45-46, Barnabas and Saul had
completed their ministration in Jerusalem, they took Mark with them on their return to
Antioch (Act 5, 12:25). Not long after, when they started on St. Paul's first Apostolic
journey, they had Mark with them as some sort of assistant (u`pere,ten, Acts 13, 5); but the
vagueness and variety of meaning of the Greek term makes it uncertain in what precise
capacity he acted.
Neither selected by the Holy Spirit, nor delegated by the Church of Antioch, as were
Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:2-4), he was probably taken by the Apostles as one who could
be of general help. The context of Acts 13:5 suggests that he helped even in preaching the
Word. When Paul and Barnabas resolved to push on from Perga into central Asia Minor,
Mark, departed from them, if indeed he had not already done so at Paphos, and returned
to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). What his reasons were for turning back, we cannot say with
certainty: Acts 15:38, seems to suggest that he feared the toil.
At any rate, the incident was not forgotten by St. Paul, who refused on account of it
to take Mark with him on the second apostolic journey. This refusal led to the separation
of Paul and Barnabas, and the latter, taking Mark with him, sailed to Cyprus (Acts 15:3740). At this point (A.D. 49-50) we lose sight of Mark in Acts, and we meet him no more in
the New Testament, till he appears some ten years afterwards as the fellow-worker of St.
Paul, and in the company of St. Peter, at Rome.
St. Paul, writing to the Colossians during his first Roman imprisonment (A.D. 59-61),
says: “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, salutes you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas,
touching whom you have received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him”
(Col. 4:10). At the time this was written, Mark was evidently in Rome, but had some
intention of visiting Asia Minor.
About the same time St. Paul sends greetings to Philemon from Mark, whom he
names among his fellow-workers (sune,rgoi, Phlm 24). The Evangelist's intention of
visiting Asia Minor was probably carried out, for St. Paul, writing shortly before his death
to Timothy at Ephesus, bids him pick up Mark and bring him with him to Rome, adding
“for he is profitable to me for the ministry” (2Tim. 4:11). If Mark came to Rome at this
time, he was probably there when St. Paul was martyred. Turning to 1Pe 5:13, we read:
“The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you, and (so does)
Mark my son” (Marko,j o` u`io,j mou). This letter was addressed to various Churches of
Asia Minor (1Pe 1:1), and we may conclude that Mark was known to them.
Hence, though he had refused to penetrate into Asia Minor with Paul and Barnabas,
St. Paul makes it probable, and St. Peter certain, that he went afterwards, and the fact that
St. Peter sends Mark's greeting to a number of Churches implies that he must have been
widely known there. In calling Mark his “son,” Peter may possibly imply that he had
baptized him, though in that case te,knon might be expected rather than u`io,j (cf. 1 Cor.
4:17; 1Tim. 1:2, 18; 2Tim. 1:2; 2:1; Tit. 1:4; Phlm. 10). The term need not be taken to imply
more than affectionate regard for a younger man, who had long ago sat at Peter's feet in
Jerusalem, and whose mother had been the Apostle's friend (Acts 12:12). As to the
Babylon from which Peter writers, and in which Mark is present with him, there can be
no reasonable doubt that it is Rome.
B. External Data
The view of St. Jerome: “St. Peter also mentions this Mark in his First Epistle, while
referring figuratively to Rome under the title of Babylon”, is supported by all the early
Fathers who refer to the subject. It may be said to have been questioned for the first time
by Erasmus, whom a number of Protestant writers then followed, that they might the
more readily deny the Roman connection of St. Peter. Thus, we find Mark in Rome with
St. Peter at a time when he was widely known to the Churches of Asia Minor. If we
suppose him, as we may, to have gone to Asia Minor after the date of the Epistle to the
Colossians, remained there for some time, and returned to Rome before 1 Peter was
written, the Petrine and Pauline references to the Evangelist are quite intelligible and
consistent.
According to Papias, who lived not later than A.D. 130 (Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.” 3:39)
Mark had been the interpreter (e`rmene,utej) of Peter, and wrote down accurately, though
not in order, the teaching of Peter. A widespread, if somewhat late, tradition represents
St. Mark as the founder of the Church of Alexandria. Though strangely enough Clement
and Origen make no reference to the saint's connection with their city, it is attested by
Eusebius (op. cit.2, 16:24), by St. Jerome, by the Apostolic Constitutions (7:46), by
Epiphanius (“Haer;.” 51:6) and by many later authorities. The “Martyrologium
Romanum” (25 April) records: “At Alexandria the anniversary of Blessed Mark the Evangelist
. . . at Alexandria of St. Anianus Bishop, the disciple of Blessed Mark and his successor in the
episcopate, who fell asleep in the Lord.”
The date at which Mark came to Alexandria is uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius
assigns it to the first years of Claudius (A.D. 41-4), and later on states that St. Mark's first
successor, Anianus, succeeded to the See of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero (61-2).
This would make Mark Bishop of Alexandria for a period of about twenty years. This is
not impossible, if we might suppose in accordance with some early evidence that St. Peter
came to Rome in A.D. 42, Mark perhaps accompanying him. But Acts raise considerable
difficulties. On the assumption that the founder of the Church of Alexandria was identical
with the companion of Paul and Barnabas, we find him at Jerusalem and Antioch about
A.D. 46 (Acts 12:25), in Salamis about 47 (Acts 13:5), at Antioch again about 49 or 50 (Acts
15:37-39), and when he quitted Antioch, on the separation of Paul and Barnabas, it was
not to Alexandria but to Cyprus that he turned (Acts 15:39).
There is nothing indeed to prove absolutely that all this is inconsistent with his being
Bishop of Alexandria at the time, but seeing that the chronology of the Apostolic age is
admittedly uncertain, and that we have no earlier authority than Eusebius for the date of
the foundation of the Alexandrian Church, we may perhaps conclude with more
probability that it was founded somewhat later. There is abundance of time between A.D.
50 and 60, a period during which the New Testament is silent in regard to St. Mark, for
his activity in Egypt.
In the preface to his Gospel in manuscripts of the Vulgate, Mark is represented as
having been a Jewish priest: “Mark the Evangelist, who exercised the priestly office in Israel, a
Levite by race.” Early authorities, however, are silent upon the point, and it is perhaps only
an inference from his relation to Barnabas the Levite (Acts 4:36). Papias (in Eusebius,
“Hist. eccl.” 3:39) says, on the authority of “the elder,” that Mark neither heard the Lord
nor followed Him (ouvte ga.r evkouse,n tou/ kuri,on ouvte pare,koluth,esen auvto), and the
same statement is made in the Dialogue of Adamantius (fourth century, Leipzig, 1901, p.
8), by Eusebius (“Demonst. Evang.” 3:5), by St. Jerome (“In Matth.”), by St. Augustine
(“De Consens. Evang.”), and is suggested by the Muratorian Fragment.
Later tradition, however, makes Mark one of the seventy-two disciples, and St.
Epiphanius (“Hær,” 51:6) says he was one of those who withdrew from Christ (John 6:67).
The later tradition can have no weight against the earlier evidence, but the statement that
Mark neither heard the Lord nor followed Him need not be pressed too strictly, nor force
us to believe that he never saw Christ. Many indeed are of opinion that the young man
who fled naked from Gethsemane (Mark 14:51) was Mark himself. Early in the third
century Hippolytus (“Philosophumena” 7:30) refers to Mark as o` kolobodaktulo,j, i.e.
“stump-fingered” or “mutilated in the finger(s),” and later authorities allude to the same
defect. Various explanations of the epithet have been suggested: that Mark, after he
embraced Christianity, cut off his thumb to unfit himself for the Jewish priesthood; that
his fingers were naturally stumpy; that some defect in his toes is alluded to; that the
epithet is to be regarded as metaphorical, and means “deserted” (cf. Acts 13:13).
The date of Mark's death is uncertain. St. Jerome assigns it to the eighth year of
Nero (62-63) (Mortuus est octavo Neronis anno et sepultus Alexandriæ), but this is probably
only an inference from the statement of Eusebius (“Hist. eccl.” 2: 24), that in that year
Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the See of Alexandria. Certainly, if St. Mark was alive
when 2 Timothy was written (2Tim. 4:11), he cannot have died in 61-62. Nor does
Eusebius say he did; the historian may merely mean that St. Mark then resigned his see,
and left Alexandria to join Peter and Paul at Rome. As to the manner of his death, the
“Acts” of Mark give the saint the glory of martyrdom, and say that he died while being
dragged through the streets of Alexandria; so too the Paschal Chronicle. But we have no
evidence earlier than the fourth century that the saint was martyred. This earlier silence,
however, is not at all decisive against the truth of the later traditions. The body of St Mark
was removed from Alexandria and brought to Venice, where he is venerated still today.
In Christian literature and art St. Mark is symbolically represented by a lion. The Greek
Church celebrates his feast on the 27th of September, while the Latin Church does it on
the 25 April and also on 27 September.
II. The Book
If we were to compare the incipit of each one of the gospels we immediately notice
some significant differences in the style of writing and in the scope in which each
evangelist funnels all the dicta et fact Iesu:
Mark’s Gospel begins by saying:
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God.
RSV
Mark 1:1 VArch. tou/ euvaggeli,ou VIhsou/
Cristou/ Îui`ou/ qeou/ÐÅ
BNT
Mark since the beginning he leads the reader to acknowledge his work as the Good
News of Jesus Christ. His scope is to invite the reader to find more about this man named
Jesus Christ, who proclaims himself the Son of God. Noteworthy of this gospel is the fact
that the term gospel appears 8 times: 1:1,14-15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15. In each one
of the appearances the term can be said indistinctively of Jesus in persona or of Jesus in
evangelio.
Matthew’s Gospel begins thus:
Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of
Abraham.
RSV
Bi,bloj gene,sewj VIhsou/
Cristou/ ui`ou/ Daui.d ui`ou/ VAbraa,mÅ
BNT
Matthew 1:1
Matthew writing to Jewish audience is very intense in setting the stage by
introducing Jesus as the fulfillment to the OT prophecies made to Abraham and King
David.
Luke’s Gospel uses the style of a prologue:
Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken
to compile a narrative of the things which have
been accomplished among us,
2 just as they were delivered to us by those who
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word,
3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all
things closely for some time past, to write an
orderly account for you, most excellent
Theophilus,
4 that you may know the truth concerning the
things of which you have been informed.
RSV
Luke 1:1 evpeidh,per polloi. evpecei,rhsan
avnata,xasqai
dih,ghsin
peri.
tw/n
peplhroforhme,nwn evn h`mi/n pragma,twn(
2
kaqw.j pare,dosan h`mi/n oi` avpV avrch/j
auvto,ptai kai. u`phre,tai geno,menoi tou/
lo,gou(
3
e;doxe kavmoi. parhkolouqhko,ti a;nwqen
pa/sin avkribw/j kaqexh/j soi gra,yai(
kra,tiste Qeo,file(
4 i[na evpignw/|j peri. w-n kathch,qhj lo,gwn
th.n avsfa,leianÅ
BNT
Luke opts to introduce his gospel with a prologue, in which he describes his gospel
as a historical account (time and space) of the dicta et facta Iesu but read in the context of
God’s plan of Salvation. That plan includes Theophilus and all the readers that have
accepted the Good News and are willing to deepen their understanding of faith.
A. The Literary Style.
1. Simple and descriptive Greek
Mark uses a very simple Greek in his Gospel. The story is poorly woven from a
literary point of view. There are a few subordinate clauses, so it can be said that sentence
construction in Mark’s Gospel is as simple as the Gospel is short. Nonetheless, the
simplicity does not take away the descriptiveness in the “Marcan” account (e.g. Mk 2:1
ff; 3:1 ff; 5:1ff; 6:14-33; 13:1 ff; 14-15).
2. Use of Parataxis or basic conjunctions.
Mark privileges the paratactic construction in his account, that is to say that he
weaves the ideas together with simple conjunctions: like (kai.) “kai,” meaning “and” in
Greek7.
Example of Paratactic Construction in Mark8
GNT Mark 1:4 evge,neto VIwa,nnhj Îo`Ð
bapti,zwn evn th/| evrh,mw| kai. khru,sswn
ba,ptisma metanoi,aj eivj a;fesin a`martiw/nÅ 5
kai. evxeporeu,eto pro.j auvto.n pa/sa h` VIoudai,a
cw,ra kai. oi` ~Ierosolumi/tai pa,ntej( kai.
evbapti,zonto u`pV auvtou/ evn tw/| VIorda,nh|
potamw/| evxomologou,menoi ta.j a`marti,aj
auvtw/nÅ 6 kai. h=n o` VIwa,nnhj evndedume,noj
tri,caj kamh,lou kai. zw,nhn dermati,nhn peri.
th.n ovsfu.n auvtou/( kai. evsqi,wn avkri,daj kai.
me,li a;grionÅ 7 kai. evkh,russen le,gwn(
:Ercetai o` ivscuro,tero,j mou ovpi,sw mou( ououvk eivmi. i`kano.j ku,yaj lu/sai to.n i`ma,nta tw/n
u`podhma,twn auvtou/Å 8 evgw. evba,ptisa u`ma/j
u[dati( auvto.j de. bapti,sei u`ma/j evn pneu,mati
a`gi,wÅ| 9 Kai. evge,neto evn evkei,naij tai/j
h`me,raij h=lqen VIhsou/j avpo. Nazare.t th/j
Galilai,aj kai. evbapti,sqh eivj to.n VIorda,nhn
u`po. VIwa,nnouÅ 10 kai. euvqu.j avnabai,nwn evk
tou/ u[datoj ei=den scizome,nouj tou.j ouvranou.j
kai. to. pneu/ma w`j peristera.n katabai/non eivj
auvto,n\ 11 kai. fwnh. evge,neto evk tw/n
ouvranw/n( Su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn
soi. euvdo,khsaÅ 12 Kai. euvqu.j to. pneu/ma
NJB Mark 1:4 John the Baptist was in the
desert, proclaiming a baptism of repentance
for the forgiveness of sins. 5 All Judea and all
the people of Jerusalem made their way to
him, and as they were baptized by him in the
river Jordan they confessed their sins. 6 John
wore a garment of camel-skin, and he lived
on locusts and wild honey. 7 In the course of
his preaching he said, 'After me is coming
someone who is more powerful than me,
and I am not fit to kneel down and undo the
strap of his sandals. 8 I have baptized you
with water, but he will baptize you with the
Holy Spirit.' 9 It was at this time that Jesus
came from Nazareth in Galilee and was
baptized in the Jordan by John. 10 And at
once, as he was coming up out of the water,
he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit,
like a dove, descending on him. 11 And a
voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son,
the Beloved; my favor rests on you.' 12 And
at once the Spirit drove him into the desert
13 and he remained there for forty days, and
was put to the test by Satan. He was with the
Other simple constructions include several expressions like: “in those days”1:9; “and at once” 1:29; ‘and
going out again” 2:13; “and he went up to”3;13.
8 The English rendition of the NJB below may not show clearly enough the paratactic construction shown
in the Greek. Other translations choose to omit the usage of “and”
7
auvto.n evkba,llei eivj th.n e;rhmonÅ 13 kai. h=n
evn th/| evrh,mw| tessera,konta h`me,raj
peirazo,menoj u`po. tou/ Satana/( kai. h=n meta.
tw/n qhri,wn( kai. oi` a;ggeloi dihko,noun
auvtw/Å| 14 Meta. de. to. paradoqh/nai to.n
VIwa,nnhn h=lqen o` VIhsou/j eivj th.n Galilai,an
khru,sswn to. euvagge,lion tou/ qeou/ 15 kai.
le,gwn o[ti Peplh,rwtai o` kairo.j kai. h;ggiken
h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/\ metanoei/te kai.
pisteu,ete evn tw/| euvaggeli,wÅ|
wild animals, and the angels looked after
him. 14 After John had been arrested, Jesus
went into Galilee. There he proclaimed the
gospel from God saying, 15 'The time is
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is close at
hand. Repent, and believe the gospel.'
3. Swiftness of the actions.
Another device in the marcan account is his idiosyncratic way of telling the story.
Jesus seems to be always in a hurry, he never stops… (kai. euvqu.j) “kai euthus”, “at once”
in Greek. It is as if Mark was in a hurry trying to get all he could at once.
Example of swift Construction in Mark
GNT Mark 1:18 kai. euvqu.j avfe,ntej ta. di,ktua
hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/Å| 19 Kai. proba.j ovli,gon
ei=den VIa,kwbon to.n tou/ Zebedai,ou kai.
VIwa,nnhn to.n avdelfo.n auvtou/ kai. auvtou.j evn tw/|
ploi,w| katarti,zontaj ta. di,ktua( 20 kai. euvqu.j
evka,lesen auvtou,jÅ kai. avfe,ntej to.n pate,ra
auvtw/n Zebedai/on evn tw/| ploi,w| meta. tw/n
misqwtw/n avph/lqon ovpi,sw auvtou/Å 21 Kai.
eivsporeu,ontai eivj Kafarnaou,m\ kai. euvqu.j toi/j
sa,bbasin eivselqw.n eivj th.n sunagwgh.n
evdi,daskenÅ 22 kai. evxeplh,ssonto evpi. th/| didach/|
auvtou/\ h=n ga.r dida,skwn auvtou.j w`j evxousi,an
e;cwn kai. ouvc w`j oi` grammatei/jÅ 23 kai. euvqu.j
h=n evn th/| sunagwgh/| auvtw/n a;nqrwpoj evn
pneu,mati avkaqa,rtw| kai. avne,kraxen 24 le,gwn(
Ti, h`mi/n kai. soi,( VIhsou/ Nazarhne,È h=lqej
avpole,sai h`ma/jÈ oi=da, se ti,j ei=( o` a[gioj tou/
qeou/Å 25 kai. evpeti,mhsen auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j
le,gwn( Fimw,qhti kai. e;xelqe evx auvtou/Å 26 kai.
spara,xan auvto.n to. pneu/ma to. avka,qarton kai.
fwnh/san fwnh/| mega,lh| evxh/lqen evx auvtou/Å 27
kai. evqambh,qhsan a[pantej w[ste suzhtei/n pro.j
e`autou.j le,gontaj( Ti, evstin tou/toÈ didach.
kainh. katV evxousi,an\ kai. toi/j pneu,masi toi/j
avkaqa,rtoij evpita,ssei( kai. u`pakou,ousin auvtw/Å|
28 kai. evxh/lqen h` avkoh. auvtou/ euvqu.j pantacou/
eivj o[lhn th.n peri,cwron th/j Galilai,ajÅ 29
Kai. euvqu.j evk th/j sunagwgh/j evxelqo,ntej h=lqon
eivj th.n oivki,an Si,mwnoj kai. VAndre,ou meta.
VIakw,bou kai. VIwa,nnouÅ
NJB Mark 1:18 And at once they left their nets
and followed him. 19 Going on a little further, he
saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John;
they too were in their boat, mending the nets. 20
At once he called them and, leaving their father
Zebedee in the boat with the men he employed,
they went after him. 21 They went as far as
Capernaum, and at once on the Sabbath he went
into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 And
his teaching made a deep impression on them
because, unlike the scribes, he taught them with
authority. 23 And at once in their synagogue
there was a man with an unclean spirit, and he
shouted, 24 'What do you want with us, Jesus of
Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know
who you are: the Holy One of God.' 25 But Jesus
rebuked it saying, 'Be quiet! Come out of him!' 26
And the unclean spirit threw the man into
convulsions and with a loud cry went out of him.
27 The people were so astonished that they
started asking one another what it all meant,
saying, 'Here is a teaching that is new, and with
authority behind it: he gives orders even to
unclean spirits and they obey him.' 28 And his
reputation at once spread everywhere, through
all the surrounding Galilean countryside. 29 And
at once on leaving the synagogue, he went with
James and John straight to the house of Simon
and Andrew.
4. Use of Summaries (Mk 1:32ff; 3:7ff; 6:1-13.53ff; 10:13ff).
5. Artistry in story telling: sequences of time (1:21-28 exorcism; 3:7-12 summary; 4:3941 calming of the storm; 6:1-11 preaching in Nazareth; 7:32-36 healing of the mute; 8:2226 healing of the blind; 11:1-6 entrance in Jerusalem; 14:13-16 Last Supper preparations).
6. Use of Latin and Aramaic expressions: Boanerges 3:17; Talithá Kum 5;41; Korbán
7:11; Epphatá 7:34; Bartimaios 10:46; lepta dúo 12:42; Abbá 14:36; Praitotion 15:16; Elohí,
lammáh sabakhtaní 15:33-34.
7. Use of ellipsis or anticipation: 3:9 anticipates 4:1; 11:11 (the boat); he also anticipates
11:15-19 (the Temple); 14:54 anticipates 14:66-72 (Peter’s negations); 14:28.51-52
anticipates 16:1-8 (young man).
8. Mark describes Jesus’ humanity with no idealism: despite being God’s Son, Jesus
gets angry, he gets tired, he suffers from hunger, he has compassion, he admires and has
pity on those less fortunate.
9. Mark as opposed to Matthew (who loves discourses) seems to give preponderance
to the miracle stories.
10. Constant use of apostillae (justifications) reveals that the auditorium was mainly
pagan: 5:41; 7:3-4.11.34; 15:22.
11. Recurrence to the Refrain or Mantra Method, which consists of having several
characters in the story repeating the same phrase to nail it down in the mind of the reader:
2:5.7.9.10 (forgiveness of sins); 2:15-ff (follow-sinners); 6:31.32.35 (desert place); 9:11.12
(Elijah); 10: 38.38 (Baptism as martyrdom); 12:41-44 (giving money); 15:44-45 (death of
Jesus).
12. Use of double negation or litotes (also known as emphatic negation): 1;44; 2;2;
3:20.27; 5:37; 6;5; 7:12; 9:8; 11;14; 12:14.34; 14:25.60.61; 15:4-5; 16;8. Hint: Marks sounds like
a native of Brooklyn: “I don’t know nothing.”
13. Use of the casus pendens, omission of the object of the verb: 6:16.
14. Use of diminutives, which reveal mastery in descriptive narration: little stretch
2:11; little town 1:38; puppies 7:27; little home (11 times); dresses (10 times); little fish 8:7;
little girl 5:23.41; 7:25; little boat 3;9; little sandals 6:9; little coins 12:42; cut-off ear 14:47;
numbers= 12 nine times; 3 ten times; and 10 other times different repeated numbers.
B. Symbol: The Lion.
The Fathers usually link the symbols to the opening of each gospel; the lion is a
symbol of John the Baptist, the ‘voice crying in the wilderness.’ But also the lion, as the
king of the beasts, represents Jesus’ royal power in Mark. While the lion is often seen as
kingly in other Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, this is not the main image in the Bible.
The lion is symbolic of the king’s anger (Prov 19:12; 20:2); and of the wicked ruler (Prov
28:15; Zeph 3:3); a predator who suddenly appears to attack the flock (1Sam 17:34-37); or
human beings (1Kgs 13:24-26; the enemy of the psalmist (Ps 17:12; 22:13); the roaring lion
judges and destroys (Jer 49:19; 50:44; Hosea 13:7-8); and the cause of lamentation (Lam
3:10).
The lion is thus an uncomfortable image in the Bible and not the most obvious choice
for ‘Gentle Jesus, meek and mild’!
1. The voice roaring in the desert (Mk 1:2f).
2. Only Marks says that Jesus is in the midst of beasts (Mk 1:12-13).
3. The Beast moving constantly (Mk 1:14 – 13:37).
4. Lion like Jesus bounds off his preaching (Mk 1:14-15).
5. Like a lion he forms his pride (Mk 1:16-20).
6. Reveals his powers by healing men by expelling demons (1:21-28; Peter’s mother
in Law 1:29-31; goes round about towns and synagogues 1:35-39; heals a leper 1:40-45).
The sheer pace is unrelenting. This material in Mt and Lk goes on for several chapters.
In Marks description, everything is swift
3. Feeding Israel (6:34-52).
4. Feeding the nations (8:1-10).
5. Feeding the 12 (8:13-21)
6. The King (Mk 1:1.11; 9:7; 14:60-64; 15:39).
Part A:
Baptismal Motive
Ministry in Galilee
The Lion is the Son of
God, Jesus Christ
Preaching of John
the Baptist Mk 1:1-8
The Lion of Conflict
The Baptism of
Jesus: Theophany
Mk 1:9-11
Forming the School
and miracles
1:14 – 3:35
Teaching in
Parables and
healings
Part B:
Towards Jerusalem
Passion Predictions
What kind of Lion is
this Creature?
1st. Prediction, Peter’s
Conf.
Transfiguration 8:27
– 9:29
2nd. Prediction
Teachings on
ministry
9:30 – 10:31
Hinge Passage: Healing of Bartimaeus, a blind man 10:46-52,
which is also a baptismal motif
Opening Triptych:
Hinge Passage: Healing of the blind man 8:22-26, which is also
a baptismal motif
C. Structure: Opening triptych; three parts of three; closing triptych.
Part C:
In Jerusalem
Closing Triptych:
Baptismal Motive
The Lion’s lair or
robber’s den?
Entrance and
prophetic
actions
11:1-33.
Final
Confrontation
12:1 – 13:37
The Lion is the
Risen Christ
Mary Magdalene
16:1-3
The Angel
Theophany
16: 4-7
4:1 – 5:43
The fighting beast.
3rd. Prediction
Passion
Fear and silence
Confrontations,
Service and love
Narrative
16:8
healings, feedings
10:32-45.
14:1 – 15: 47
6:1- 8:21
Mk 16:9-20 is an attempt to finish what appears to be un unfinished story. It was added later but the Church has always
considered this addition as Canonical.
The Temptations:
silence (40 days)
Mk 1:12-13
One can see a well-planned structure for the Gospel. The usage of a triptych schema
is very common in ancient Greek literature as well as in the OT Hebrew. The number
three means time for the Hebrews: yesterday, today and tomorrow… So by structuring
in threes Mark is telling us that Gospel is for all times… It also echoes the Baptismal
formula and the triple invocation to the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) – with
the subsequent triple immersion in the water.
The Baptismal motive carries on throughout the entire Gospel and it is not surprising,
for this Gospel is intended to be preached among those who have not yet received the
Good News. This becomes evident when one pays attention to both hinge passages
linking parts A and C to part B. Believing in Jesus Christ is like opening the eyes of the
blind. But it also requires total surrender… both blind men saw … but Israel, including
the apostles had a hard time understanding that believing in Jesus was accepting the
cross.
The triptych structure also responds to Mark’s particular interest in Jesus’
geographical displacement: a) Ministry in Galilee; b) Ministry on the journey from Galilee
to Jerusalem; c) final week in Jerusalem.
III. The Message
A. Christology
1. Three Confessions, and Three Theophanies:
a) Mark himself in the title (Mk 1:1) gives the first confession. This confession is
followed by God’s address to the Son (Mk 1:11);
b) The second confession is given by Peter in Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27ff), the
same is followed by God’s address to Peter, James and John during Christ’s
Transfiguration (Mk 9:7);
c) The third confession is given by the Centurion just moments after Christ’s Death
on the Cross (Mk 15:39). Interesting enough, the Theophany this time occurs both before
and after the confession. Before - for Jesus reveals his own identity during the trials (Mk
14:62), and after - for it is an angel that reveals the Good News of Resurrection to the holy
women (Mk 16:6).
2. Messianic Secret: Perhaps the most intriguing and notorious literary and
theological device in Mark’s Gospel is what scholars have called the Messianic Secret. In
the Gospel, Jesus goes to great pains to hide his identity as Messiah. For this reason He
imposes silence on the demons that recognize him (Mk 1:22-25; 5:3-20); on Peter who
confesses him as the Messiah (Mk 8:30; 9:9); on those whom he has healed (1:40-45; 5:2143; 7:31-37; 8:22-26). Only Jesus can reveal his identity (Mk 14:62), and when finally he
revealed it no one hears about it for the women were in fear (16:8).
3. Mark’s intention in presenting Christ’s identity in such an intriguing way was to
captivate the audience’s attention (literary device), but also to defend Christology from
deviations, as there were some heresies circulating among the first Christians (theological
device).
4. He who wants to know the true identity of Jesus must become his follower
(acolyte), his disciple, so that Jesus himself may reveal his identity.
5. Our Lord is presented also as the Prophet: a) proclaiming the coming of God’s
Kingdom with Authority (exousia) (Mk 1:14-15), b) summoning disciples (Mk 1:16-20;
3:13-19), c) predicting events (Mk 8:31 - 11:10), d) performing gestures (Mk 11:1-11.15-18),
e) experiencing rejection (Mk 2:1 – 3:6.20-25; 6:1-6a; 7:1-22; 11:27-33; 14:1ff).
Jesus is singled out as the Beloved Son right from the beginning of the gospel. The
Father speaks to him as his Son (Mk 1:11); then reveals Him to Peter, James and John (Mk
9:7); Jesus is referred to as the Son in the Wicked Tenants Parable (Mk 12:1-12); a pagan
reaffirms Christ’s identity after his Death on the Cross (Mk 15:39).
6. Jesus is the Teacher who constantly is reaching out to his disciples and the crowds,
preaching in parables (Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1ff; 6:2.34; 9:33 – 10:12; 12:1ff; 13:33-37).
7. Jesus is the Healer (Mk 2:17) who cured Peter’s Mother in Law “to be” (Mk 1:2931), the leper (Mk 1:40-45), the paralytic (Mk2:1ff), the man with a withered hand (Mk
3:1ff), the Gerasene (Mk 5:1ff), Jairus’ daughter and the woman with a hemorrhage (Mk
5:21ff), all the sick at Gennesaret (Mk 6:53ff), the deaf man (Mk 7:30-37), the blind man
(Mk 8:22ff), the possessed boy (Mk 9:14ff), Bartimeaus (Mk 10:46ff).
B. Ecclesiology
1. The theme of discipleship is the theme more preponderant in Marks’s Ecclesiology.
Mark seems to always present Jesus in the company of someone; right from the start
Jesus’ first action was to choose the first four disciples (1:16-20). Discipleship is to follow
Christ, is to get involved in what Jesus is doing on the way: Two important expressions
in the Gospel of Mark reveal the type of Church Mark wants to present: a Church
configured by authentic disciples and followers. The first one is (ovpi,sw mou) opiso mou
meaning “behind me, follow me” Mk 1:17.20; 8:32ff. And the second one is (avkoluqe,w)
akolutheo meaning “to be an acolyte, to follow” Mk 2:14; 10:21.52; 14:51; 15:41. In Mark’s
vision Jesus wants disciples ready to follow him radically to the end, even death on a
Cross, in order to experience the graces of Resurrection. Discipleship is to trust even
though we do not understand
2. Among the ecclesial structures present in this gospel we have the TWELVE; they
are very important for Mark. They follow Jesus, despite the fact that they do not
understand him, or what he says.
3. Mark does not dissimulate their obtuseness of mind and heart (8:31-33; 9:30-32;
10:32-34; 14:50); Also, only women follow him to Calvary (15:40-41). Paradoxically the 12
are never introduced as models of faith and discipleship, but rather a model for
faithlessness (9:14-29). This does not mean that Mark has a complete disregard for the 12,
but rather that just as they went through a process of learning by walking with Jesus, so
too, all those who want to know Jesus must walk with him. Like Jesus did to the 12, he
will explain to us everything in private and he will share the ministerial duties with us
(4:10.33; 6:7). When we shall return from our mission Jesus will invite us to rest and to
have spiritual intimacy with him (6:30-34).
4. Jesus establishes thus his communion with us. His relationship with us would be
unbreakable: even though we may betray him he will call us to star all over again next to
the sea of his delight Galilee (16:7).
5. The verbs: to follow, to believe, to see, to evaluate, to rectify, and to go to are constitutive
of Mark’s ecclesiology.
C. Preferred Scene: The Boat on the Sea (Locus Theologicus)
1. Mark seems to be much at home at the Sea and particularly aboard a boat.
The sea represents the entire order of creation and the boat is the Church in it.
Sometimes the sea is agitated (human sins introduced chaos into creation), making
therefore difficult to cruise, that is why Christ’s assistance and much faith in his power is
needed. The ministry began at the Sea and there the disciples will be called again Mk
1:16; 2:13; 3:7; 4:1ff.35ff; 5:1ff.21ff; 6:32ff.53ff; 7:31ff; 8:10.13.22; 16:7.
D. Use in Liturgy
1. Mark is used in the Weekday Reading Cycle for the first 9 weeks in Ordinary Time.
2. In the Sunday Reading Cycle Mark corresponds to the B Cycle and it is repeated
every three liturgical years.
IV. Open Questions
A. Authenticity and Canonicity
1. Tradition has been unanimous in identifying Mark with John Mark (Acts 12:12.25;
13:5-13; 15:37-39; Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11).
2. He was a companion of Paul who later became Peter’s coworker (1Pe 5:13). “Mark,
having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of
what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order” (Eusebius, HE 3.39.15).
3. The Church has always considered the Gospel canonical. This includes the second
ending (Mk 16:9-20) that based on the style and content is obviously a glossa (later
addition) written by someone else.
4. So the whole Gospel can be considered authentic meaning that it was written by
John Mark, except the second ending. This second ending would have been written by
an unknown author, but it is canonical.
B. Date and place of Composition
1. Traditionally Mark is considered to have written the Gospel in Rome (1Pe 5:13)
around the time of Peter’s Ministry in Rome.
2. We read in Luke 1:1ff that Luke used sources of people who had written about
Jesus. For the Two Source theory Matthew would have depended heavily on Mark’s
Gospel and Luke would have consulted them both.
3. However, the Traditional position of the Church has declared that Matthew is first,
and then Mark and then Luke. Having said this, with regards to the dating, my personal
opinion is that Matthew wrote around 60 AD. This date seems to me more logical for it
gives a couple of years to circulate, to be read by Mark (64 AD) and by Luke (67 AD).
C. Audience
1. No question about the intended recipients of Mark’s Gospel: the cosmopolitan
Christian community of Rome, which was composed mainly of Gentile Christians and of
some Jewish Christians and.
2. The Gospel is also written for people who have not received the Gospel, therefore
the invitation to follow Christ in the Church.
V. Lectio Divina on selected pericopes
The Gospel According to Matthew
I. The Person of Matthew
A. Internal Data
On Matthew the Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Apostle and evangelist. The name
Matthew is derived from the Hebrew Mattija, being shortened to Mattai in post-Biblical
Hebrew. In Greek it is sometimes spelled Maththaios, B D, and sometimes Matthaios,
CEKL, but grammarians do not agree as to which of the two spellings is the original.
Matthew is spoken of five times in the New Testament; first in Matthew 9:9, when called
by Jesus to follow Him, and then four times in the list of the Apostles, where he is
mentioned in the seventh (Luke 6:15, and Mark 3:18), and again in the eighth place
(Matthew 10:3, and Acts 1:13). The man designated in Matthew 9:9, as “sitting in the
custom house,” and “named Matthew” is the same as Levi, recorded in Mark 2:14, and
Luke 5:27, as “sitting at the receipt of custom.” The account in the three Synoptics is
identical, the vocation of Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the same terms. Hence Levi
was the original name of the man who was subsequently called Matthew; the Maththaios
legomenos of Matthew 9:9, would indicate this. The fact of one man having two names is
of frequent occurrence among the Jews. It is true that the same person usually bears a
Hebrew name such as “Shaoul” and a Greek name, Paulos. However, we have also
examples of individuals with two Hebrew names as, for instance, Joseph-Caiaphas,
Simon-Cephas, etc. It is probable that Mattija, “gift of Yahvéh,” was the name conferred
upon the tax-gatherer by Jesus Christ when He called him to the Apostolate, and by it he
was thenceforth known among his Christian brethren, Levi being his original name.
Matthew, the son of Alpheus (Mark 2:14) was a Galilean, although Eusebius informs us
that he was a Syrian. As tax-gatherer at Capharnaum, he collected custom duties for
Herod Antipas, and, although a Jew, was despised by the Pharisees, who hated all
publicans. When summoned by Jesus, Matthew arose and followed Him and tendered
Him a feast in his house, where tax-gatherers and sinners sat at table with Christ and His
disciples. This drew forth a protest from the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in these
consoling words: “I came not to call the just, but sinners.” No further allusion is made to
Matthew in the Gospels, except in the list of the Apostles. As a disciple and an Apostle
he thenceforth followed Christ, accompanying Him up to the time of His Passion and, in
Galilee, was one of the witnesses of His Resurrection. He was also amongst the Apostles
who were present at the Ascension, and afterwards withdrew to an upper chamber, in
Jerusalem, praying in union with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts
1:10 and 1:14).
Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St.
Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of
Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that, before
going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers
are not as one as to the countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention
Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the
kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia, and Syria. According to Heracleon, who is quoted
by Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this opinion conflicts with
all other ancient testimony. Let us add, however, that the account of his martyrdom in
the apocryphal Greek writings entitled “Martyrium S. Matthæi in Ponto” and published
by Bonnet, “Acta apostolorum apocrypha” (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely devoid of
historic value. Lipsius holds that this “Martyrium S. Matthæi,” which contains traces of
Gnosticism, must have been published in the third century. There is a disagreement as to
the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore
it is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded. The Roman Martyrology
simply says: “S. Matthæi, qui in Æthiopia prædicans martyrium passus est.” Various writings
that are now considered apocryphal, have been attributed to St. Matthew. In the
“Evangelia apocrypha” (Leipzig, 1876), Tischendorf reproduced a Latin document
entitled: “De Ortu beatæ Mariæ et infantia Salvatoris,” supposedly written in Hebrew by
St. Matthew the Evangelist, and translated into Latin by Jerome, the priest. It is an
abridged adaptation of the “Protoevangelium” of St. James, which was a Greek
apocryphal of the second century. This pseudo-Matthew dates from the middle or the
end of the sixth century. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthew on 21
September, and the Greek Church on 16 November. St. Matthew is represented under the
symbol of a winged man, carrying in his hand a lance as a characteristic emblem.”
B. External Data
The earliest Christian communities looked upon the books of the Old Testament as
Sacred Scripture, and read them at their religious assemblies. That the Gospels, which
contained the words of Christ and the narrative of His life, soon enjoyed the same
authority as the Old Testament, is made clear by Hegesippus (Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.” 4,
22:3), who tells us that in every city the Christians were faithful to the teachings of the
law, the prophets, and the Lord. A book was acknowledged as canonical when the
Church regarded it as Apostolic, and had it read at her assemblies. Hence, to establish
the canonicity of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we must investigate primitive
Christian tradition for the use that was made of this document, and for indications
proving that it was regarded as Scripture in the same manner as the Books of the Old
Testament.
The first traces that we find of it are not indubitable, because post-Apostolic writers
quoted the texts with a certain freedom, and principally because it is difficult to say
whether the passages thus quoted were taken from oral tradition or from a written
Gospel. The first Christian document whose date can be fixed with comparative certainty
(95-98), is the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians. It contains sayings of the Lord
which closely resemble those recorded in the First Gospel (Clement 16:17 = Matt. 11:29;
Clem. 24:5= Matt. 13:3), but it is possible that they are derived from Apostolic preaching,
as, in chapter 13:2, we find a mixture of sentences from Matthew, Luke, and an unknown
source. Again, we note a similar commingling of Evangelical texts elsewhere in the same
Epistle of Clement, in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, in the Epistle of Polycarp, and
in Clement of Alexandria. Whether these these texts were thus combined in oral tradition
or emanated from a collection of Christ's utterances, we are unable to say.
The Epistles of St. Ignatius (martyred 110-17) contain no literal quotation from the
Holy Books; nevertheless, St. Ignatius borrowed expressions and some sentences from
Matthew (“Ad Polyc.” 2:2 = Matt. 10:16; “Eph.” 14:2 = Matt. 12:33, etc.). In his “Epistle to
the Philadelphians” (5:12), he speaks of the Gospel in which he takes refuge as in the
Flesh of Jesus; consequently, he had an evangelical collection which he regarded as
Sacred Writ, and we cannot doubt that the Gospel of St. Matthew formed part of it.
In the Epistle of Polycarp (110-17), we find various passages from St. Matthew quoted
literally (12:3 = Matt. 5:44; 7:2 = Matt. 26:41, etc.).
The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) contains sixty-six passages that recall
the Gospel of Matthew; some of them are literal quotations (8:2 = Matt. 6:7-13; 7:1 = Matt.
28:19; 11:7 = Matt. 12:31, etc.).
In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (117-30), we find a passage from St. Matthew
(22:14), introduced by the scriptural formula, os gegraptai, which proves that the author
considered the Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority to the writings of the Old
Testament.
The “Shepherd of Hermas” has several passages which bear close resemblance to
passages of Matthew, but not a single literal quotation from it.
In his “Dialogue” (99:8), St. Justin quotes, almost literally, the prayer of Christ in the
Garden of Olives, in Matthew, 26:39,40.
A great number of passages in the writings of St. Justin recall the Gospel of Matthew,
and prove that he ranked it among the Memoirs of the Apostles which, he said, were
called Gospels (1 Apol. 66), were read in the services of the Church and were
consequently regarded as Scripture.
In his “Legatio pro christianis,” 12:11, Athenagoras (117) quotes almost literally
sentences taken from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:44).
Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol. 3, 13-14) quotes a passage from Matthew (5:28, 32),
and, according to St. Jerome (In Matt. Prol.), wrote a commentary on the Gospel of St.
Matthew.
We find in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs — -drawn up, according to some
critics, about the middle of the second century — -numerous passages that closely
resemble the Gospel of Matthew (Test. Gad 5:3; 6:6; 5:7 = Matt. 18:15, 35; Test. Jos. 1:5, 6 =
Matt. 25:35, 36, etc.), but Dr. Charles maintains that the Testaments were written in
Hebrew in the first century before Jesus Christ, and translated into Greek towards the
middle of the same century. In this event, the Gospel of Matthew would depend upon
the Testaments and not the Testaments upon the Gospel. The question is not yet settled,
but it seems to us that there is a greater probability that the Testaments, at least in their
Greek version, are of later date than the Gospel of Matthew, they certainly received
numerous Christian additions.
The Greek text of the Clementine Homilies contains some quotations from Matthew
(Hom. 3:52 = Matt. 15:13); in Hom. 18:15, the quotation from Matt. 13:35, is literal.
Passages which suggest the Gospel of Matthew might be quoted from heretical
writings of the second century and from apocryphal gospels — the Gospel of Peter, the
Protoevangelium of James, etc., in which the narratives, to a considerable extent, are
derived from the Gospel of Matthew.
Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Matthew in his “Diatesseron”; we shall quote
below the testimonies of Papias and St. Irenæus. For the latter, the Gospel of Matthew,
from which he quotes numerous passages, was one of the four that constituted the
quadriform Gospel dominated by a single spirit.
Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4:2) asserts, that the “Instrumentum evangelicum” was
composed by the Apostles, and mentions Matthew as the author of a Gospel (De carne
Christi, 12).
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3:13) speaks of the four Gospels that have been
transmitted, and quotes over three hundred passages from the Gospel of Matthew, which
he introduces by the formula, en de to kata Maththaion euaggelio or by phesin ho kurios.
It is unnecessary to pursue our inquiry further. About the middle of the third century,
the Gospel of Matthew was received by the whole Christian Church as a Divinely
inspired document, and consequently as canonical. The testimony of Origen (“In Matt.”
quoted by Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.” 3, 25:4), of Eusebius (op. cit. 3, 14:5; 25:1), and of St.
Jerome (“De Viris 3,” 3, “Prolog. in Matt.”) are explicit in this repsect. It might be added
that this Gospel is found in the most ancient versions: Old Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian.
Finally, it stands at the head of the Books of the New Testament in the Canon of the
Council of Laodicea (363) and in that of St. Athanasius (326-73), and very probably it was
in the last part of the Muratorian Canon. Furthermore, the canonicity of the Gospel of St.
Matthew is accepted by the entire Christian world.
II. The Book
A. Hebrew or Greek Original
According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3, 39:16), Papias said that Matthew collected
(synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles
or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them
as best he could.
Three questions arise in regard to this testimony of Papias on Matthew: (1) What does
the word logia signify? Does it mean only detached sentences or sentences incorporated
in a narrative, that is to say, a Gospel such as that of St. Matthew? Among classical writers,
logion, the diminutive of logos, signifies the “answer of oracles,” a “prophecy”; in the
Septuagint and in Philo, “oracles of God” (ta deka logia, the Ten Commandments). It
sometimes has a broader meaning and seems to include both facts and sayings. In the
New Testament the signification of the word logion is doubtful, and if, strictly speaking,
it may be claimed to indicate teachings and narratives, the meaning “oracles” is the more
natural. However, writers contemporary with Papias — e. g. St. Clement of Rome (Ad
Cor. 53), St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. 1, 8:2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1, 392), and Origen
(De Princip. 4:11) — have used it to designate facts and savings. The work of Papias was
entitled “Exposition of the Oracles” [logion] of the Lord,” and it also contained narratives
(Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.” 3, 39:9).
On the other hand, speaking of the Gospel of Mark, Papias says that this Evangelist
wrote all that Christ had said and done, but adds that he established no connection
between the Lord's sayings (suntaxin ton kuriakon logion). We may believe that here logion
comprises all that Christ said and did. Nevertheless, it would seem that, if the two
passages on Mark and Matthew followed each other in Papias as in Eusebius, the author
intended to emphasize a difference between them, by implying that Mark recorded the
Lord's words and deeds and Matthew chronicled His discourses. The question is still
unsolved; it is, however, possible that, in Papias, the term logia means deeds and
teachings.
Second, does Papias refer to oral or written translations of Matthew, when he says
that each one translated the sayings “as best he could”? As there is nowhere any allusion
to numerous Greek translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that Papias speaks
here of the oral translations made at Christian meetings, similar to the extemporaneous
translations of the Old Testament made in the synagogues. This would explain why
Papias mentions that each one (each reader) translated “as best he could.”
Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers
refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew
wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain
that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same
assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in
modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time
of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New
Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that
is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew.
Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching.
To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce
the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he
should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be
translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist.
eccl. 3, 24:6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and
this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the
Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or
Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind
that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of
Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more
probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.
Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St.
Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer. 3, 10:2) affirms that Matthew published among the
Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5, 10:3)
says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the
Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.”
(6:25, 3:4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew,
states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew,
who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism.
According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3, 24:6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and,
when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue.
St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (“Ad
Damasum,” 20; “Ad Hedib.” 4), but says that it is not known with certainty who
translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius,
St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages
repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts
on this subject: “It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one
testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume.” This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses
Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves
that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome (“De Viris 3.” 36),
he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only secondhand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively
known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of
course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical
writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek
Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew
Gospel.
B. The Literary Style.
1. The style of the gospel.
Matthew’s style differs greatly from that of Mark, as we shall see. Where Mark wrote
16 short and concise chapters, Matthew loves to expand his text to a total of 28 chapters.
If Mark placed great deal of emphasis on geographical details, Matthew concentrates
more on the narrative and discourse materials. Matthew follows Mark’s account very
closely, but expands when he thinks it best for the needs of his community. He did not
just copy Mark and added new material; he reworked the material and gave it his
personal touch to the point that from a stylistic point of view, the result is a totally
different gospel. Distinct unity of plan, an artificial arrangement of subject-matter, and a
simple, easy style is what better describe Matthew’s Gospel.
Matthew’s Gospel is very much imbedded in the OT style, the story is disclosed very
much alike the great stories of the OT Patriarchs in Genesis and Exodus. Matthew’s style
is largely shaped by two patterns: narrative and discourse.
2. There are 5 Lo,gia or discourses:
a) The Sermon on the Mount in Mt 5-7;
b) The Missionary discourse in Mt 10;
c) The Parable discourse in Mt 13;
d) The Ecclesiological Discourse in Mt 18;
e) The Eschatological Discourse in Mt 23-25.
Discourses can be easily separated from the narrative sections, for Matthew brackets
them off with the expression kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lessen o` vIhsou/j tou/j lo,gouj tou/touj “when
Jesus finished giving these words…” (Mt 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1. It is interesting to
notice that in the last quote Matthew adds the qualifier pa,ntaj “all” meaning that all the
discourses are over.
3. There are seven dihgh,seij or narrative sections:
a) Infancy Narratives in Mt 1-2;
b) Initial triptych in Mt 3-4;
c) Ministry in Galilee in Mt 8-9;
d) Opposition of Israel in Mt 11-12;
e) Acknowledgement by the disciples in Mt 14-17;
f) Ministry in Judea and Jerusalem in Mt 19-22;
g) Death and Resurrection Narratives in Mt 26-28.
The Narrative sections are hooked by expressions such as: a) to,te a temporal clause
that can be translated as “when;” the spatial particle evkei/qen or evkei, “there”; the
preposition eivj “towards”; and the causal conjunctions ga,r de, “for, because” b) an OT
expression evn evkeinw/ tw|/ kairw/|/ meaning “at that time or at the appropriate time”
4. Other literary characteristics are:
a) Tendency to use de stanzas, which are structural devices as well as mnemotecnic
hints to learn and memorize: 3:2; 4:17; 10:7 // 8:12; 22:13; 25:30 // 13:49; 24:3; 28:20 // 17:25;
18:12; 21:28; 22:17.42; 26:66 // 7:21; 13:54; 22:23.
b) Inclusio: "Emmanuel" meq vh`mw/n with “With You” meq vu`mw/n (1:23; 28:20); “To come
and to go” with e;rcomai (2:1-12; 28:19); “Jesus Began to” with h;rxato o` vIhsou/j (4:17; 16:21)
c) Parallelisms: Synonymic (5:44): 5:13-15); Antithetic (7:17; 6:2-4.5-8.16-18; 7:2427); Synthetic (10:40; 11:7-11.21-24; 12:22-32).
d) Gematry or play on the symbolic meaning of numbers: Genealogy (1:1s)
structured as 3x7x2; 3 angelic apparitions (1:18-2:23); 3 temptations (4:1-11); 3 groups of
three miracles each (8-9); 7 spirits (12:45); 7 parables (13); 7 pairs, 7 times, 7 baskets
(15:34.36.37); to forgive 70x7 (18:22); 7 husbands (22:25).
e) Usage of the participle to introduce sections: gennhqe,ntoj 2:1; 3:7; 4:12; 4:18; 5:1;
8:5; 8:14.18.23.28; avko,usaj 4:12; 9:1.9; 10:1; 12:14; 12:4b; 13:1.10; 14:13.35; peripatw/n 4:18;
15:10.21.32; 16:1.5
f) Usage of hook words: to,te 2:16; 3:13; 4:1; 9:14; 11:20; 12:22.38; 14:3; 15:1;
16:21.24;17:19; 18:21; 19:13; 22:15; 23:1; 24:23; 24:30; 25:1; 26:3; 26:14.31.36.67; 27:3.27; evn
evkeinw/ tw|/ kairw/| 11:25; 12:1; 18:1.
g) Usage of Chiasms (2 examples):
In 13:53-58:
A. He left there
B. He arrived to his country
C. Where does he get knowledge?
D. Isn’t he the Son of Joseph?
C1. Where does he get all this?
B1. Only in his country
A1. And he did not make there
In 10:1-11:1:
A.1-5a
B. 5b-15
C. 16-23
D. 24-25
C1. 26-33
B1. 34-43
A1. 11:1
5. The language of the Gospel of Matthew: St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137
of which are hapax legomena (words used by him alone of all the New Testament writers).
Of these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the Septuagint. Matthew's Gospel contains
many peculiar expressions which help to give decided color to his style. Thus, he employs
34 times the expression basile,ia to.n ouvrano,n «Kingdom of Heaven»; this is never found
in Mark and Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace it by basile,ia tou/ qeou/ «Kingdom of
God», which also occurs 4 times in Matthew. We must likewise note the expressions: o`
pate,r o` evpoura,niouj «The Heavenly Father»; o` evn toi.j ouvranoi,j «who art in Heaven»;
sunairei/n lo,gon «settle accounts»; evn evke,ino to. kairw/ «in that time». The same terms often
recur: to,te «then» (90 times); avpo. to,te «from that time on»; kai, ivdou, «and behold».
He adopts the Greek form `Ieriso,luma for Jerusalem, and not `Ierousalh,m, which he
uses but once. He has a predilection for the preposition avpo, «from», using it even when
Mark and Luke use evk. Matthew uses the Christological Title of ui`o,j Dauid «Son of David».
Moreover, Matthew is fond of repeating a phrase or a special construction several
times within quite a short interval (cf. 2:1-13, and 19; 4:12-18, and 5:2; 8:2-3 and 28; 9:26
and 31; 13:44, 45, and 47, etc.).
6. Quotations from the Old Testament.
Matthew makes about 150 quotations from the OT. 108 are implicit and the wording
of the sentences; and 40 are explicit. Out of those 40 explicit quotes there are 10 which
are called fulfillment citations. Each one is introduced by the particle: i[na «so that»; o[pwj
«on order that»; to,te «then»; and the verb plhro,w «to fulfill».
a) Mt 1:22-23 quotes Is 7:14 on the Emmanuel
b) Mt 2:15 quotes Hosea 11:1 on the out of Egypt motif
c) Mt 2:17-18 quotes Jer 31:15 on the lament of Ramah
d) Mt 2:23 quotes Is 11:1 on the title of Nazarene
e) Mt 4:14-16 quotes Is 9:1-2 on the Zebulon and Naphtali motifs
f) Mt 8:17 quotes Is 53:4 on the Suffering Servant assuming our infirmities
g) Mt 12:17-21 quotes Is 42:1-4 on the chosen Servant
h) Mt13:35 quotes Ps 78 (77): 2 on the parables
i) Mt 21:4-5 quotes Is 62:11 on the Daughter of Sion motif. Zach 9:9 (Ass/colt)
j) Mt 27:9-10 quotes Jer 32:6-7, but it is Zach 11:12 (30 silver pieces)
* There is another quote in 13:14 of Is 6:9-10; but there are textual variants.
7. Symbol: The Human Face.
Matthew begins his Gospel by confessing Jesus not as the Son of God, but as the Son
of David and Abraham (Mt 1:1). Then later in the Gospel Jesus is going to refer himself
as “The Son of Man” (e.g. Mt 8:20; 9:6; 11:19; 12:8; 16:27; 24:30-31; 25:31-46; 26:64). This
title echoes Daniel’s description of the Messiah to come (Dan 7).
C. The Structure of the Gospel of Matthew.
1. The Traditional structure of LOHR- BOISMARD -BENOIT - VAGANAY in the Bible of
Jerusalem and in the NJBC
PROLOGUE:
INFANCY NARRATIVES
1-2
I. Announcement of the Kingdom: Narrative: Initial Triptych
3-4
Discourse: Sermon on the Mount 5-7
II. Predication of the Kingdom:
Narrative: Miracles
Discourse: Mission
8-9
10
III. The Ministry of the Kingdom:
Narrative: Reactions A series
Discourse: Parables
11-12
13
IV . The Church, first fruit of the
Kingdom:
Narrative: Reactions B series
Discourse: Ecclesial
14-17
18
V. Consummation of the Kingdom: Narrative: Passion Predictions
Discourse: Eschatological
EPILOGUE:
PASSION NARRATIVES
19-23
23-25
26-28
2. The thematic structure of AGUIRRE MONASTERIO based on Christology and
Ecclesiology:
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Introduction
Messiah
Disciples
Master-Disciples
Rupture with Judaism
Passion and Death
1-4:22
4:23-9:35
9:36-12:50
13:1-17:27
18:1-22:45
23-28
3. The Concentric Structure of FENDON, CABA, COMBRINK, SOTO
A Narrative: Infancy and manifestation of Jesus (1-4): Jesus is the Emmanuel
B
Discourse: Sermon on the Mount (5)
C
Narrative: Authority of the Messiah (8-9)
D
Discourse: Missionary (10)
E
Narrative: Jesus rejected (11-12)
F Discourse: Parables (13):
: Sower: Listen
: Weeds: Evil and God’s power
: Mustard: fecundity
: Ferment: strength
: Weeds and the Kingdom
: Treasure-pearl: Sequela
: Net: consummation
: Scribe: audacity
: Christological Confession: ku,rioj
E
D
C
B
Narrative: Jesus is accepted: Peter (14-17)
Discourse: Ecclesial (18)
Narrative: Authority of the Son (19-22)
Discourse: Mount Sion: Jerusalem (23-25)
A Narrative: Passion Narratives and manifestation of the Risen Lord (26-28)
Until the end of time, Jesus is the “God with Us,” Emmanuel
Nota Bene: The order of Chapter 13 is related closely to the discourse and narrative
sections of the Gospel:
A: The parable of the Sowers refers to the Birth of Christ, his manifestation and
consequent acceptance by those who believe.
B: The Parable of the Weeds refers to the necessity of discerning between the blessings
and the woes in our Christian life.
C: The Parable of the Mustard Seed refers to seeing in Jesus Death the beginnings of
a new era under the shadow and protection of the Tree of the Cross.
D: The parable of the Yeast sums up the Mission of the Disciples and that of the
Church in this World.
E: The next collection of Parables sets out the tone in our Christian faith: We are free
to love God or to reject him, but we must live with the consequences of our decision.
F: The last Parable of the Treasures New and Old describes perfectly the purpose of
chapter 13: It brings the Old doctrine up to date with Jesus’ New Authority and
Teachings; it helps you discerning to follow Jesus and the Kingdom of God.
4. Following Mark, the Triptych Structure of GNILKA AND BOSETTI:
I
II
III
Manifestation of the King
Narrative and beginnings
Narrative and manifestation
Proclamation of the Kingdom: words, deeds, scenario
A1
Discourse: Sermon on the Mount
B1
Narrative: Healings
A2
Discourse: Mission
B2
First reactions
A3
Discourse: Parables
B3
Second reactions
-Peter’s ConfessionRevelation of the Mystery:
A1
Narrative: Towards Jerusalem
B1
Discourse: Ecclesial
A2
Narrative: Passion Predictions
: In Jerusalem
B2
Discourse: Eschatological
A3
Narrative: Passion, Death, Resurrection
1-4
1-2
3-4:16
4:17-25
5-7
8-9:35
9:36-11:1
11:2-12
13
14-16:11
16:12-17
18
19-20
21-23
24-25
26-28
5. Other structures
a) Geographic patterns (Wickenhauser – Schimdt)
b) Historical and succession of events (Xavier Léon-Dufour)
c) Christological (Klein, Milton, Kingsbury)
d) Thematic and literary criteria (Bacon, Bauer, Caba, Fenton).
III. The Message
A. Christology
1. Son of Man: Son of David and Abraham. Notice that Mt begins his gospel with a
different title than Mk. He calls Jesus son of David and Abraham for he wanted to stress
Jesus’ identity as the Messiah longed for and frequently announced in the OT. Jesus is the
true “Anointed one” that is King. He is the only one who can bring to fulfillment the
promises made by God to Abraham (Gn 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14) and David (2Sam
7:16-17; Micah 5:1-5) see Mt 2:6; 8:20; 9:6.27; 11:19; 12:8.23; 15:22; 16:27; 20:30; 21:16; 24:3031; 25:31-46; 26:64. The mission of the Son is universal, for Jesus blesses in Abraham all
nations. They come to worship him at his birth (2:1-11), and to the nations Jesus sends his
disciples at the end of the Gospel (28:19-20). His mission is also so that Israel may be
converted (15:24).
2. Son of the Living God: Mark begins the Gospel confessing Jesus as the Son of God
and reserves the title of Messiah to Peter (confession). On the contrary Matthew opens
his Gospel by calling Jesus the son of Abraham and the son of David. He reserves for
Peter the title of Son of the Living God (Mt 16:16), who obeys his Father in Heaven like
the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (Is 53:4 and Mt 8:17; Is 42:1-4 and Mt 12:18-21). That is why
Jesus speaks of himself as the meek and humble of heart (11:9)
3. The Messiah: Matthew’s interest in defending the Royalty of Jesus begins with a
well-crafted genealogy intended to trace back Jesus’ roots back to David, the “Model
King.” Jesus is the King since birth, and so the magi, three pagan kings, come to pay him
homage 2:1ff. For this Jesus was mocked by soldiers 27:27-31 and, as King, he died on the
Cross 37:37.
4. The Lord: Matthew confesses the divinity of Christ by using the translation of
YHWH into the Septuagint Greek Ku,rioj = Lord and applying it to Jesus (Mt 8:2.5.7.21.25;
9:28; 12:25-27; 14:28; 17:5)
5. The Emmanuel: Matthew also confesses his humanity. The beautiful inclusio of
Mt’s Gospel is the play on word with the name of Jesus: The Emmanuel, meaning, “God
is with us” (Is 7:14; Mt 1:23). At the end of the gospel Jesus reassures us that he is with
us, and so fulfills the promise contained in his name Mt 28:20. Thus, the ever-present
King opens the gates of Salvation to all Humanity. Joseph plays an important role in
Matthew’s Gospel as the carrier of the line through which God’s promise was fulfilled in
Jesus Mt 1-2.
6. Rabbi: It is interesting to see that in many passages Jesus is called Rabbi or Teacher.
This is rooted in the tradition that Jesus was a respected teacher, even though we do not
know where he attended school (Mt 5-7; 8:19; 12:38; 19:16; 22:24.36.
7. Loving Shepherd: One last title is applied to Jesus; to set the example to all those
who wish to follow him. They are called to imitate him in his loving care for others (5:43;
9:35-36; 10:37; 11:28-29; 12:33; 14:14; 15:32; 18:21-35; 20:34). The force of the Greek word
(evplagcni,sqh) eplanchnisthei behind the translation is “love from the entrails, similar to
motherly love.”
B. Ecclesiology
1. Community of Brothers and Sisters. Matthew wants to evangelize his community
so that the Church may grow in them. He encourages everyone to regard themselves as
brothers and sisters, always forgiving everyone for whatever offenses they might have
committed against one another. (Mt 5:43; 10:37; 12:33; 18:21-35).
2. Organized Community: Matthew regards the Church as an organized body of
brothers and sisters (28:10) doing the will of the Father (12:46-50). Such organization
includes and needs a Head. Peter was chosen by Christ to be the visible head of the
Church here on earth, to be his Vicar, and so to prolong Jesus’ presence in the World (Mt
16:16-19).
3. Community with Love as binding principle: we are called to imitate Jesus in love
and in forgiveness (18:22-25:31-46). Ultimately we will be judged on the fruits of love we
have shown to our brothers and sisters (Mt 25), including enemies (Mt 5).
4. The church is a missionary community, whose task is to go and make all peoples
and nations true Disciples of Christ (5:13-16; 28:19-20).
5. Evangelical Radicalism of the Church. The community of the chosen ones must be
morally sound, by doing what they preach in the likeness of the master. The judgment is
centered on our attitude towards the teachings of Jesus (5:48). Mt doesn’t say: “he who
does… will enter into the Kingdom, but rather,” but rather: “if your justice does not
exceed that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of God
(5:20). Jesus, the justice in the flesh himself, demands from us to adhere totally to him.
Only in this condition of total union with Christ the Church can be a true servant of the
Kingdom, leading all men to Christ (3:2; 4:17; 5:9; 6:10.33; 13:44). This Evangelical
radicalism must be the modus operandi of the Christian Community: we all must be alert
and on guard (23:24).
C. Preferred Scene: The Mountain (Locus Theologicus)
1. Although, Matthew follows Mark in the Boat Scenes, he seems to have a preference
for another place, one that is peculiar to him, the Mountain.
2. He uses the mountain as a theological place, rather than a geographical one, for he
does not stress much the name of the mountains on which the scenes take place (17:1;
28:16). Obviously, some mountains are called by their name due to the fact that they were
well known (21:4; 24:3; 26:54).
3. The mountain for Matthew is the gathering place of Jesus and his Church:
a) There on the mount, like our Lord, we can overcome temptations 4:8ff; b) we are
instructed to live according to the New Law of Christ 5:1 – 8:1; c)we are called to pray
with our Father 14:23ff; d) we are healed of our infirmities 15:30ff; e) we witness Christ’s
Transfiguration that reveals his Messianic Identity 17:1ff; f) we can prove our faith by
means of the mount 17:20; g) Mount Zion is the place where we suffer and die with Christ,
only to rise again with him 20:17ff; h) Mount of Olives is the place where Jesus instructs
us to prepare to celebrate the Eucharist 21:1ff, and instruct us to prepare for the Second
Coming of the Son of Man 24:3ff; Bethany in the Country Hills of Judea is where Jesus is
anointed for his burial 26:17; i) Gethsemane is the place in which we keep vigil and pray
in the agony of Jesus 26:36; j) Mount Zion (Jerusalem) is the place of the trials of Jesus
26:54; Mount Golgotha is the place where Jesus is Crucified and proclaimed King 27:37;
k) The mount is the place to reencounter the Risen Christ 28:10.16; l) the mountain is the
place in which Jesus sent his apostles on a world mission with assurance of his everlasting
presence in our Church 28:20.
IV. Use in Liturgy
Matthew is used in the Weekday Reading Cycle between the 10th week and the 21st.
week in Ordinary Time.
In the Sunday Reading Matthew corresponds to the A Cycle and it is repeated every
three liturgical years.
V. Open Questions
A. Authenticity and Canonicity
1. Tradition has always identified the author of the Gospel with the tax collector
called by Jesus to be His disciple (Mt 9:9-13; 10:3; Mk 2:14; 3:18; Lk 5:27; 6:15; Acts 1:13).
He was also called Levi the Son of Alphaeus. A man having two names was a very
common practice in the Palestine of the 1st. century.
2. The most ancient testimony attesting Matthew’s authorship of the Gospel is
reported by of Eusebius (HE III 39,16). Here Eusebius recalls the words of Papias Bishop
of Hierapolis: “Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language, and translated
every one of them as well as he could.”
3. There is still an ongoing debate on the issue of who did the translation into the
Greek, which is the only thing that we have right now, for the Hebrew or Aramaic
originals are lost. The Church has always accepted the Canonicity of Matthew’s Gospel.
B. Date and place of Composition.
Scholars have long debated Matthew’s date of composition. Most of them would
agree to date it around 70-80 AD.
Based on some recent archeological findings, such as the Papyrus of Magdala, and
7Q35 (Thiede and O’Callahan) one could assume that it was written around 60 AD.
There is no consensus as of where exactly the Gospel was written. So our best
evaluated guess is to say that it was written somewhere in Palestine.
C. Audience
The content and style of the book can easily determine the audience of Matthew: a
community composed largely by Judeo-Christians. But there were also some gentile
converts in the community, who in fact explains the universality of the gospel.
VI. Lectio Divina on selected pericopes
The Gospel According to Luke
I. The Person of Luke
The name Lucas (Luke) is probably an abbreviation from Lucanus, like Annas from
Ananus, Apollos from Apollonius, Artemas from Artemidorus, Demas from Demetrius,
etc. The word Lucas seems to have been unknown before the Christian era; but Lucanus
is common in inscriptions, and is found at the beginning and end of the Gospel in some
Old Latin manuscripts. It is generally held that St. Luke was a native of Antioch. Eusebius
in Hist. Eccl. 3, 4:6 has: “Lucas vero domo Antiochenus, arte medicus, qui et cum Paulo diu
conjunctissime vixit, et cum reliquis Apostolis studiose versatus est.” Eusebius has a clearer
statement in his “Quæstiones Evangelicæ,” 4, 1:270: o` de, Lou,kaj to. me,n geno,j avpo, th/j
Boomenej Antiocheiaj evn — “Luke was by birth a native of the renowned Antioch”
(Schmiedel, “Encyc. Bib.”). In Codex Bezæ (D) Luke is introduced by a “we” as early as
Acts, 11:28; and, though this is not a correct reading, it represents a very ancient tradition.
The writer of Acts took a special interest in Antioch and was well acquainted with it (Acts
11:19-27; 13:1; 14:18-25, 15:22-35; 18:22).
St. Luke was not a Jew. He is separated by St. Paul from those of the circumcision
(Col. 4:14), and his style proves that he was a Greek. Hence he cannot be identified with
Lucius the prophet of Acts, 13:1, or with Lucius of Rom. 16:21, who was a cognatus of St.
Paul. From this and the prologue of the Gospel it follows that Epiphanius errs when he
calls him one of the Seventy Disciples; nor was he the companion of Cleophas in the
journey to Emmaus after the Resurrection (as stated by Theophylact). St. Jerome states
that St. Luke had a great knowledge of the Septuagint and of things Jewish, which he
acquired either as a Jewish proselyte or after he became a Christian, through his close
relationship with the Apostles and disciples. Besides Greek, he had many opportunities
of acquiring Aramaic in his native Antioch, the capital of Syria. He was a physician by
profession, and St. Paul calls him “the most dear physician” (Col. 4:14). This avocation
implied a liberal education, and his medical training is evidenced by his choice of medical
language. Plummer suggests that he may have studied medicine at the famous school of
Tarsus, the rival of Alexandria and Athens, and possibly met St. Paul there. From his
intimate knowledge of the eastern Mediterranean, it has been conjectured that he had
lengthened experience as a doctor on board ship. He travailed a good deal, and sends
greetings to the Colossians, which seems to indicate that he had visited them.
St. Luke first appears in the Acts at Troas (16:8 ff), where he meets St. Paul, and,
after the vision, crossed over with him to Europe as an Evangelist, landing at Neapolis
and going on to Philippi, “being assured that God had called us to preach the Gospel to
them” (note especially the transition into first person plural at verse 10). He was,
therefore, already an Evangelist. He was present at the conversion of Lydia and her
companions, and lodged in her house. He, together with St. Paul and his companions,
was recognized by the pythonical spirit: “This same following Paul and us, cried out,
saying: These men are the servants of the Most High God, who preach unto you the way
of salvation” (verse 17). He beheld Paul and Silas arrested, dragged before the Roman
magistrates, charged with disturbing the city, “being Jews,” beaten with rods and thrown
into prison. Luke and Timothy escaped; probably because they did not look like Jews
(Timothy's father was a gentile). When Paul departed from Philippi, Luke was left
behind, in all probability to carry on the work of Evangelist. At Thessalonica the Apostle
received highly appreciated pecuniary aid from Philippi (Phil. 4:15, 16), doubtless
through the good offices of St. Luke. It is not unlikely that the latter remained at Philippi
all the time that St. Paul was preaching at Athens and Corinth, and while he was traveling
to Jerusalem and back to Ephesus, and during the three years that the Apostle was
engaged at Ephesus. When St. Paul revisited Macedonia, he again met St. Luke at
Philippi, and there wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
St. Jerome thinks it is most likely that St. Luke is “the brother, whose praise is in
the gospel through all the churches” (2 Cor. 8:18), and that he was one of the bearers of
the letter to Corinth. Shortly afterwards, when St. Paul returned from Greece, St. Luke
accompanied him from Philippi to Troas, and with him made the long coasting voyage
described in Acts, 20. He went up to Jerusalem, was present at the uproar, saw the attack
on the Apostle, and heard him speaking “in the Hebrew tongue” from the steps outside
the fortress Antonia to the silenced crowd. Then he witnessed the infuriated Jews, in their
impotent rage, rending their garments, yelling, and flinging dust into the air. We may be
sure that he was a constant visitor to St. Paul during the two years of the latter's
imprisonment at Cæarea. In that period he might well become acquainted with the
circumstances of the death of Herod Agrippa I, who had died there eaten up by worms”
(skolekobro,toj), and he was likely to be better informed on the subject than Josephus.
Ample opportunities were given him, 'having diligently attained to all things from the
beginning,” concerning the Gospel and early Acts, to write in order what had been
delivered by those “who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word” (Luke 1, 2:3). It is held by many writers that the Gospel was written during this
time. Damascene, Thomas Aquinas and many others are of the opinion that the Epistle to
the Hebrews was then composed, and that St. Luke had a considerable share in it. When
Paul appealed to Cæsar, Luke and Aristarchus accompanied him from Cæsarea, and
were with him during the stormy voyage from Crete to Malta. Thence they went on to
Rome, where, during the two years that St. Paul was kept in prison, St. Luke was
frequently at his side, though not continuously, as he is not mentioned in the greetings of
the Epistle to the Philippians (Lightfoot, “Phil.” 35). He was present when the Epistles to
the Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon were written, and is mentioned in the salutations
given in two of them: “Luke the dearest physician salutes you” (Col. 4:14); “There salute
you . . . Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke my fellow laborers” (Philemon 24). St.
Jerome holds that it was during these two years Acts was written.
We have no information about St. Luke during the interval between St. Paul's two
Roman imprisonments, but he must have met several of the Apostles and disciples
during his various journeys. He stood beside St. Paul in his last imprisonment; for the
Apostle, writing for the last time to Timothy, says: “I have fought a good fight; I have
finished my course. . . . Make haste to come to me quickly. For Demas hath left me, loving
this world. . . . Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. 4:7-11). It is worthy of note that, in the three
places where he is mentioned in the Epistles (Col. 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11) he is
named with St. Mark (cf. Col. 4:10), the other Evangelist who was not an Apostle, and it
is clear from his Gospel that he was well acquainted with the Gospel according to St.
Mark; and in the Acts he knows all the details of St. Peter's delivery — what happened at
the house of St. Mark's mother, and the name of the girl who ran to the outer door when
St. Peter knocked. He must have frequently met St. Peter, and may have assisted him to
draw up his First Epistle in Greek, which affords many reminiscences of Luke's style.
After St. Paul's martyrdom practically all that is known about him is contained in the
ancient “Prefatio vel Argumentum Lucæ,” dating back to Julius Africanus, who was born
about A.D. 165. This states that he was unmarried, that he wrote the Gospel, in Achaia,
and that he died at the age of seventy-four in Bithynia (probably a copyist's error for
Boeotia), filled with the Holy Ghost. Epiphanius has it that he preached in Dalmatia
(where there is a tradition to that effect), Gallia (Galatia?), Italy, and Macedonia. As an
Evangelist, he must have suffered much for the Faith, but it is contested whether he
actually died a martyr's death. St. Jerome writes of him in De Vir. 3, 8: “Sepultus est
Constantinopoli, ad quam urbem vigesimo Constantii anno, ossa ejus cum reliquiis
Andreæ Apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia?].” St. Luke is always represented by the calf
or ox, the sacrificial animal, because his Gospel begins with the account of Zachary, the
priest, the father of John the Baptist. He is called a painter by Nicephorus Callistus
(fourteenth century), and by the Menology of Basil 2, A.D. 980. A picture of the Virgin in
S. Maria Maggiore, Rome, is ascribed to him, and can be traced to A.D. 847. It is probably
a copy of that mentioned by Theodore Lector, in the sixth century. This writer states that
the Empress Eudoxia found a picture of the Mother of God at Jerusalem, which she sent
to Constantinople. It is certain that St. Luke was an artist, at least to the extent that his
graphic descriptions of the Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, Shepherds. Presentation,
the Shepherd and lost sheep, etc., have become the inspiring and favorite themes of
Christian painters.
St. Luke is one of the most extensive writers of the New Testament. His Gospel is
considerably longer than St. Matthew's, his two books are about as long as St. Paul's
fourteen Epistles: and Acts exceeds in length the Seven Christian Epistles and the
Revelation. The style of the Gospel is superior to any N. T. writing except Hebrews. St.
Luke is a painter in words. He is the most versatile of all New Testament writers. He can
be as Hebraistic as the Septuagint and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. . . He is
Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society and Greek when describing Greek society. His
great command of Greek is shown by the richness of his vocabulary and the freedom of
his constructions.
II. The Book of the Gospel
A. The Literary Style
1. Luke is very different from Mk and Mt. He is not only concerned with the life of
Jesus, but also with the life of the incipient Church, therefore he handed onto us a twovolume work: Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.
2. Luke is the Shakespeare of the Gospel writers. His Greek is the most elegant of the
four. Even when compared with the Greek Classics Luke stands out for his elegant
participial constructions and excellent command of the language.
3. Luke’s is the only gospel that uses the literary genre so called “prologue;” In both
Lk and Acts, Luke takes a paragraph or two to explain to his reader: a) the sources that
he is using, b) the value of the information he is passing on, c) the method he used to
elaborate his two volume book, and d) the purpose of his writings (Lk1:1ff and Act 1:1ff).
4. When compared to Mk and Mt, Luke shows a broader command of Greek
vocabulary, out of his 2.055 words LK uses 971 and Acts 943 original words not used in
Mt or Mk.
5. Luke is a physician; therefore he gives more attention to the medical state of those
involved in the plot (9:28; 22:45; Acts 6:15; 7:56). He is very sensitive to those suffering,
particularly the poor, widowed women and foreigners (Lk 1:52; 2:8; 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 12:1332; 16:9-14. 19-31; 21:3). Notice that in Matthew those adoring Jesus were Magi, but in
Luke just shepherds (Lk 2:15ff).
6. Luke avoided putting vulgar expressions in Jesus’ mouth, did not portray him
doing things unworthy of his dignity (Lk 18:25; 21:14; 22:46.53 and Mc 14:65; Lk 20:29 and
Mk 12:20).
7. The syntax in Luke is more articulated than Mark’s, and where Mark used
paratactic construction, Luke preferred the subordinate clause (Mk 1:10; 5:15 and Lk 3:21).
8. Right from the beginning Luke tells us that his Gospel is written for an already
evangelized community, the purpose of his gospel is to reaffirm the contents of the
catechesis received (Lk 1:1ff).
9. He is very meticulous in describing the Temple’s liturgy and the narrative as well
(Lk 1-2).
10. Luke takes time to compile or to compose extensive prayers and hymns, this
reflects his own spirituality and profundity in writing (e.g., Benedictus, Magnificat, Nunc
Dimittis in Lk 1:68ff; 1:46ff and 2:28ff respectively).
10. Other passages reveal Luke’s predilection for describing events taking place
within a liturgical setting (Lk 4:16-30; 9:18; 22:19.41-46; 24:13-35; 24:50-51.53; Acts 1:15ff;
2:1ff.26; 4:23ff; 7:54ff; 8:26-40; 13:48-52; 28:30-31).
11. The Gospel was written, as is gathered from the prologue (1:1-4), for the purpose
of giving Theophilus (and others like him) increased confidence in the unshakable
firmness of the Christian truths in which he had been instructed, or “catechized” — the
latter word being used, according to Harnack, in its technical sense. The Gospel naturally
falls into four divisions: Gospel of the infancy, roughly covered by the Joyful Mysteries
of the Rosary (2:1); ministry in Galilee, from the preaching of John the Baptist (3:1, to 9:50);
journeying towards Jerusalem (9:51-19:27); Holy Week: preaching in and near Jerusalem,
Passion, and Resurrection (19:28, to end of 24).
12. We owe a great deal to the industry of St. Luke. Out of twenty miracles which he
records six are not found in the other Gospels: draught of fishes, widow of Naim's son,
man with dropsy, ten lepers, Malchus's ear, the spirit of infirmity. He alone has the
following eighteen parables: Good Samaritan, friend at midnight, rich fool, servants
watching, two debtors, barren fig-tree, chief seats, great supper, rash builder, rash king,
lost sheep, prodigal son, unjust steward, rich man and Lazarus, unprofitable servants,
unjust judge, Pharisee and publican, pounds. The account of the journeys towards
Jerusalem (9:51-19:27) is found only in St. Luke; and he gives special prominence to the duty of
prayer.
B. Saint Luke’s accuracy.
Very few writers have ever had their accuracy put to such a severe test as St. Luke,
on account of the wide field covered by his writings, and the consequent liability
(humanly speaking) of making mistakes; and on account of the fierce attacks to which he
has been subjected.
It was the fashion, during the nineteenth century, with German rationalists and their
imitators, to ridicule the “blunders” of Luke, but that is all being rapidly changed by the
recent progress of archeological research. Harnack does not hesitate to say that these
attacks were shameful, and calculated to bring discredit, not on the Evangelist, but upon
his critics, and Ramsay is but voicing the opinion of the best modern scholars when he
calls St. Luke a great and accurate historian. Very few have done so much as this latter
writer, in his numerous works and in his articles in “The Expositor,” to vindicate the
extreme accuracy of St. Luke. Wherever archeology has afforded the means of testing St.
Luke's statements, they have been found to be correct; and this gives confidence that he
is equally reliable where no such corroboration is as yet available. For some of the details
see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, where a very full bibliography is given. For the sake of
illustration, some examples:
1. Sergius Paulus, Proconsul in Cyprus
St. Luke says, Acts, 13, that when St. Paul visited Cyprus (in the reign of Claudius)
Sergius Paulus was proconsul (anthupatos) there. Grotius asserted that this was an abuse
of language, on the part of the natives, who wished to flatter the governor by calling him
proconsul, instead of proprætor (antistrategos), which he really was; and that St. Luke
used the popular appellation. Even Baronius (Annales, ad Ann. 46) supposed that,
though Cyprus was only a prætorian province, it was honoured by being ruled by the
proconsul of Cilicia, who must have been Sergius Paulus. But this is all a mistake. Cato
captured Cyprus, Cicero was proconsul of Cilicia and Cyprus in 52 B.C.; Mark Antony
gave the island to Cleopatra; Augustus made it a prætorian province in 27 B.C., but in 22
B.C. he transferred it to the senate, and it became again a proconsular province. This latter
fact is not stated by Strabo, but it is mentioned by Dion Cassius (53). In Hadrian's time it
was once more under a proprætor, while under Severus it was again administered by a
proconsul. There can be no doubt that in the reign of Claudius, when St. Paul visited it,
Cyprus was under a proconsul (anthupatos), as stated by St. Luke. Numerous coins have
been discovered in Cyprus, bearing the head and name of Claudius on one side, and the
names of the proconsuls of Cyprus on the other. A woodcut engraving of one is given in
Conybeare and Howson's “St. Paul,” at the end of chapter 5. On the reverse it has: EPI
KOMINOU PROKAU ANTHUPATOU: KUPRION — “Money of the Cyprians under
Cominius Proclus, Proconsul.” The head of Claudius (with his name) is figured on the
other side. General Cesnola discovered a long inscription on a pedestal of white marble,
at Solvi, in the north of the island, having the words: EPI PAULOU ANTHUPATOU —
“Under Paulus Proconsul.” Lightfoot, Zochler, Ramsay, Knabenbauer, Zahn, and
Vigouroux hold that this was the actual (Sergius) Paulus of Acts 13:7.
2. The Politarchs in Thessalonica
An excellent example of St. Luke's accuracy is afforded by his statement that rulers
of Thessalonica were called “politarchs” (politarchai — Acts 17:6, 8). The word is not
found in the Greek classics; but there is a large stone in the British Museum, which was
found in an arch in Thessalonica, containing an inscription which is supposed to date
from the time of Vespasian. Here we find the word used by St. Luke together with the
names of several such politarchs, among them being names identical with some of St.
Paul's converts: Sopater, Gaius, Secundus. Burton in “American Journal of Theology”
(July, 1898) has drawn attention to seventeen inscriptions proving the existence of
politarchs in ancient times. Thirteen were found in Macedonia, and five were discovered
in Thessalonica, dating from the middle of the first to the end of the second century.
3. Knowledge of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe
The geographical, municipal, and political knowledge of St. Luke, when speaking of
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, is fully borne out by recent research.
4. Knowledge of Philippian customs
He is equally sure when speaking of Philippi, a Roman colony, where the duum viri
were called “prætors” (strategoi—Acts 16:20, 35), a lofty title which duum viri assumed
in Capua and elsewhere, as we learn from Cicero and Horace (Sat. 1, 5:34). They also had
lictors (rabsouchoi), after the manner of real prætors.
5. References to Ephesus, Athens, and Corinth
His references to Ephesus, Athens, Corinth, are altogether in keeping with everything
that is now known of these cities. Take a single instance: “In Ephesus St. Paul taught in
the school of Tyrannus, in the city of Socrates he discussed moral questions in the marketplace. How incongruous it would seem if the methods were transposed! But the narrative
never makes a false step amid all the many details as the scene changes from city to city;
and that is the conclusive proof that it is a picture of real life” (Ramsay, op. cit. 238). St.
Luke mentions (Acts, 18:2) that when St. Paul was at Corinth the Jews had been recently
expelled from Rome by Claudius, and this is confirmed by a chance statement of
Suetonius. He tells us (ibid. 12) that Gallio was then proconsul in Corinth (the capital of
the Roman province of Achaia). There is no direct evidence that he was proconsul in
Achaia, but his brother Seneca writes that Gallio caught a fever there, and went on a
voyage for his health. The description of the riot at Ephesus (Acts 19) brings together, in
the space of eighteen verses, an extraordinary amount of knowledge of the city, that is
fully corroborated by numerous inscriptions, and representations on coins, medals, etc.,
recently discovered. There are allusions to the temple of Diana (one of the seven wonders
of the world), to the fact that Ephesus gloried in being her temple-sweeper her caretaker
(neokoros), to the theatre as the place of assembly for the people, to the town clerk
(grammateus), to the Asiarchs, to sacrilegious (ierosuloi), to proconsular sessions,
artificers, etc. The ecclesia (the usual word in Ephesus for the assembly of the people) and
the grammateus or town-clerk (the title of a high official frequent on Ephesian coins)
completely puzzled Cornelius a Lapide, Baronius, and other commentators, who
imagined the ecclesia meant a synagogue, etc.
6. The Shipwreck
The account of the voyage and shipwreck described in Acts (27:27) is regarded by
competent authorities on nautical matters as a marvellous instance of accurate
description. Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 186) says: “Extrema duo capita habent
descriptionem clarissimam itineris maritimi quod Paulus in Italiam fecit: quæ descriptio
ab homine harum rerum perito judicata est monumentum omnium pretiosissimum, quæ
rei navalis ex tote antiquitate nobis relicta est. 5. Breusing, 'Die Nautik der Alten' (Bremen,
1886).” See also Knowling “ The Acts of the Apostles” in “Exp. Gr. Test.” (London, 1900).
II. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles
A. The title
In the accepted order of the books of the New Testament the fifth book is called The
Acts of the Apostles (praxeis Apostolon). Some have thought that the title of the book was
affixed by the author himself. It seems far more probable, however, that the name was
subsequently attached to the book just as the headings of the several Gospels were affixed
to them. In fact, the name, Acts of the Apostles, does not precisely convey the idea of the
contents of the book; and such a title would scarcely be given to the work by the author
himself.
B. The Content
The book does not contain the Acts of all the Apostles; neither does it contain all the
acts of any Apostle. It opens with a brief notice of the forty days succeeding the
Resurrection of Christ during which He appeared to the Apostles, “speaking the things
concerning the Kingdom of God.” The promise of the Holy Spirit and the Ascension of
Christ are then briefly recorded. St. Peter advises that a successor be chosen in the place
of Judas Iscariot, and Matthias is chosen by lot. On Pentecost the Holy Spirit descends on
the Apostles, and confers on them the gift of tongues. To the wondering witnesses St.
Peter explains the great miracle, proving that it is the power of Jesus Christ that is
operating. By that great discourse many were converted to the religion of Christ and were
baptized, “and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.” This
was the beginning of the Judeo-Christian Church. “And the Lord added to them day by
day those that were being saved.” Peter and John heal a man, lame from his mother's
womb, at the door of the Temple which is called Beautiful. The people are filled with
wonder and amazement at the miracle and run together unto Peter and John in the
portico that was called Solomon's. Peter again preaches Jesus Christ, asserting that by
faith in the name of Jesus the lame man had been made strong. “And many of them that
heard the word believed,” and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
But now “the priests, and the prefect of the Temple and the Sadducees came upon them, being
sorely troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the
dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in prison unto the morrow.”
On the morrow Peter and John are summoned before rulers, elders, and scribes,
among whom were present Annas, the High-Priest, Caiaphas, and as many as were of
the kindred of the High-Priest. And when they had set Peter and John in the midst they
inquired: “By what power, or in want name have ye done this?” Then Peter, filled with the
Holy Spirit, answering gave utterance to one of the most sublime professions of the
Christian faith ever made by man: “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel,
that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead,
in this name doth this man stand here before you whole. He [Jesus] is the stone which was set at
naught by you the builders, which was made the head of the corner [Isaiah 28:16; Matt. 21:42].
And in no other is there salvation: For neither is there any other name under Heaven that is given
among men, wherein we must be saved.”
The members of the council were brought face to face with the most positive evidence
of the truth of the Christian religion. They command the two Apostles to go aside out of
the council, and then they confer among themselves, saying “What shall we do with these
men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been wrought through them, is manifest to all that
dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.” Here is one of the splendid instances of that great
cumulus of evidence upon which the certitude of the Christian Faith rests. A bitterly
hostile council of the chief Jews of Jerusalem is obliged to declare that a notable miracle
had been wrought, which it cannot deny, and which is manifest to all that dwell in
Jerusalem.
With dreadful malice the council attempts to restrain the great movement of
Christianity. They threaten the Apostles, and charge them not to speak at all or teach in
the name of Jesus; Peter and John contemn the threat, calling upon the council to judge
whether it be right to hearken unto the council rather than unto God. The members of the
council could not inflict punishment upon the two Apostles, on account of the people,
who glorified God on account of the great miracle. Peter and John, being freed from
custody, return to the other Apostles. They all give glory to God and pray for boldness to
speak the word of God. After the prayer the place shakes, and they are filled with the
Holy Spirit.
The fervor of the Christians at that epoch was very great. They were of one heart
and soul; they had all things in common. As many as were possessors of lands or houses
sold them and delivered the price to the Apostles, and this money was distributed as
anyone had need. But a certain Ananias, with Sapphire his wife, sold a possession and
kept back part of the price, the wife being accessory to the deed. St. Peter is inspired by
the Holy Spirit to know the deception, and rebukes Ananias for the lie to the Holy Spirit.
At the rebuke the man falls dead. Sapphire, coming up afterwards, and knowing nothing
of the death of her husband, is interrogated by St. Peter regarding the transaction. She
also keeps back a part of the price, and livingly asserts that the full price has been brought
to the Apostles. St. Peter rebukes her, and she also falls dead at his words. The multitude
saw in the death of Ananias and Sapphire God's punishment, and great fear came upon
all. This miracle of God's punishment of sin also confirmed the faith of those that believed
and drew disciples to them. At this stage of the life of the Church miracles were necessary
to attest the truth of her teaching, and the power of miracles was abundantly bestowed
upon the Apostles. These miracles are not reviewed in detail in Acts, but it is stated: “And
by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (Acts 5:12).
Multitudes both of men and women were added to the Christian community. The people
of Jerusalem carried out the sick and laid them on beds and couches in the streets that the
shadow of St. Peter might fall on them. They brought the sick from the cities round about
Jerusalem, and every one was healed.
The most powerful sect among the Jews at this epoch was the sect of the
Sadducees. They were especially opposed to the Christian religion on account of the
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The cardinal truth of the Apostles' teaching was:
Life Everlasting through Jesus, Who was crucified for our sins, and who is risen from the
dead. The High-Priest Annas favored the Sadducees, and his son Ananus. who
afterwards became High-Priest, was a Sadducee (Josephus, Antiq. 20, 8). These fierce
sectaries made with Annas and Caiaphas common cause against the Apostles of Christ,
and cast them again into prison. The Acts leaves us in no doubt as to the motive that
inspired the High-Priest and the sectaries: “They were filled with jealousy.” The religious
leaders of the Old Law saw their influence with the people waning before the power
which worked in the Apostles of Christ. An angel of the Lord by night opened the prison
doors, and brought the Apostles out, and bade them go and preach in the Temple. The
council of the Jews, not finding Peter and John in the prison, and learning of their
miraculous deliverance, were much perplexed. On information that they are teaching In
the Temple, they send and take them, but without violence fearing the people. It is
evident throughout that the common people are disposed to follow the Apostles; the
opposition comes from the priests and the classes, most of the latter being Sadducees. The
council accuses the Apostles that, contrary to its former injunction not to teach in Christ's
name, they had filled Jerusalem with Christ's teaching. Peter's defense is that they must
obey God rather than men. He then boldly reiterates the doctrine of the Redemption and
of the Resurrection. The council is minded to kill the Apostles. At this point Gamaliel, a
Pharisee, a doctor of the Jewish law, held in honor of all the people, arises in the council
in defense of the Apostles. He cites precedents to prove that, if the New Teaching be of
men, it will be overthrown; and if it be of God, it will be impossible to overthrow it.
Gamaliel's counsel prevails, and the council calls the Apostles, beats them, and lets them
go, charging them not to speak in the name of Jesus. But the Apostles departed, rejoicing
that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name. And every day, in the
Temple and privately they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus the Christ.
A murmuring having arisen of the Grecian Jews, that their widows were neglected
in the daily ministration, the Apostles, deeming it unworthy that they should forsake the
word of God and serve tables, appoint seven deacons to minister. Chief among the
deacons was Stephen, a man full of the Holy Spirit. He wrought great signs and wonders
among the people. The anti-Christian Jews endeavor to resist him, but are not able to
withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he speaks. They suborn witnesses to testify
that he has spoken against Moses and the Temple. Stephen is seized and brought into the
council. False witnesses testify that they have heard Stephen say that “this Jesus of
Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered
to us.” All who sat in the council saw Stephen's face, as it had been the face of an angel.
He makes a defense, in which he reviews the chief events in the first covenant, and its
relation to the New Law. They rush upon Stephen, drag him out of the city, and stone
him to death. And he kneels down and prays: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,” and
dies. Beginning with the martyrdom of Stephen, a great persecution arose against the
Church at Jerusalem; all were scattered abroad throughout Judea and Samaria, except the
Apostles. The leader of the persecution was Saul, afterwards to become the great St. Paul,
the Apostle of the Gentiles. The deacon Philip first preaches in Samaria with great fruit.
Like all the preachers of the first days of the Church, Philip confirms his preaching by
great miracles. Peter and John go up to Samaria and confirm the converts whom Philip
had made. Philip, commanded by an angel, goes down the road from Jerusalem to Gaza,
and on the way converts and baptizes the eunuch of Candace Queen of Ethiopia. Philip
is thence transported by Divine power to Azotus and preaches to all the coast cities until
be comes to Cæsarea.
Saul, breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, sets
out for Damascus to apprehend any Christians whom he may find there. As he draws
near to Damascus, the Lord Jesus speaks to him out of the heavens and converts him. St.
Paul is baptized by Ananias at Damascus, and straightway for some days abides there,
preaching in the synagogues that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He withdraws into
Arabia; again returns to Damascus; and after three years be goes up to Jerusalem. At
Jerusalem Paul is at first distrusted by the disciples of Jesus; but after Barnabas narrates
to them Paul's marvelous conversion, they receive Paul, and he preaches boldly in the
name of Jesus, disputing especially against the Grecian Jews. They plot to kill him; but
the Christians bring Paul down to Cæsarea, and send him forth to Tarsus, his native city.
At this epoch Acts describes the Church in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee as “at
peace, being built up, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and by the strength of the Holy
Spirit it was multiplied.” Peter now goes throughout all parts comforting the faithful. At
Lydia he heals the palsied Æneas; and at Joppa he raises the pious widow Tabitha (Greek,
Dorcas) from the dead. These miracles still more confirm the faith in Jesus Christ. At
Joppa Peter has the great vision of the sheet let down from Heaven containing all manner
of animals, of which he, being in a trance, is commanded to kill and eat. Peter refuses, on
the ground that he cannot eat that which is common and unclean. Whereupon it is made
known to him from God, that God has cleansed what was before to the Jew unclean. This
great vision, revealed three times, was the manifestation of the will of Heaven that the
ritual law of the Jews should cease; and that henceforth salvation should be offered
without distinction to Jew and Gentile. The meaning of the vision is unfolded to Peter,
when he is commanded by an angel to go to Cæsarea, to the Gentile centurion Cornelius,
whose messengers were even then come to fetch him. He goes, and hears from Cornelius
also the centurion's own vision. He preaches to him and to all assembled; the Holy Spirit
descends upon them, and Peter commands that they be baptized. Returning to Jerusalem,
the Jews contend with Peter that he has gone in to men uncircumcised, and eaten with
them. He expounds to them his vision at Joppa, and also the vision of Cornelius, wherein
the latter was commanded by an angel to send and fetch Peter from Joppa, that he might
receive from Peter the Gospel. The Jews acquiesce, glorifying God, and declaring that
“unto the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.” Those who had been
scattered abroad from Jerusalem at the time of Stephen's martyrdom had travailed as far
as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch preaching Christ; but they preached to none save the
Jews. The calling of the Gentiles was not yet understood by them. But now some converts
from Cyprus and Cyrene come up to Antioch, and preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. A
great number believe, and turn to the Lord. The report of the work at Antioch comes to
the ears of the Church in Jerusalem; and they send Barnabas, “a good man full of the Holy
Spirit and of faith,” to them. He takes Paul from Tarsus, and they both dwell at Antioch
a whole year, and teach many people. The disciples of Christ are called Christians first at
Antioch.
The rest of Acts narrates the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the
mission of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch by the Holy Spirit, to preach to the Gentile
nations; the labors of Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus and in Asia Minor, their return to
Antioch; the dissension at Antioch concerning circumcision; the journey of Paul and
Barnabas to Jerusalem, the decision of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the separation
of Paul from Barnabas, in whose stead he takes Silas, or Silvanus; Paul's visit to his Asiatic
Churches, his foundation of the Church at Philippi; Paul's sufferings for Jesus Christ;
Paul's visit to Athens, his foundation of the churches of Corinth and of Ephesus; Paul's
return to Jerusalem, his persecution by the Jews; Paul's imprisonment at Cæsarea; Paul's
appeal to Cæsar, his voyage to Rome; the shipwreck; Paul's arrival at Rome, and the
manner of his life there. We see therefore that a more proper title of this book would be
“The Beginnings of the Christian Religion.” It is an artistic whole, the fullest history which
we possess of the manner in which the Church developed.
C. Key Theological ideas of the Acts
1. In Acts we see the fulfillment of Christ's promises.
In Acts 1:8, Jesus had declared that the Apostles should receive power when the Holy
Spirit should come upon them, and should be His witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all
Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. In John 14:12, Jesus had
declared: “He that believes in me, the works that I do, he also shall do, and greater works than
these shall he do. Because I go to the Father.” In these passages is found the key-note of the
origin of the Church. The Church developed according to the plan conceived by Christ.
There is, assuredly, in the narration evidence of the working out of a great plan; for the
reason that the writer records the working out of the great design of Christ, conceived in
infinite wisdom, and executed by omnipotent power. There is throughout a well-defined,
systematic order of narration, an exactness and fullness of detail. After the calling of the
first twelve Apostles, there is no event in the history of the Church so important as Paul's
conversion and commission to teach in Christ's name. Up to Paul's conversion, the
inspired historian of the Acts has given us a condensed statement of the growth of the
Church among the Jews. Peter and John are prominent in the work. But the great message
is now to issue forth from the confines of Judaism; all flesh is to see the salvation of God;
and St. Paul is to be the great instrument in preaching Christ to the Gentiles. In the
development of the Christian Church Paul wrought more than all the other Apostles; and
therefore in Acts St. Paul stands forth, the prominent agent of God in the conversion of
the world. His appointment as the Apostle of the Gentiles does not prevent him from
preaching to the Jews, but his richest fruits are gathered from the Gentiles. He fills
proconsular Asia, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome with the Gospel of Christ; and the
greater part of Acts is devoted exclusively to recording his work.
In the Acts there are no divisions of the narration contemplated by the author. It is
open to us to divide the work as we deem fit. The nature of the history therein recorded
easily suggests a greater division of Acts into two parts: The beginning and propagation
of the Christian religion among the Jews (1-9); The beginning and propagation of the
Christian religion among the Gentiles (10-28). St. Peter plays the chief role in the first part;
St. Paul, in the second part.
The Acts of the Apostles must not be believed to be an isolated writing, but rather an
integral part in a well-ordered series. Acts presupposes its readers to know the Gospels;
it continues the Gospel narrative. The Four Evangelists close with the account of the
Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ. St. Mark is the only one who essays to give
any of the subsequent history, and he condenses his account into one brief sentence: “And
they went forth and preached everywhere: the Lord working with them, and confirming
the word by the signs that followed” (Mark 36:20). Now the Acts of the Apostles takes up
the narrative here and records succinctly the mighty events which were wrought by the
Holy Spirit through chosen human agents. It is a condensed record of the fulfillment of
the promises of Jesus Christ. The Evangelists record Christ's promises which He made to
the disciples, regarding the establishment of the Church and its mission (Matt. 16:15-20);
the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49; John 14:16-17); the calling of the gentiles (Matt
28:18-20; Luke 24:46-47).
2. The Fulfillment of the Promise of the Spirit.
The history begins at Jerusalem and ends at Rome. With divine simplicity Acts shows
us the growth of the religion of Christ among the nations. The distinction between Jew
and Gentile is abolished by the revelation to St. Peter; Paul is called to devote himself
especially to the Gentile ministry, the Holy Spirit works signs in confirmation of the
doctrines of Christ; men suffer and die, but the Church grows; and thus the whole world
sees the Salvation of God. Nowhere in Holy Writ is the action of the Holy Spirit in the
Church so forcibly set forth as in the Acts.
He fills the Apostles with knowledge and power on Pentecost; they speak as the Holy
Spirit gave them to speak; the Holy Spirit bids Philip the deacon go to the eunuch of
Candace; the same Spirit catches up Philip, after the baptism of the eunuch, and brings
him to Azotus; the Holy Spirit tells Peter to go to Cornelius; when Peter preaches to
Cornelius and his family the Holy Spirit falls on them all; the Holy Spirit directly
commands that Paul and Barnabas be set apart for the Gentile ministry; the Holy Spirit
forbids Paul and Silas to preach in Asia; constantly, by the laying on of the Apostles'
hands, the Holy Spirit comes upon the faithful; Paul is directed by the Holy Spirit in
everything; the Holy Spirit foretells to him that bonds and afflictions await him in every
city; when Agabus prophesies Paul's martyrdom, he says: “Thus says the Holy Spirit: 'So
shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owns this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands
of the Gentiles.'”
Acts declares that on the Gentiles the grace of the Holy Spirit is poured out; in the
splendid description of St. Stephen's martyrdom he is declared full of the Holy Spirit;
when Peter makes his defense before rulers, elders, and scribes, he is filled with the Holy
Spirit; often it is declared that the Apostles are filled with the Holy Spirit; Philip is chosen
as a deacon because be is full of faith and the Holy Spirit; when Ananias is sent to Paul at
Damascus he declares that he is sent that Paul may receive his sight and be filled with the
Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ is declared to be anointed with the Holy Spirit; Barnabas is
declared to be full of the Holy Spirit; the men of Samaria receive the Holy Spirit by the
laying on of the hands of Peter and John.
This history shows the real nature of the Christian religion; its members are baptized
in the Holy Spirit, and are upheld by His power. The source in the Church of infallible
truth in teaching, of grace, and of the power that resists the gates of Hell is the Holy Spirit.
By the power of the Spirit the Apostles established the Church in the great centers of the
world: Jerusalem, Antioch Cyprus, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Philippi,
Thessalonica, Beræa, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome. From these centers the
message went to the surrounding lands. We see in the Acts the realization of Christ's
promises just before his Ascension: “But ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come
upon you; and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto
the uttermost parts of the earth.” In the New Testament Acts forms a necessary connectinglink between the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. It gives the necessary information
concerning the conversion of St. Paul and his apostolate, and also concerning the
formation of the great Churches to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles.
3. Other topics include:
Prayer. Jesus prays: (3:21, 5:16, 6:12); Parables about prayer (11:5, 18:1-14). Prayer in
Acts (Acts 4:31, 13:2). The Apostles also pray (Acts 6:4).
Jesus the Lord. There is no `Messianic secret' in Luke in the same way that there is in
Mark. Luke presents Jesus as `the Lord' (o` Ku,rioj) from the start, (23:27ff., 23:40ff., 22:51,
22:61).
The Holy Spirit. Luke presents Jesus as carrying out his work `full of the Holy Spirit'
(4:1.14.18) The Acts of the Apostles, it has often been remarked, should really be called
`The Acts of the Holy Spirit'. `That the Spirit occupies a central concern in Luke's theology
is seen first of all by the numerous references to his activity. Luke refers to the Spirit
seventeen times, compared with twelve times for Matthew and six times for Mark.'
Joy. The words for `joy' and `rejoicing' occur more often in Luke than any other New
Testament book. Luke gives us the exultant songs of Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon.
`People are often found rejoicing or giving glory to God or praising him... There can be
no doubt that the Christianity Luke knew was a wonderfully joyful affair.'
Evangelism and salvation. It has been pointed out that the word `to evangelize'
(euvangeli,zomai) is used by Luke about the Christmas message, the ministry of John the
Baptist, the work of Jesus and the preaching of the early church. It's a very important
word for Luke - as it was for Paul - but it isn't used by other Gospel writers much at all.
Second Coming. Luke is keen to stress that the Second Coming is sure and certain,
but won't necessarily take place tomorrow (19:11). God is on the move, fulfilling a task,
publishing a message, making our History a true History of Salvation. Two key concepts
express this idea; Dei and Kairo,j.
III. Symbol: The Ox
1. Traditionally the ox was part of the Jewish livestock (Lk 13:15; 14:5). It was used to
pull the cart containing any harvested produce, or personal belongings on long journeys.
Also it was used to pull the plow, with which they prepared the soil to be planted.
2. A gentle animal strong enough to do the job, and noble and friendly enough to his
master, that made it indispensable in the family life of the Israelites.
3. Luke is always symbolized to the ox for his strength and sympathy to all, especially
the needy. Many heard his powerful voice, and followed the trail marked by his footprint.
His Gospel (tool) has assured a fertile soil for the seed (God’s Word) to grow. But also,
the ox is a sacrificial animal used in the Temple to atone for sins on Yom Kippur
(Expiation Day). Jesus is the fattened calf slaughtered to celebrate the return of the
Prodigal Son (Lk 15:23).
IV. Structure of Lk-Acts: Concentric Chiasm: (Ascension)
From Galilee (Jesus is born in Bethlehem but lives in Nazareth) Lk 1:11-9:50
To Jerusalem via Samaria and Judea Lk 9:51-19:40.
* In Jerusalem Lk 19:41 - 24:49.
++ Ascension Lk 24:50 – Acts 1:4-11 ++
* In Jerusalem Acts 1:12- 8:1.
To Judea and Samaria Acts 8:1 – 11:18.
To all the ends of the Earth Acts 11:19 – 28:31.
1. Luke uses Mark’s geographical plan to build up his own plan, but adds to it the
concept of the History of Salvation and the work of the Spirit as the source of energy that
makes possible the movement in increments of time and space.
2. The time of Israel has ended, now the new time, the appointed time (kairos), has
arrived with the coming of Jesus. And Jesus’ time is prolonged in the Church’s time until
he comes again to bring us eternity.
3. In the same way, from little Bethlehem and tiny Nazareth, salvation spreads out to
the entire world in steady and firm steps.
4. Jerusalem stands as the center of action, for it is there that the Temple is located.
The Temple in Luke’s eyes is not the physical building but the theological place of
meeting with God through the Spirit.
V. The Message
A. Christology and the gift of the Spirit.
1. Luke dedicates a lot of time to the concept of preaching the Good News of the
coming of God’s Kingdom (Is 61:1-2; Lk 4:16ff), especially to the needy and the poor.
2. Jesus, the bearer of the Good News is called by Luke: (o` Ku,rioj) The Lord (Lk
1:32.33.35.43.47.69; 3;22; 4:3-9:41; Acts 3:15). The message is God’s Salvation to all
mankind (1:47.69.71.77.78; 2:30.32).
3. Nothing can stop his journey; He takes on his mission by “exiting” from one place
to another until he ascends to Heaven (Lk 9:31). In the same way, his work continues to
be present in the Church (Lk 24:47; Acts 8:4) and nothing can stop it, for the Spirit is with
us (Acts 2:1ff).
4. The Spirit holds both of Luke’s works together, he is present in every event taking
place in the gospel (Lk 1:15.35.41.67; 2:25-27; 3:22; 4:1.14.48; 10:21; 11:13; 12:10.12; and 70
times in Acts.
B. Ecclesiology
1. Luke’s Church is composed of different strata: a) there are some who are rich like
Joseph of Arimathea 23:50; Zacheus 19:2.8; Joan 8:3; b) there are poor like the shepherds
2:15ff; Lazarus 16:20; the widow 21:3.
2. The Church has a defined structured based on the authority of the Twelve, with
Peter as the head (Acts 2:14ff).
3. Mary plays an important role in Luke’s conception of the Church. She was present
and made possible the Birth of Jesus and the birth of the Church (Lk 1:26-39 and Acts
2:1ff). She is a model of faith, hope and love to all who wish to follow Jesus and be part
of his family Lk 8:19. She is the (kecaritwme,nh) full of Grace, literally the “Engraced One”
who was transformed in the past by the grace of God to bring forth God’s salvation to all
mankind 1:28. She is the ever virgin, the Queen, mother of the King and Lord Jesus Christ,
Son of God 1:26-38.
C. Preferred Scene: The Temple- House (Locus Theologicus).
1. Luke seems to prefer the Temple in his Gospel; he is more attracted to liturgical
settings than Mark and Matthew.
2. The Gospel begins in the Temple 1:8, and finishes in the Temple 24:53. Acts begins
in the Cenacle 1:13 and finished in Paul’s dwelling in Rome 28:30.
3. Jesus is in constant prayer making any spot the Temple of God. In Acts the Cenacle
becomes the Temple in which the Holy Spirit is poured out 2:1ff, and from there on in
any place, but especially, houses in which the apostles prayed, the Spirit manifested
himself Acts 10.
D. Use in Liturgy.
1. Luke is used in the Weekday Reading Cycle between the 22nd. Week and the 34th;
Week in Ordinary Time.
2. In the Sunday Reading Cycle Luke corresponds to the C Cycle and it is repeated
every three liturgical years.
VI. Open Questions
A. Authenticity of the Gospel.
1. Internal evidence.
The internal evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:
The author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke; and the
author of Acts was the author of the Gospel. The arguments are given at length by
Plummer, “St. Luke” in “Int. Crit. Com.” (4th ed., Edinburgh, 1901); Harnack, “Luke the
Physician” (London, 1907); “The Acts of the Apostles” (London, 1909); etc.
a) The Author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke
There is nothing more certain in Biblical criticism than this proposition. The writer
of the “we” sections claims to be a companion of St. Paul. The “we” begins at Acts, 16:10,
and continues to 16:17 (the action is at Philippi). It reappears at 20:5 (Philippi), and
continues to 21:18 (Jerusalem). It reappears again at the departure for Rome, 27:1 (Gr.
text), and continues to the end of the book.
Plummer argues that these sections are by the same author as the rest of the Acts:
from the natural way in which they fit in; from references to them in other parts; and
from the identity of style. The change of person seems natural and true to the narrative,
but there is no change of language. The characteristic expressions of the writer run
through the whole book, and are as frequent in the “we” as in the other sections. There is
no change of style perceptible. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 40) makes an exhaustive
examination of every word and phrase in the first of the “we” sections (16:10-17), and
shows how frequent they are in the rest of the Acts and the Gospel, when compared with
the other Gospels. His manner of dealing with the first word (hos) will indicate his
method: “This temporal hos is never found in St. Matthew and St. Mark, but it occurs
forty-eight times in St. Luke (Gospel and Acts), and that in all parts of the work.” When
he comes to the end of his study of this section he is able to write: “After this
demonstration those who declare that this passage was derived from a source, and so
was not composed by the author of the whole work, take up a most difficult position.
What may we suppose the author to have left unaltered in the source? Only the 'we'. For,
in fact, nothing else remains. In regard to vocabulary, syntax, and style, he must have
transformed everything else into his own language. As such a procedure is absolutely
unimaginable, we are simply left to infer that the author is here himself speaking.” He
even thinks it improbable, on account of the uniformity of style, that the author was
copying from a diary of his own, made at an earlier period. After this, Harnack proceeds
to deal with the remaining “we” sections, with like results. But it is not alone in
vocabulary, syntax and style, that this uniformity is manifest. In “The Acts of the
Apostles,” Harnack devotes many pages to a detailed consideration of the manner in
which chronological data, and terms dealing with lands, nations, cities, and houses, are
employed throughout the Acts, as well as the mode of dealing with persons and miracles,
and he everywhere shows that the unity of authorship cannot be denied except by those
who ignore the facts. This same conclusion is corroborated by the recurrence of medical
language in all parts of the Acts and the Gospel.
That the companion of St. Paul who wrote the Acts was St. Luke is the unanimous
voice of antiquity. His choice of medical language proves that the author was a physician.
Westein, in his preface to the Gospel (“Novum Test. Græcum,” Amsterdam, 1741, 643),
states that there are clear indications of his medical profession throughout St. Luke's
writings; and in the course of his commentary he points out several technical expressions
common to the Evangelist and the medical writings of Galen. These were brought
together by the Bollandists (“Acta SS.” 18 Oct.). In the “Gentleman's Magazine” for June,
1841, a paper appeared on the medical language of St. Luke. To the instances given in
that article, Plummer and Harnack add several others; but the great book on the subject
is Hobart “The Medical Language of St. Luke” (Dublin, 1882). Hobart works right
through the Gospel and Acts and points out numerous words and phrases identical with
those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arctæus, Galen, and
Dioscorides. A few are found in Aristotle, but he was a doctor's son. The words and
phrases cited are either peculiar to the Third Gospel and Acts, or are more frequent than
in other New Testament writings. The argument is cumulative, and does not give way
with its weakest strands. When doubtful cases and expressions common to the
Septuagint, are set aside, a large number remain that seem quite unassailable. Harnack
(Luke the Physician! 13) says: “It is as good as certain from the subject-matter, and more
especially from the style, of this great work that the author was a physician by profession.
Of course, in making such a statement one still exposes oneself to the scorn of the critics,
and yet the arguments which are alleged in its support are simply convincing. . . . Those,
however, who have studied it [Hobart's book] carefully, will, I think, find it impossible
to escape the conclusion that the question here is not one of merely accidental linguistic
coloring, but that this great historical work was composed by a writer who was either a
physician or was quite intimately acquainted with medical language and science. And,
indeed, this conclusion holds good not only for the 'we' sections, but for the whole book.”
Harnack gives the subject special treatment in an appendix of twenty-two pages.
Hawkins and Zahn come to the same conclusion. The latter observes (Einl. 2, 427):
“Hobart has proved for everyone who can appreciate proof that the author of the Lucan
work was a man practiced in the scientific language of Greek medicine — in short, a
Greek physician” (quoted by Harnack, op. cit.).
b) The Author of Acts was the Author of the Gospel.
“This position,” says Plummer “is so generally admitted by critics of all schools
that not much time need be spent in discussing it.” Harnack may be said to be the latest
prominent convert to this view, to which he gives elaborate support in the two books
above mentioned. He claims to have shown that the earlier critics went hopelessly astray,
and that the traditional view is the right one. This opinion is fast gaining ground even
amongst ultra critics, and Harnack declares that the others hold out because there exists
a disposition amongst them to ignore the facts that tell against them, and he speaks of
“the truly pitiful history of the criticism of the Acts.” Only the briefest summary of the
arguments can be given here. The Gospel and Acts are both dedicated to Theophilus and
the author of the latter work claims to be the author of the former (Acts 1:50 ). The style
and arrangement of both are so much alike that the supposition that one was written by
a forger in imitation of the other is absolutely excluded. The required power of literary
analysis was then unknown, and, if it were possible, we know of no writer of that age
who had the wonderful skill necessary to produce such an imitation. It is to postulate a
literary miracle, says Plummer, to suppose that one of the books was a forgery written in
Imitation of the other. Such an idea would not have occurred to anyone; and, if it had, he
could not have carried it out with such marvelous success. If we take a few chapters of
the Gospel and note down the special, peculiar, and characteristic words, phrases and
constructions, and then open the Acts at random, we shall find the same literary
peculiarities constantly recurring. Or, if we begin with the Acts, and proceed conversely,
the same results will follow. In addition to similarity, there are parallels of description,
arrangement, and points of view, and the recurrence of medical language, in both books,
has been mentioned under the previous heading.
We should naturally expect that the long intercourse between St. Paul and St. Luke
would mutually influence their vocabulary, and their writings show that this was really
the case. Hawkins (Horæ Synopticæ) and Bebb (Hast., “Dict. of the Bible,” s. v. “Luke,
Gospel of”) state that there are 32 words found only in St. Matt. and St. Paul; 22 in St.
Mark and St. Paul; 21 in St. John and St. Paul; while there are 101 found only in St. Luke
and St. Paul. Of the characteristic words and phrases which mark the three Synoptic
Gospels a little more than half are common to St. Matt. and St. Paul, less than half to St.
Mark and St. Paul and two-thirds to St. Luke and St. Paul. Several writers have given
examples of parallelism between the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Among the most
striking are those given by Plummer (44). The same author gives long lists of words and
expressions found in the Gospel and Acts and in St. Paul, and nowhere else in the New
Testament. But more than this, Eager in “The Expositor” (July and August, 1894), in his
attempt to prove that St. Luke was the author of Hebrews, has drawn attention to the
remarkable fact that the Lucan influence on the language of St. Paul is much more marked
in those Epistles where we know that St. Luke was his constant companion. Summing
up, he observes: “There is in fact sufficient ground for believing that these books.
Colossians, 2 Corinthians, the Pastoral Epistles, First (and to a lesser extent Second) Peter,
possess a Lucan character.” When all these points are taken into consideration, they
afford convincing proof that the author of the Gospel and Acts was St. Luke, the beloved
physician, the companion of St. Paul, and this is fully borne out by the external evidence.
2. External evidence
The proof in favour of the unity of authorship, derived from the internal character of
the two books, is strengthened when taken in connection with the external evidence.
Every ancient testimony for the authenticity of Acts tells equally in favour of the Gospel;
and every passage for the Lucan authorship of the Gospel gives a like support to the
authenticity of Acts. Besides, in many places of the early Fathers both books are ascribed
to St. Luke. The external evidence can be touched upon here only in the briefest manner.
The many passages in St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, ascribing the books to St.
Luke, are important not only as testifying to the belief of their own, but also of earlier
times. St. Jerome and Origen were great travelers, and all three were omnivorous readers.
They had access to practically the whole Christian literature of preceding centuries; but
they nowhere hint that the authorship of the Gospel (and Acts) was ever called in
question. This, taken by itself, would be a stronger argument than can be adduced for the
majority of classical works. But we have much earlier testimony. Clement of Alexandria
was probably born at Athens about A.D. 150. He traveled much and had for instructors
in the Faith an Ionian, an Italian, a Syrian, an Egyptian, an Assyrian, and a Hebrew in
Palestine. “And these men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed teaching directly
from Peter and James, John and Paul, the holy Apostles, son receiving it from father, came
by God's providence even unto us, to deposit among us those seeds [of truth] which were
derived from their ancestors and the Apostles.” (Strom. 1, 1:11: cf. Eusebius “Hist. Eccl.”
5:11). He holds that St. Luke's Gospel was written before that of St. Mark, and he uses the
four Gospels just as any modern Christian writer. Tertullian was born at Carthage, lived
some time in Rome, and then returned to Carthage. His quotations from the Gospels,
when brought together by Rönsch, cover two hundred pages. He attacks Marcion for
mutilating St. Luke's Gospel. and writes: “ I say then that among them, and not only
among the Apostolic Churches, but among all the Churches which are united with them
in Christian fellowship, the Gospel of Luke, which we earnestly defend, has been
maintained from its first publication” (Adv. Marc. 4, 5).
The testimony of St. Irenæus is of special importance. He was born in Asia Minor,
where he heard St. Polycarp give his reminiscences of St. John the Apostle, and in his
numerous writings he frequently mentions other disciples of the Apostles. He was priest
in Lyons during the persecution in 177, and was the bearer of the letter of the confessors
to Rome. His bishop, Pothinus, whom be succeeded, was ninety years of age when he
gained the crown of martyrdom in 177, and must have been born while some of the
Apostles and very many of their hearers were still living. St. Irenæus, who was born about
A.D. 130 (some say much earlier), is, therefore, a witness for the early tradition of Asia
Minor, Rome, and Gaul. He quotes the Gospels just as any modern bishop would do, he
calls them Scripture, believes even in their verbal inspiration; shows how congruous it is
that there are four and only four Gospels; and says that Luke, who begins with the
priesthood and sacrifice of Zachary, is the calf. When we compare his quotations with
those of Clement of Alexandria, variant readings of text present themselves. There was
already established an Alexandrian type of text different from that used in the West. The
Gospels had been copied and recopied so often, that, through errors of copying, etc.,
distinct families of text had time to establish themselves. The Gospels were so widespread
that they became known to pagans. Celsus in his attack on the Christian religion was
acquainted with the genealogy in St. Luke's Gospel, and his quotations show the same
phenomena of variant readings.
The next witness, St. Justin Martyr, shows the position of honour the Gospels held
in the Church, in the early portion of the century. Justin was born in Palestine about A.D.
105, and converted in 132-135. In his “Apology” he speaks of the memoirs of the Lord
which are called Gospels, and which were written by Apostles (Matthew, John) and
disciples of the Apostles (Mark, Luke). In connection with the disciples of the Apostles
he cites the verses of St. Luke on the Sweat of Blood, and he has numerous quotations
from all four. Westcott shows that there is no trace in Justin of the use of any written
document on the life of Christ except our Gospels. “He [Justin] tells us that Christ was
descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, David — that the Angel
Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary — that it was in fulfillment of
the prophecy of Isaiah . . . that His parents went thither [to Bethlehem] in consequence of
an enrolment under Cyrinius — that as they could not find a lodging in the village they
lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger,” etc.
(Westcott, “Canon,” 104). There is a constant intermixture in Justin's quotations of the
narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. As usual in apologetical works, such as the
apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Cyprian, and Eusebius, he does not name his sources because he was addressing
outsiders. He states, however, that the memoirs which were called Gospels were read in
the churches on Sunday along with the writings of the Prophets, in other words, they
were placed on an equal rank with the Old Testament. In the “Dialogue,” 105, we have a
passage peculiar to St. Luke. “Jesus as He gave up His Spirit upon the Cross said, Father,
into thy hands I commend my Spirit' [Luke 23:46], even as I learned from the Memoirs of
this fact also.” These Gospels which were read every Sunday must be the same as our
four, which soon after, in the time of Irenæus, were in such long established honour, and
regarded by him as inspired by the Holy Ghost. We never hear, says Salmon, of any
revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another; so we may be
sure that the Gospels honored by the Church in Justin's day were the same as those to
which the same respect was paid in the days of Irenæus, not many years after. This
conclusion is strengthened not only by the nature of Justin's quotations, but by the
evidence afforded by his pupil Tatian, the Assyrian, who lived a long time with him in
Rome, and afterwards compiled his harmony of the Gospels, his famous “Diatessaron,”
in Syriac, from our four Gospels. He had travelled a great deal, and the fact that he uses
only those shows that they alone were recognized by St. Justin and the Catholic Church
between 130-150. This takes us back to the time when many of the hearers of the Apostles
and Evangelists were still alive; for it is held by many scholars that St. Luke lived till
towards the end of the first century.
Irenæus, Clement, Tatian, Justin, etc., were in as good a position for forming a
judgment on the authenticity of the Gospels as we are of knowing who were the authors
of Scott's novels, Macaulay's essays, Dickens's early novels, Longfellow's poems, no. xc
of “Tracts for the Times” etc. But the argument does not end here. Many of the heretics
who flourished from the beginning of the second century till A.D. 150 admitted St. Luke's
Gospel as authoritative. This proves that it had acquired an unassailable position long
before these heretics broke away from the Church. The Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, about
A.D. 150, makes use of our Gospels. About the same time the Gospels, together with their
titles, were translated into Latin; and here, again, we meet the phenomena of variant
readings, to be found in Clement, Irenæus, Old Syriac, Justin, and Celsus, pointing to a
long period of previous copying. Finally, we may ask, if the author of the two books were
not St. Luke, who was he?
Harnack (Luke the Physician, 2) holds that as the Gospel begins with a prologue
addressed to an individual (Theophilus) it must, of necessity, have contained in its title
the name of its author. How can we explain, if St. Luke were not the author, that the name
of the real, and truly great, writer came to be completely buried in oblivion, to make room
for the name of such a comparatively obscure disciple as St. Luke? Apart from his
connection, as supposed author, with the Third Gospel and Acts, was no more prominent
than Aristarchus and Epaphras; and he is mentioned only in three places in the whole of
the New Testament. If a false name were substituted for the true author, some more
prominent individual would have been selected.
B. Authenticity of the Acts.
The authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles is proved be intrinsic evidence; it is
attested by the concordant voice of tradition. The unity of style of Acts and its artistic
completeness compel us to receive the book as the work of one author. Such an effect
could never arise from the piecing together bits of writings of different authors. The
writer writes as an eyewitness and compaction of Paul. The passages 16:10-17; 20:5-15;
21:1-18; 27:1; 28:16 are called the We passages. In these the writer uniformly employs the
first person plural, closely identifying himself with St. Paul. This excludes the theory that
Acts is the work of a redactor. As Renan has well said, such use of the pronoun is
incompatible with any theory of redaction. We know from many proofs that Luke was
the companion and fellow-laborer of Paul. Writing to the Colossians, in his salutation
Paul associates with himself, “Luke, the beloved physician” (4:14). In 2 Tim. 4:11 Paul
declares: “Only Luke is with me.” To Philemon (24) Paul calls Luke his fellow-worker.
Now in this article, we may suppose the Lucan authorship of the third Gospel as proved.
The writer of Acts in his opening sentence implicitly declares himself to be the author of
the third Gospel. He addresses his work to Theophilus, the addressee of the third Gospel;
he mentions his former work and in substance makes known his intention of continuing
the history which, in his former treatise, he had brought up to the day when the Lord
Jesus was received up. There is an identity of style between Acts and the third Gospel.
An examination of the original Greek texts of the third Gospel and of the Acts reveals
that there is in them a remarkable identity of manner of thinking and of writing. There is
in both the same tender regard for the Gentiles, the same respect for the Roman Empire,
the same treatment of the Jewish rites, the same broad conception that the Gospel is for
all men. In forms of expression the third Gospel and the Acts reveal an identity of
authorship. Many of the expressions usual in both works occur but rarely in the rest of
the New Testament; are other expressions found nowhere else save in the third Gospel
and in the Acts. If one will compare the following expressions in the Greek, he will be
persuaded that both works are of the same author:
Luke 1:1-Acts 15:24-25;
Luke 15:13-Acts, 1, 5, 27, 14, 19, 11;
Luke 1, 20, 80-Acts, 1:2, 22, 2:29, 7:45;
Luke 5:34-Acts, 2:27, 4:27, 30;
Luke 23:5-Acts 10:7;
Luke 1:9-Acts, I, 17;
Luke 12:56, 21:35-Acts 17:26.
The twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth chapters of St. Irenæus's third book
“Against Heresies” are based upon the Acts of the Apostles. Irenæus convincingly
defends the Lucan authorship of the third Gospel and Acts, declaring: “But that this Luke
was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-laborer in the Gospel, he himself clearly
evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so, by the truth itself. . . And all
the remaining facts of his courses with Paul, he recounts. . . As Luke was present at all
these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be
convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, etc.” Irenæus unites in himself the witness of the
Christian Church of the East and the West of the second century. He continues unchanged
the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers. In his treatise “On Fasting” Tertullian accepts Acts
as Holy Scripture, and calls them the “Commentary of Luke.” In his treatise “On
Prescription against Heretics,” 22, Tertullian is strong in asserting the canonicity of Acts:
“And assuredly, God fulfilled his promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles
that the Holy Spirit did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither
belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has
been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to be a church themselves, who
positively have no means of proving when, and with what infant-nurslings this body was
established.” Again, in chapter 23 of the same treatise, he issues a challenge to those who
reject Acts: “I may say here to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles: It is first necessary
that you show us who this Paul was; both what he was before he became an Apostle, and
how he became an Apostle” etc. Clement of Alexandria is a clear witness. In “Stromata,”
5:11, he declares: “Most instructively, therefore, says Paul in the Acts of the Apostles: 'The
God that made the world, and all things in it, being the Lord of Heaven and of earth,
dwelled not in temples made with hands' “ etc. (Acts 17:24, 25). Again, in chapter 12, he
states: “As Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, relates that Paul said: 'Men of Athens, 1
perceive that in all things, ye are greatly superstitious' .” In Hom. 13, on Genesis, 2, Origen
asserts the Lucan authorship of Acts as a truth that all the world accepted. Eusebius (Hist.
Eccl. 3, 25) places Acts among ta homologoumena, the books of which no one has doubted.
The author of the Acts of the Apostles is Luke the Evangelist, as is clear from
Tradition, internal evidence in the Acts themselves and in their relation to the third
Gospel (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-2). The unity of their authorship can be proved critically by
their language, style and plan of narrative, and by their unity of scope and doctrine. The
occasional substitution of the first person plural for the third person so far from
impairing, only establishes more strongly their unity of composition and authenticity.
The relations of Luke with the chief founders of the Church in Palestine, and with Paul,
the Apostle of the Gentiles; his industry and diligence as an eyewitness and in examining
witnesses; the remarkable agreement of the Acts of the Apostles with the Epistles of Paul
and with the more genuine historical records, all go to show that Luke had at his
command most trustworthy sources, and that he used them in such a manner as to make
his work historically authoritative. This authority is not diminished by the difficulties
alleged against the supernatural facts he records, by his manner of condensing
statements, by apparent disagreements with profane or Biblical history, or by apparent
inconsistencies with his own or with other scriptural writings.
C. Date and place of Composition
1. There is an ongoing debate on the issue. Most Scholars would date the Gospel as
late as the year 80 AD. Claiming that Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels circulated for some
time before Luke used them as sources of his Gospel. My problem with this is that they
give too much time between Mark and Luke.
2. On the other hand, Luke did not report in the Acts the death of Peter and Paul, to
whom he dedicated Volume II of his work. Such important events are not likely to be left
out by someone who claims to be diligent and meticulous in his method. Peter and Paul
are believed to have suffer their martyrdom around 67 AD; thus either we have lost pages
of Volume II, (which is unlikely for none of the fathers quote from other than the existing
text), or Luke died with Peter and Paul, making it impossible for him to record their
death.
3. Based on this I believe that Luke wrote his Gospel in Rome during Paul’s last years
62-67. That would have given him enough time to read Matthew’s and Mark’s gospel.
4. As regards the date of the Book of Acts, we may at most assign a probable date for
the completion of the book. It is recognized by all that Acts ends abruptly. The author
devotes but two verses to the two years which Paul spent at Rome. These two years were
in a certain sense uneventful. Paul dwelt peaceably at Rome, and preached the kingdom
of God to all who went in unto him. It seems probable that during this peaceful epoch St.
Luke composed the Book of Acts and terminated it abruptly at the end of the two years,
as some unrecorded vicissitude carried him out into other events. The date of the
completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul's Roman captivity.
Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul's coming to Rome in the year 62;
hence the year 67 is ad quem date for the Acts.
C. Audience
1. Luke writes for a very broad audience of people who were already evangelized.
2. The community is composed of both, Judeo – Christians and Gentile Converts.
3. This comes to be of enormous importance when it comes to our use of Luke’s gospel in
our pastoral outreach. Luke must be used with people who have already been instructed
in faith, and not for announcing the Kerugma.
IV. Lectio Divina on selected pericopies
IOHANNES
An Introduction to the life and works of Saint John, the Divine.
Fr. Randy Soto, SThD.
I. The Life of the Apostle John
A. John, the Fisherman, son of Zebedee and Salome
The disciples (with the probable exception of Judas Iscariot) were all Galileans. They are
referred to again and again as Galileans, and Peter is even told that his speech gave him away; the
Galilean accent was well known. So John was from Galilee, called "Galilee of the nations" (Mt
4:15). The people there were a mixed people and being mixed they were looked down on by the
Jews from Judea and Jerusalem where the Temple was.
John started life with a bit of a handicap. He was the son of Zebedee and his mother is also
referred to in several places. If you compare the accounts of the women who stood at the cross of
the Lord Jesus in the Gospels of John and Mark there is real reason to believe that his mother's
name was Salome and that she was one of the women there. John's Gospel gives us three names
of women at the cross and mentions one to be the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord Jesus.
Mark's Gospel mentions Salome as one of the women and it would be strange if two sisters each
had the first name Mary which would be the only other way to understand the reference in John if
Salome is not this one, but if Salome is indeed the mother of James and John then she is also the
sister of Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus, so that humanly speaking it may well be that the
apostle John was a half-cousin to the Lord Jesus.
B. John, younger brother of James
John is usually mentioned in the Gospels in connection with his brother James and most of
the times James is mentioned first. One finds in looking at the life of the apostle John that he was
the one in the background. If there are two it may be "Peter and John" or "James and John" or if
there are three, "Peter, James and John". It seems that John was happy to play second fiddle (and
it is said that this is the hardest instrument to play). Most of us find this place that John took
difficult. By nature we like to have a place of prominence.
John's family had a successful fishing business. Because when the Lord called James and John
they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants (Mark 1:20), and the business
evidently went on under Zebedee's leadership. Scripture definitely mentions James and John as
business partners with Peter and Andrew (Luke 5) and in John 18 it mentions that he was known
to the high priest.
C. John, disciple of John the Baptist
John was evidently a seeking soul. John the Baptist was preaching repentance, "Prepare the
way of the Lord" and the disciple John was one of those who had followed him. He was present
when John the Baptist looking at Jesus as he walked said, "Behold the Lamb of God". Immediately
John and the other disciple followed Jesus. John at this time was a disciple of John the Baptist.
He had been in earnest about his own spiritual need, about his own condition, and he had gone
to hear and had given heed to the message that God was giving through this messenger and when
this messenger pointed him to the Lord Jesus he followed Him. As far as Scripture speaks of this
it was John's first contact with Jesus (if there was relationship according to the flesh Scripture does
not build on it and so we should not either).
It seems that after this first contact in Jn 1 and perhaps chapter 2, John may have gone back
to the fishing business for in Mk 1, Lk 5 and Mt 4 we find these disciples called to follow the Lord
Jesus while they were at the seaside. This was something more than the initial contact. According
to Luke 5 the Lord borrowed Peter's boat one day. Now He knew Peter, indeed He had named him
(John 1:42), in other words He had staked out a claim on him, but Peter had gone back to his
fishing. Then one day the Lord borrowed Peter's boat, used it for a pulpit and then paid him richly
telling him to launch out and let down his nets. Peter, dropping down one net intending to prove
that he knew better than a carpenter how to fish, found that he was not able to pull in all the fish
that the Lord had sent into his net. He beckoned to his partners James and John and they came and
there was a tremendous load so that both boats began to sink under the weight of the catch. It was
shortly after this that the Lord called them to be His followers. Mark l does not mention the incident
about the great catch of fish but mentions that James and John were mending their nets when the
Lord called them to follow Him.
D. John, the Son of Thunder
The Lord re-named some of His disciples, and the name that He gave to James and John was
Boanerges, meaning 'Sons of thunder'. This would seem to describe their character. When we read
the writings of John we do not think of him as a son of thunder but it comes out in some of the
other Gospels how hot-blooded and jealous he was by nature.
In Lk 9:49, John came to the Lord very perturbed saying, "Master, we saw some one casting
out demons in thy name, and we forbad him, because he follows not with us," and the Lord rebuked
him.
A little later on in the chapter they were going through Samaria to Jerusalem and the Lord
sent some of His disciples ahead to make reservations for the group that were following. But when
they came to a Samaritan village, the villagers, seeing that they were headed for Jerusalem, said
that there was no room there. Then James and John together said to the Lord (being right in the
area were Elijah had been when the king three times sent a captain of the guard with fifty soldiers
to arrest him), "Lord, do you want that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume
them, even as Elias did?" (v.54). Again the Lord rebuked them. From these incidents we conclude
that this was what John was by nature. The Lord had to tell them "the Son of man is not come to
destroy men's lives, but to save them."
John in his life learned to curb that 'son of thunder' disposition. Eventually he was the disciple
whom the Lord could use to write about love and about loving one another. He learned to
appreciate the love of the Lord Jesus.
John was one of the three disciples whom the Lord took with Him when He did not take the
whole group. Peter, James and John were taken up the mount of transfiguration and also into the
room when Jairus' daughter was raised and so on. John was also ambitious and self-confident.
We usually think of Peter in that way, but when Peter said that if everyone denied the Lord he
would not, "so said they all", and somewhat previously when, with their mother, James and John
came to the Lord and asked Him for the highest places for themselves the Lord spoke about the
cup which He had to drink, and could they do the same? They thought they could, they were
confident of that. Well, John was learning as we all do by fits and starts. He was intimate with the
Lord one moment and arguing with his fellow disciples the next about the place they were going
to have.
E. John, the Beloved Disciple
In Lk 22 we find the Lord sending Peter and John to prepare the Passover. As we go on through
the life of John we often find him associated with Peter. Later on in this chapter, "they began to
question together amongst themselves who then it could be that was about to do this [to betray the
Lord]. And there was also a strife amongst them which of them was to be the greatest" (vv.23-24).
So right up until the night on which the Lord was crucified they were still arguing which of them
should be the greatest. Yet the same night, thank God, we find in his Gospel, in chapter 13, that he
was leaning on the breast of Jesus. "There was at the table one of His disciples in the bosom of
Jesus whom Jesus loved. He leaning on the breast of Jesus says to Him, Lord who is it?" (v v 23,
25).
At Gethsemane John was one of the three disciples that the Lord took a little further than the
others and asked them to watch with Him, but he fell asleep. John was one of whom the Lord
expected a little more. A few hours before he had been leaning on His breast, had been in His
bosom, and yet John, was not able to come up to the Lord's expectation that night. When the Lord
was betrayed and arrested He submitted to it, allowing Himself to be led away. They all forsook
Him and fled. That was the initial reaction because later on we find that John followed and Peter
also followed at a distance. John came to the high priest's palace and he, being known, was
admitted, and a little later Peter arrived and while at the gate, on John's word, he was let in. Peter
then got himself into tremendous difficulty. John apparently witnessed the trial of the Lord Jesus
and, while we do not read that he stood at His side or that he raised his voice in defense of his
Lord, at least he was there.
F. John, the Son of Mary
At the cross John was the only disciple mentioned as being there although there were several
women including the mother of the Lord Jesus, John's mother Salome, Mary Magdala, and Mary
the mother of Clopas and John. Then the Lord Jesus, during those first three hours, turned to His
mother and said, referring to John, "Woman, behold thy son!" and to John he said, "Behold thy
mother!" and we read, "And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home" (John 19:27).
The Lord committed His mother to John's care and John rose to the occasion. This was a
responsibility that John took on himself for the rest of Mary's life.
G. John, the Believer in the Resurrection
In John 20 when Mary Magdalene came with the news of His resurrection Peter and John ran
to the tomb, John outstripped Peter and got there first but Peter, the bold one, actually went into
the tomb to check out the report. Then John writes, "Then entered therefore the other disciple also
who came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed; for they had not yet known the Scripture,
that He must rise from among the dead" (vv 8-9). This was when John really believed the
resurrection. Then he was one of the ten when the Lord appeared in their midst that evening and
then a week later the Lord appeared when Thomas was with them also. Yet in chapter 21 we find
that when Peter said "I go fishing" John was one of those who went with him. Six disciples
followed Peter at that time, among them James and John, but John was the first one to detect who
the stranger on the shore really was. He said, "It is the Lord" and "that disciple therefore whom
Jesus loved said to Peter, It is the Lord". He did not say, "It is Jesus" but "the Lord", and at the end
of the chapter following Peter asked, "What shall this man do?" about the one who was following
the Lord.
H. John, the Apostle
At Pentecost John was one of the one hundred and twenty who were together in the upper
room upon whom the Holy Spirit came. When the crowd gathered wanting to know what was
happening, we read that Peter, standing up with the eleven, preached the gospel to them. Peter did
the preaching that day; the others stood with him backing him up. We can see that from the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus onward the strife for supremacy amongst the disciples was gone.
Subsequent to the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus in Acts 1 we find togetherness
amongst the apostles.
In Acts 3 Peter met a lame man at the gate of the temple and John was again with him. They
were working together, for "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall
a matter be established" (Dt 19:15). It is good for two to work together and John and Peter were
working together there. Later the apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria after Philip had preached
there because the Samaritans had not yet received the Holy Spirit. There they laid hands on them,
prayed for them, and they received the Holy Spirit and in this way a potential division amongst
Christians was averted. The Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans and the Samaritans were
glad to reciprocate. This ill-feeling could have developed into a 'Jewish' church at Jerusalem and
a separate 'Samaritan' church in Samaria if the Spirit of God had not come in this way, if He had
not refrained from coming upon the Samaritans directly. Peter, and John, who previously had asked
if he could call fire down from heaven upon the Samaritans, were sent by the Holy Spirit to pray
for them that they should receive the Holy Spirit. We do not find any resistance on John's part at
that point. It was part of the work the Lord had given him to do. We find in Acts 8 that once this
had happened, "they [Peter and John] therefore having testified and spoken the word of the Lord
returned to Jerusalem and announced the glad tidings to many villages of the Samaritans" (v 25).
John had got so close to the Lord that now the very people whom he was once willing to call down
fire from heaven upon he now evangelized. His brother James was the first of the apostles to lose
his life for the Lord's sake (Acts 12). After this we read of another James coming into the picture
and in Galatians 2 we find that Cephas (Peter), James and John are pillars in the assembly in
Jerusalem.
It was not that John had advanced one notch. The Lord had always put Peter and James ahead
of him. John did not mind taking a back seat. We appreciate brethren who are like that. He was
one of the pillars in the assembly at Jerusalem and he gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and
Barnabas according to the service that God had given him. John was not striving for a position for
himself; he was ready to recognize the grace of God in others and the service that God had given
others who were not part of the select twelve. There was one whom God had called in a different
way for a different service, but he gave to this man the right hand of fellowship. It was not now
"We forbade him because he does not follow us". Paul had a different ministry but John extended
the right hand of fellowship to him.
The Lord said to Peter, and this was recorded at the end of John's Gospel, "If I will that he
abide until I come, what is that to thee?" (21:22), and many have taken from this that the writings
of the apostle John are particularly relevant in the time immediately before the Lord comes. The
other disciples misinterpreted this statement and there were those who said, 'John is not going to
die', but he said, 'That is not what the Lord said. He said, "If I will that John remains until I come,
Peter, what business is that of yours?"' So when we quote or use the word of God it is important
that we quote it accurately and use it for the purpose that God has given it.
We are not sure at what time the apostle John left Palestine, Judea or Jerusalem, but if he had
not left before, certainly after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, he had. Church history tells
us that John eventually spent the maJority of his time in and around Ephesus until he was exiled
to the isle of Patmos where the Lord used him to write the letters to the seven churches and the
entire book of the Revelation. Ephesus was the main city of the Roman province of Asia which is
a small part of what is now Turkey, so John would have been personally acquainted with the
surrounding assemblies too.
I. John, the Writer
We are not told how long he was on Patmos "for the word of God and the testimony" as a very
aged man, but it may well have been a year or more. Patmos is a very rocky island off the coast of
Turkey. The sun beats down upon it and it is hot. Nothing grows very well there. The Roman
emperor Domitian thought he had silenced John, but from that place the Lord has given us a book
without which Scripture would not be complete. We are not told the order of John's five books
although we find his commission to write in the Revelation. I do not know, but it may have been
that he wrote his other writings afterwards. All the evidence shows that all his books were written
when he was a very aged man.
The Revelation presents to us the ultimate victory of the Lord Jesus. When things in the world
and the professing church seem so bad and, indeed, are getting worse, it is a great encouragement
to see that the final outcome is going to be wonderful - it will be triumphant and it will be to His
glory. Scripture would not be complete without the Revelation.
One of the church fathers wrote of the apostle John that when he got to be very old he was not
able to go to meetings unassisted and brethren had to carry him there. He was not able to give
ministry as he once had, but he would come to the meetings and simply say, 'Little children, love
one another'. That is the ultimate application of John's ministry for Christians, "Little children,
love one another". His ministry is filled with Christ; its application is for us. He writes as the
affectionate elder.
J. John, in the life of the Church
St. John is commemorated on 27 December, which he originally shared with St. James the
Greater. At Rome the feast was reserved to St. John alone at an early date, though both names are
found in the Carthage Calendar, the Hieronymian Martyrology, and the Gallican liturgical books.
The “departure” or “assumption” of the Apostle is noted in the Menology of Constantinople and
the Calendar of Naples (26 September), which seems to have been regarded as the date of his
death. The feast of St. John before the Latin Gate, supposed to commemorate the dedication of the
church near the Porta Latina, is first mentioned in the Sacramentary of Adrian 1 (772-95).
John is always represented with a Chalice in hand. The chalice as symbolic of St. John, which,
according to some authorities, was not adopted until the thirteenth century, is sometimes
interpreted with reference to the Last Supper, again as connected with the legend according to
which St. John was handed a cup of poisoned wine, from which, at his blessing, the poison rose in
the shape of a serpent. Perhaps the most natural explanation is to be found in the words of Christ
to John and James “My chalice indeed you shall drink” (Matthew 20:23).
II. The Gospel According to John
A. The Literary Style
John stands out among the gospels for his unique style of writing and the outline of
materials used in his account. His Greek is also not the best. Yet one finds concentric
constructions all through the gospel, beginning with the poetic overture of Jn 1:1ff; 6; 9;
10. He is also, very familiar with the use of the inclusio (e.g., 2:4; 19:26), which is very
common both in the OT and the NT.
A superficial study of the Gospel is sufficient to reveal many peculiarities, which give the
narrative a distinctive character. A special characteristic is the vocabulary and diction. His
vocabulary is, it is true, less rich in peculiar expressions than that of Paul or of Luke: he uses in all
about ninety words not found in any other hagiographer. More numerous are the expressions which
are used more frequently by John than by the other sacred writers. Moreover, in comparison with
the other books of the New Testament, the narrative of St. John contains a very considerable
portion of those words and expressions which might be called the common vocabulary of the Four
Evangelists9.
John’s style of writing is repetitious. He constantly repeats phrases and expressions. This
could very well be due to his advanced age when he composed the Gospel, the Epistles and the
Apocalypse. But also we must keep in mind that John is a Jew and he talks and thinks like his
fellow Jews. The use of parallelism is abundant in the OT, particularly, in Wisdom Literature. So
there is no surprise when we find the same techniques in the Gospel.
What is even more distinctive than the vocabulary is the grammatical use of particles,
pronouns, prepositions, verbs, etc., in the Gospel of St. John. It is also distinguished by many
peculiarities of style, asyndeton, reduplications, repetitions, etc. On the whole, the Evangelist
reveals a close intimacy with the Hellenistic speech of the first century of our era. This receives at
his hands in certain expressions a Hebrew turn. His literary style is deservedly lauded for its noble,
natural, and not inartistic simplicity. He combines in harmonious fashion the rustic speech of the
Synoptic Gospels with the urban phraseology of St. Paul.
What first attracts our attention in the subject matter of the Gospel is the confinement of the
narrative to the chronicling of events which took place in Judea and Jerusalem. Of Jesus’ activity
in Galilee John relates but a few events, without dwelling on details, and of these events only two
— the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (6:1-16), and the sea-voyage (6:17-21) — are already
related in the Synoptic Gospels.
Another characteristic of John’s writing style is his constant polemic with some
members of his community. Based on the content one can see that John is in constant
battle with certain groups or sects among the primitive church. The account at times
becomes heated and ironic. There were the Jews, who at the time of the composition of
the gospel were hostile to the Christians. There were also the Baptists, those who believed
that John the Baptist was the messiah. And there were the Crypto-Christians those who
converted to Christianity from Judaism but wanted to remain anchored in the OT.
Another limitation of material is seen in the selection of his subject-matter, for compared with
the other Evangelists, John chronicles but few miracles and devotes his attention less to the works
than to the discourses of Jesus. In most cases the events form, as it were, but a frame for the words,
9
More exactly, John presents 1.011 different words: Mt has 1691; Mk 1345, and Luke 2055. Cfr. JOSEP-ORIOL, TUÑÍ,
Escrtos Joánicos y Cartas Católicas, 20.
conversation, and teaching of Christ and His disputations with His adversaries. In fact it is the
controversies with the Sanhedrists at Jerusalem which seem especially to claim the attention of the
Evangelist. On such occasions John's interest, both in the narration of the circumstances and in the
recording of the discourses and conversation of Jesus, is a highly theological one. With justice,
therefore, was John conceded even in the earliest ages of Christianity, the honorary title of the
''theologian'' of the Evangelists. There are, in particular, certain great truths, to which he constantly
reverts in his Gospel and which may be regarded as his governing ideas, special mention should
be made of such expressions as the Light of the World, the Truth, the Life, the Resurrection, etc.
Not infrequently these or other phrases are found in pithy, gnomic form at the beginning of a
colloquy or discourse of Christ, and frequently recur, as a leitmotif, at intervals during the
discourse (e. g. 6:35, 48, 51, 58; 10:7, 9; 15:1, 5; 17:1, 5; etc.).
B. The Vocabulary
Among many other literary devices, John privileges the Miracle Stories, which he
calls signs (shmei,a) and not miracles (ta,umata) like in the Synoptic Gospels. There is also a
preference for Discourses (lo,gia) rather than the (parabolh,) parables of the other three
Gospels. As a matter of fact, the book could be divided into two parts based on this style
of writing: a) the first part, meant to point out a miracle or sign, and then on account of it
a big discourse (Jn 1-12); b) the second part is inverted, first there is a big discourse
followed only by a rather big sign, the Resurrection (Jn 13-21).
John also has his idiosyncrasies; for discourses he always uses the formula (avmh.n(
avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n) “Amen, amen, I solemnly assure you…” And also the expression (evgw,
eivmi) “I am…” with which John makes a catechesis on Jesus for the Christian community.
The signs are introduced or concluded with the formula (tau,thn evpoi,hsen avrch.n shmei,wn)
“This was the first (seme,ion) sign that Jesus did.”
The following is a chart of the most frequent words used by John in his Gospel: 10
notice that in contrast with the Synoptic Gospels, John uses theses words rather
frequently.
Greek Word
avle,qeia
Gigno,skw
Zwh,
Iu;daioi
Ko,smoj
Martu,rein
Pate,r
Translation
Truth
To know
Life
Jews
World
To give witness, testify
Father
Mt
2
20
7
5
8
4
45
Mc
4
13
4
6
2
6
4
Lk
4
28
5
5
3
5
17
Pinmtw
Te,rein
fai,nw
Fo,j
Send, be sent
To keep
To manifest
Light
4
6
0
7
1
1
1
1
10
0
0
7
Jo
46
57
35
67
78
47
118
32
18
9
27
There are other words that must be read in context for they acquire particular nuances in all
of John’s writings:
10
C.K. BARRETT, The Gospel According to St. John (London 1978) 5-6.
Word
lo,goj Word:
The other occurrences of Logos
in the Johannine corpus are:
1:1.14; 2:22; 4;37.39.41.50;
5:24.38; 6;60 7:36.40;
8:31.37.43.51.52.55; 10:19.35;
12;38;48; 14:23.24; 15:3.20;
17:6.14.17.20; 18:9.32; 19:8.13;
21:23; 1Jn 1:1.10; 2:5.7.14; 3:18;
3Jn 10; Ap 1:2.3.9; 3:8.10; 6:9;
12;11; 17:17; 19:9.13; 20:4; 21:5;
22:6.7.9.10.18.19
Semantic Meaning in John
John’s Theology is a true History of
Revelation. Here the Logos is not just the
Powerful and Creative Word of God (Gn 1:1,
Sir 1:1-10). Logos is Christ himself (Jn 1:1.14;
1Jn 1:1; Ap 19:13. Consequently anyone who
listens to Jesus and accepts his Logia in faith
hears God’s Logos (Jn 5:24; 8:51; 12:48; 14:24;
15:3; 17:14.17).
sofi,a Wisdom
This word does not appear in
the Gospel, but it is understood
in various passages, like the
Overture and the Water of life
discourse.
The use of Wisdom in the Gospels is in
general tied to the traditional OT
conception, where wisdom is man’s
approach to life, arising out of his in the
Covenant bestowed by God. For John in
particular, it is Jesus Christ the Word
Incarnate that one who is Wisdom (Sir 1:110; 24:1-10; Jn 4:14; Rev 5:12; 7:12; 13:18;
17:9).
seme,ia Sign
The word semeion appears in
the Johannine Corpus many
times: 2:11.18.23; 3:2; 4:48.54;
6:2.14.26.30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41;
11:47; 12:18.37; 20:30; Ap 12:1.3;
13:13.14; 15:1; 16:14; 19:20.
John chooses to speak of Jesus’ deeds and
miracles in terms of “semeia” and not
“taumata” like in the Synoptic Gospels. In
the first part there are seven signs: Cana 2:112; Functionary 4:47-54; Paralytic 5:1-16;
Loaves 6:1-14; Walking on water 6:15-21;
Blind man 9:1-17; Lazarus 11:1-44.
Vegw, eivmi I am
1:20.23.26.27.30.21;
3:28; 4:14.26.32.38;
5:7.30.31.34.36.43.45;
6:20.35.40.41.48.51.63.70;
7:7.8.17.29.34.36;
8:11.12.14.15.16.18.21.22.23.24.2
8.29.38.42.45.49.50.54.55.58;
9:9.39;
10:7.9.10.11.14.17.18.25.30.34;
11:25.27.42;
12:26.46.47.49.50;
13:7.14.15.18.19.26.33.36;
14:3.4.6.10.11.12.14.19.20.26.27.2
8; 15:1.5.10.14.16.19.20.26;
16:4.7.26.27.33;
17:4.9.12.14.16.19.23.24.25;
18:5.6.8.20.21.35.37.38;
19:6;
2Jn 1;
3Jn 1;
Ap 1:8.9.17;
2:23;
3:9.19;
5:4;
17:7;
21:6;
22:13.16.18
There are three basic types of sayings here
relating to Jesus:
A) One set of sayings is metaphorical in
which Jesus identifies himself in comparison
to something else, usually in response to
some action that he has performed. For
example, "I am the bread of life" follows a
feeding miracle. The implication here is that
the actions of Jesus demonstrate who he is
for those who are willing to believe (2:23,
7:31; 20:29).
B) A second type of saying is a selfidentification formula, either Jesus
identifying himself in response to someone’s
inquiry ("I am he"), or identifying himself in
relation to God/Father ("I am in the
Father").
C) The third type of saying lacks an object to
the verb, leaving it as a simple statement of
existence. This occurs in only one saying,
8:58. However, the form of the saying is
interesting. We might expect this saying to
be in a past tense if it were a simple
statement of fact: "before Abraham was, I
was." In order to understand this continuous
imperfect action it must be read in light of
the preexistence of the Logos presented in the
Overture of the Gospel (1:1-18). But also we
must go back to the OT, where the Holy
Name of God was revealed: in Exodus 3
when Moses asked whom he should tell the
people sent him to deliver them from Egypt,
God revealed himself as "I am" or "I will be"
(Ex 3: 14).
Shinning in Him, thus believe in him and
receive the power to become children of God.
Path,r Father
The range of meaning of Path,r in the NT
1:14.18
corresponds to that of ‘âb of the OT. 245
2:16
times is used with religious connotations
3:35
and 157 times with a secular meaning. John
4:12.20.21.23x2.53
who uses the word almost as a synonym for
5:17.18.19.20.21.22.23x2.26.36x2. God stresses Jesus’ unique relationship to his
37.43.45
Father.
6:27.31.32.37.40.42.44.45.46x2.49
Jesus and the Father are one, they dwell
.57x2.58.65
together for they are both God.
7:22
Jesus is the only one who has seen the Father
8:16.18.19x2.27.28.38x2.39.41x2.
and that is why he is the only one who can
42.44x3.49.53.54.56
reveal who the Father is.
10:15x2.17.18.25.29x2.30.32.36.3
The Father has sent his Son into so that all
7.38x2
may believe and become Children in the
11:41
likeness of the Son.
12:26.27.28.49.40
The Father loves the Son and sent him into
13:1.3
the world so that those in the world may
14:2.6.7.8.9x2.10x3.11x2.12.13.16
love him in the Son.
.20.21.23.24.26.28.31x2
Jesus does the will of the Father because he
15:1.8.9.10.15.16.23.24.26x
loves Him. Only true love is capable of
16:3.10.15.17.23.25.26.27x2.28x2.
laying one’s life for the other. Jesus offered
32
his life out of love for the Father and out of
17:1.5.11.21.24.25
love for us.
18:11
The Father and the Son will come to dwell in
20:17x3.21
those who love truly and believe that the
Jesus is the Messiah.
Pneu/ma Spirit
The Greek root «pneu» denotes dynamic
movement of the air. The suffix «ma» denotes
the result of an action, namely air set in
motion. This onomatopoeic word is used to
describe the energy coming from the Son and
from the Father. Pneuma translates always
the Hebrew «rûah». In John the Spirit is
explained by means of metaphors of re-birth
from above (Jn 3:5-8); of new creation (Jn
20:22); of life-giving water and bread (Jn 4:4;
6:63; 7:38) and of anointing (1Jn 2:20.27). He
is also detectable by the effects of his coming
(Jn3:8). More distinctively of Jon’s
pneumatology is the way in which he
expresses the relationship between the Spirit
and Christ. The Spirit is the «other
Paraclete» (Jn 14:16). When Jesus dies he
hands over his Spirit (19:30). Jesus is the
giver of the Spirit (Jn 20:22).
The Spirit is not an abstract notion of the
Third Person of the Trinity, but rather a
reality expressed in terms of an energy giving
divine power to all believers.
The images of fire (light) and water are
descriptive of this notion of energy. In this
sense we can say that the whole Gospel of
John is filled with references to the Holy
Spirit.
The same can be said of the Letters and the
book of the Apocalypse.
Pisteu,w To Believe
In Hebrew the root «’âman» in the niphal
means to be true, reliable, faithful. It is said
of men (Moses Num 12:7); servants (1Sam
22:14); messengers (Prov 25:13); prophets
1Sam 3:20). But must of all is applied to God
1:32.33x2
3:5.6x2.8x2.34
4:23.24x2
6:63x2
7:39x2
11:33
13:21
14:17.26
15:26
16:13
19:30
20:22
1Jn 3:24
4:1x2.2x2.3.6x2.13
5:6x2.8
Rev 1:4.10
2:7
3:1
4:2.5
5:6
11:11
13:15
14:13
16:13.14
17:3
18:2
19:10
21:10
22:6.17
1:7.12.50
2:11.22.23.24
3:12x2.15.16.18x3.36
4:21.39.41.42.48.50.53
C. The Symbol: An Eagle
A very interesting note comes from the structure of the Johannine narrations. It seems to be
that all of Jesus Discourses are modeled in a Quiastic structure that imitates the flight of an eagle:
In circles and upward. It is no mere coincidence that the Fathers gave St. John the Evangelist the
symbol of the eagle.
1. The Eagle in the OT
(Heb. nesher; properly the griffon vulture or great vulture, so called from its
tearing its prey with its beak), referred to for its swiftness of flight (De 28:49; 2Sa
1:23) its mounting high in the air (Job 39:27) its strength (Ps 103:5) its setting its
nest in high places (Jer 49:16) and its power of vision (Job 39:27-30). This
"ravenous bird" is a symbol of those nations whom God employs and sends
forth to do a work of destruction, sweeping away whatever is decaying and
putrid (Mt 24:28; Is 46:11; Ez 39:4; Dt 28:49; Jer 4:13; 48:40).
It is said that the eagle sheds his feathers in the beginning of spring, and with
fresh plumage assumes the appearance of youth. To this, allusion is made in (Ps
103:5) and (Is 40:31) God's care over his people is likened to that of the eagle in
training its young to fly (Ex 19:4; Dt 32:11.12) An interesting illustration is thus
recorded by Sir Humphrey Davy:, "I once saw a very interesting sight above the
crags of Ben Nevis. Two parent eagles were teaching their offspring, two young
birds, the maneuvers of flight. They began by rising from the top of the mountain
in the eye of the sun. It was about mid-day, and bright for the climate. They at
first made small circles, and the young birds imitated them. They paused on their
wings, waiting till they had made their flight, and then took a second and larger
gyration, always rising toward the sun, and enlarging their circle of flight so as
to make a gradually ascending spiral. The young ones still and slowly followed,
apparently flying better as they mounted; and they continued this sublime
exercise, always rising till they became mere points in the air, and the young
ones were lost, and afterwards their parents, to our aching sight." (See) (Is 40:31)
There have been observed in Palestine four distinct species of eagles, (1 the
golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos); (2 the spotted eagle (Aquila naevia); (3 the
common species, the imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca); and (4 the Circaetos
gallicus, which preys on reptiles. The eagle was unclean by the Levitical law (Le
11:13; Dt 14:12).
2. The Eagle in John’s Gospel
The Eagle is a well know animal in Palestine and certainly in the Bible: It is
known to be swift (Dt 28:49; 2 Sam 1:23). It is a very strong bird (Ps 103:5), sets
its nest in high places (Jer 49:16). It has a strong power of vision (Job 39:27-30). It
flies in circles and upward so as to make a gradually ascending spiral, till they
are there lost to our sight (Is 40:31; Job 39:27).
John is usually described as the Eagle, precisely because his meditation on the
life of Jesus reflects a very lofty spiral that enables him to penetrate into the
deepest mysteries of God and have a more profound vision of the Word.
John begins the Gospel up in the air: confessing the Preexistence of Jesus before
creation (Jn 1:1) and then his coming down to earth (the Incarnation Jn 1:14). The
Gospel will concentrate on what he accomplished here while amongst us; and
how Jesus gradually rises up again to his glorification on the Cross and
Resurrection (Jn 1:51; 3:14-15; 12:32; 19:18).
D. Structure: Signs and Glory
The Gospel according to Saint John appears to be an Opera in two acts, with an overture, an
interlude and an epilogue.
1. Overture
What is an overture? An overture is the music that you would hear before the opera begins. It
is usually performed by an orchestra and it contains some of the themes that you will hear
throughout the opera. The purpose of the overture is to get the audience ready for the performance.
In music, a theme is a melody that can be used more than once, and is the main idea. A musical
theme is similar to a theme in a story or poem, though the theme is played by different instruments,
which take turns playing it. The overture begins with an introduction. Throughout the introduction
we have examples of something called contrast. There are very loud sections followed by much
softer sections. One thing that helps the sections to sound loud is that more instruments are
playing.
Even a simple reading of Jn 1:1-18 would be sufficient to notice that there are some themes
around which the poetic composition is built or framed. There are some contrasts that set a peculiar
tonality which is maintained throughout the whole Gospel.
The themes contained in John’s overture are: The preexistence of the Word; it’s coming into
the world; its acceptance by some and rejection by many in the world; those who accept live in the
light and those who reject live in the darkness. This contrast of light and darkness is going to e
repeated constantly in the Gospel.
In Jn 1:1-18 we have the so called “prologue,”11 but we shall call it thenceforth an overture,
due to its peculiar characteristics. The structure of this poetic overture can be summarized in a
perfect chiasm (ABCC'B'A'):
The Overture 1:1-18
2.
The
Signs
An
major
a poem, a
A Logos 1:1-2
B Creation: Cosmos 1:3
Act
I:
Book of
C Light 1:4-5
C' Light 1:6-9
B1 Creation 1:10-13
act is a
section of
music
A1 Logos 1:14-18
composition or a play. It is composed by different scenes in which the different characters hold
dialogues or monologues to develop the plot of the work. The main characteristic of John’s first
act is its structural composition: a narration of a miracle, which John calls semeion, followed by a
long discourse or series of discourses called logia. There is, however, rhetorical device that sutures
11
In sensu strictu, a prologue is a literary piece in which the author introduces to the audience all the necessary
materials used to compose the work: the sources, the characters and the plot. But also it includes a word on the intended
audience, and the purpose or the occasion for it was written. From this perspective, the only prologue in the NT is that
of the Gospel of Luke, Lk1:1-4.
the book together: the Epanalipsis12 of the word w[ra «hour»: 1;39; 2:4, 4:6.21.23.52.53;
5:25.28.35; 7:30; 8:20; 11:9. This theme is later picked up again in the Interlude: 12:23.27 and in
Act II: 13:1; 16:2.4.21.25.32; 17:1; 19:14.27.
Act I: The Book of Signs 1-11
Narration: The First Week of Jesus’ Ministry
Narration: Testimony of the Baptist 1:19-51.
Narration: 1st Sign: Cana 2:1-12.
First Passover Feast: Temple Cleansing 2:13-25.
Discourse: Nicodemus 3:1-36.
Discourse: The Samaritan Woman 4:1-42.
Narration: 2nd Sign: The Official’s Son 4:43-54.
2nd Feast: 3rd Sign: The Cripple 5:1-47.
3rd Feast: 4th Sign: Feeding 5000 6:1-15.
Narration: 5th Sign: Walking on Water 6:16-21.
Discourse: Bread of Life 6:22-71.
4th Feast: Feast of Tabernacles 7:1-52.
Narration: Prophetic Action: Adulterous Woman 7:53-8:11.
Discourse: I Am 8:12-47.
Narration: 6th Sign: The Blind Man 9:1-41.
Discourse: The Good Shepherd 10:1-21
5th Feast: The Dedication 10:22-11:57
Narration: 7th Sign: Resurrection of Lazarus 11:1-44.
Narration: Plot against Jesus 11:45-54
Narration: Preliminaries on the Passover 11:55-57
3. The interlude
An interlude relatively short period of time between two longer periods, during which
something happens that is different from what has happened before and what follows. It serves as
a hinge to articulate the passage from one period to the other. Chapter 12 of John serves as a
summation of the preceding eleven chapters and prepares the audience for the next act, called the
Book of Glory.
Interlude 12 ABABABBAB
A. Final preparations for the hour of death and glory (12:1-36)
B. Jesus is anointed for burial at Bethany (12:1-8)
A. The Jewish leaders plot to kill Lazarus (12:9-11)
B. Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:12-19)
A. The coming of the (Greeks) :: The Hour has Come (12:20-26)
B. Jesus predicts his upcoming death by crucifixion (12:27-36)
B. Conclusion to the Book of Signs (12:37-50)
A. The response to Jesus by his own people (12:37-43)
B. Jesus summarizes his mission and message (12:44-50)
12
Epanalipsis is the constant repetition of a word throughout a section. LAUSBERG, Literary Rhetoric, § 616.
4. Act II: The Book of Glory
Just as in Act I, John offers in his Gospel a well structured set of discourses or Logia that are
meant to build up in crescendo a dramatic tension towards the presentation of the only sign of this
section and biggest semeion of the Gospel: the Enthronization of Jesus on the Cross.
Act II: The Book of Glory 13-20
5.
Last Week and Feast: Passover of the Lamb of God
Last Supper, washing of feet and betrayal 13:1-30.
1st Logion: on Service 13
Jesus announces his last hour 13:31-14:31.
2nd Logion: on Salvation 14
Discourse: I am the Vine 15:1-4.
3rd Logion: on abiding 15
The Promise of the Paraclete 16:5-33.
4th Logion: On the Spirit 16
Jesus Priestly Prayer 17:1-26.
5th Logion: on Prayer 17
The Passion Narrative 18:1-19:42.
6th Logion: on the King 18-19*
The Resurrection Appearances 20:1-29.
7th Logion: on Faith 20
The
Epilogue
An epilogue is the closing section of a book or a speech addressed to the audience at the end
of a play. In John’s Gospel chapter 21 serves as an epilogue that reiterates the teachings of the
entire book by appealing directly to the audience: “if you want to follow Jesus, you must learn to
love him till the point of dying with him on the cross.”
Book of Glory
13-20 Lo,gia
Narration: The First Week
of Jesus’ Ministry
Narration: Testimony of the
Baptist 1:19-51.
Narration: 1st Sign: Cana
2:1-12.
First Passover Feast: Temple
Cleansing 2:13-25.
Discourse: Nicodemus 3:1-36.
Discourse: The Samaritan
Woman 4:1-42.
Narration: 2nd Sign: The
Official’s Son 4:43-54.
2nd Feast: 3rd Sign: The
Cripple 5:1-47.
3rd Feast: 4th Sign: Feeding
5000 6:1-15.
Narration: 5th Sign:
Walking on Water 6:16-21.
Discourse: Bread of Life 6:2271.
4th Feast: Feast of
Tabernacles 7:1-52.
Narration: Prophetic Action:
Adulterous Woman 7:53-8:11.
Discourse: I Am 8:12-47.
Narration: 6th Sign: The
Blind Man 9:1-41.
Discourse: The Good
Shepherd 10:1-21
5th Feast: The Dedication
10:22-11:57
Narration: 7th Sign:
Resurrection of Lazarus 11:144.
Narration: Plot against Jesus
11:45-54
Narration: Preliminaries on
the Passover 11:55-57
Last Week and Feast:
Passover of the Lamb of
God Last Supper, washing
of feet and betrayal 13:1-30.
1st Logion: on Service 13
Jesus announces his last
hour 13:31-14:31.
2nd Logion: on Salvation
14
Discourse: I am the Vine
15:1-4.
3rd Logion: on abiding 15
The Promise of the
Paraclete 16:5-33.
4th Logion: On the Spirit
16
Jesus Priestly Prayer 17:126.
5th Logion: on Prayer 17
The Passion Narrative 18:119:42.
6th Logion: on the King
18-19
The Resurrection
Appearances 20:1-29.
7th Logion: on Faith 20
Epilogue 21
The Apparitions of the Risen Lord 21:1-25
Book of Signs
2-12 Seme,ia
Interlude 12
Plot against Jesus: The hour has come 12:1-50
Overture 1
The Word was God and Dwelt among us 1:1-18
Structure of the Eagle
Epilogue 21
Apparitions of Jesus (21:1-25)
Apparition to the disciples at the Sea of
Galilee (21:1-14)
Jesus speaks to Peter about his ministry
(21:15-23)
Jesus restores Peter and commissions him
(21:15-17)
Jesus tells Peter of his future: the Cross
(21:18-23)
The Conclusion to the Gospel (21:24-25)
Having reviewed the individual sections we can now present an overview of the entire
structure of the Gospel:
E. The Message
1. Christology
John does not present us the Infancy Narratives as Matthew and Luke do; He goes instead
beyond our natural existence and contemplate from up above the Mystery of God Himself, the
Preexistence of Christ. In the Overture, John begins his gospel with a concentric structure that
underlines the Preexistence of Jesus Christ. Jesus is portrayed as the OT Wisdom (The Word)
Incarnate Jn 1:1-18.
John follows Mark’s description, and begins right away with the ministry of John the Baptist.
Luke and Matthew had access to other sources, therefore they added to their gospels the infancy
narratives. The Incarnation in John is revealed in Jn 1:14.
Jesus is also called: The Word 1:1.14; The Lamb of God 1:29; The Messiah 1:41; The King
of Israel 1:49; 19. Jesus is the New Water, which means that Jesus has the power to bring about
New Life, a new Creation. All this speaks of Jesus’ Superiority in comparison to the OT Covenant.
Water seems to be a recurrent theme in the Gospel; for example:
u[dwr water appears 78 times in the NT;
7 times in Mt
5 times in Mk
6 times in Lk
23 times in Jn
1:26,31,33
2:7,9(2x)
3:5,23
4:7,10,11,13,14(3x),15,46
5:4(2x),7
7:38,
13:5
19:34
Apart from these instances in which the word water appears directly, there are some other
instances in which water is present somehow in every chapter of the Gospel. It seems to be that
John is trying to present a backdrop to his play. The backdrop is that of the Book of Genesis, where
water constitutes a vital principle for life. God created life by the act of separation of the waters
below from the ones up above. In the same way when God send the Flood water reunited killed all
life, except what was kept separate inside the Arc.
In John, Jesus declares himself as the living water, a water that is not still like the one of
Jacob’s well, but a spring of water that gives live in abundance. His water is superior to all the
waters of the OT; it is water that cleanses not only the external impurities, but above all, water
capable of cleansing all those who believe in Jesus, for this water is the Blood of Jesus.
I am the Living Water
Jesus comes from Heaven “as the rain” Jn 1.
Water is changed into wine Jn 2.
Nicodemus must be born again of Water and Spirit Jn 3.
The Samaritan Woman asks to drink the Living Waters Jn 4.
Jesus has better water and cures the cripple at Bethesda’s Pool Jn 5.
Jesus walks on waters Jn 6.
In the Feast of Tabernacles Jesus offers better water (Ex 17:1ff; Num 20:11; Ez
47; Ps 78:15-16; Zech 9-14) Jn 7:37-38.
The Blind man is healed in waters Jn 8.
Good Shepherd leads the sheep to green pastures and still waters (Ps 23) Jn
10.
Jesus weeps for Lazarus Jn 11.
Jesus washes the feet of his disciples Jn 13.
Jesus speaks of the Gift of the Spirit Jn 14-16.
At the Cross Jesus says: “I Thirst” Jn 18.
When pierced, Jesus pours water and blood Jn 19.
Jesus appears to the disciples by the sea Jn 21.
Water is also a sign of Baptism, so we must keep in mind the catechetical motivation that this
gospel has in mind when it tells the story of Jesus. In our Christian baptism, water is the vehicle
through which Jesus sends his Holy Spirit to change our nature into being children of God. Jn 3
and 16 manifest directly a relationship that exists between Jesus and the Holy Spirit: Jesus is with
no doubt the giver or sender of the Holy Spirit. The Role of the Spirit is to sanctify us and to guide
us into the full knowledge of what Jesus has revealed.
This brings us to another constant theme in John’s Gospel: the theme of the light. In a baptism
the baptized receives the gift of spiritual sight; that is the capacity to grow spiritually in the eyes
of God until he or she reaches the beatific Vision in Heaven, where we shall see God face to face.
This concept is presented in the gospel be the image of the light in contrast to darkness.
Fw/j light appears 73 in the NT
7 times in Mt
1 time in Mk
7 times in Lk
23 times in John
1:4,5,7,8(2x),9
3:19(2x),20(2x),21
5:35
8:12(2x)
9:5
11:9,10
12:35(2x),36(3x),46
There are, likewise, other instances in which the word light does not appear but it is understood
either by contrast or by mentioning a particular time in the day.
I am the True Light
The Word is the Light not recognized by the darkness of the
world Jn 1.
Nicodemus comes to the light at night Jn 3.
Jesus met the Samaritan at noon Jn 4.
Through the night they see him walking on the waters Jn 6.
Jesus speaks of himself as the light (Ex 13:21-22; Zech 14:67) Jn 8-9.
The blind man comes to light Jn 9-10.
Lazarus is raised into the light Jn 11.
Judas betrays Jesus at night Jn 13.
Enemies come by night Jn 18.
Thomas is still in darkness Jn 19.
Jesus, the light of Resurrection Jn 20.
Light is always presented in contrast to darkness. For example:
a) Since John was testifying that someone was coming with a new way to relate to God, they
did not trust John. It was so dark for those regular speakers about God that they could not identify
who John was. They could not believe that someone unknown was testifying that God was doing
something new and good about the problem of people not loving and fearing God. Even worse,
they could not recognize the light of God when that light was shining in the world; they could not
accept him (1:11).
b) Not fearing and loving God is the darkness that prevents people from seeing the light of
God, the very light through whom all things came into being (v. 2). They could not see God's light
as grace and truth but instead were looking for a "Messiah", for Elijah or "the prophet"-someone
who spoke God's word as demands and judgments. People were in the dark about their own need
to have their sins taken away. That is why they could not see that John was preparing the way of
the Lord, making the way of the Lord straight (v. 23) so that people would be prepared to be shown
the light that gave them life with God (v. 4, 1:9).
c) When in the darkness, people are not children of God. Instead, people are children of the
flesh or of the will of mortals, but not of God (1:13). People of the flesh are subject to the way of
flesh, namely, that all flesh withers and decays. All flesh dies and no longer has existence with
God, just as the law insists, "The soul that does not believe shall die." That is people's wilderness.
d) Jesus, the Son of God and the light of all people and their light, came into the world. He
gave people life with God (v. 4). The law, which demanded death, insisted that Jesus be stopped,
for he was thwarting that ultimate demand. Jesus gave life with God to people by taking their death
as his own on a cross, thus fulfilling the law and its demand for death. Then he took his life-giving
light and gave it to all people, giving them the power to become children of God. His death on the
cross was how Jesus was full of God's grace-full forgiveness for sinners. "From his fullness we
have all received, grace upon grace" (1:16). Jesus is close to the Father's heart and has made God's
mercy known (1:18).
e) Darkness or people's distrust has not overcome Jesus' light (forgiveness; his ability to make
people the children of God). Jesus' light shines because his glory is his cross. Those who have the
light of Jesus shine on them, who receive Jesus, who trust him to make them children of God, are
children of God. This is of God (1:13). Jesus gives people the power to become children of God.
That power is faith in him.
f) There is still darkness out in the wilderness, the darkness of unfaith, and the Father's heart
of forgiveness is not known. Those who have faith in Jesus are sent into that darkness and get to
be the new voice in the wilderness, a voice that does not cry, "Make straight the way of the Lord,"
but the voice that declares, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Those
who trust that Jesus has forgiven them, get to tell others that Jesus forgives them also. Jesus makes
known to them the Father's heart of mercy and forgiveness, the heart of a Father who loves his
children because of what Christ has done. People cannot know of the Father's mercy when they
are left in the dark by the law that judges them. The children of the Father get to shine light and
life (Jesus' forgiveness) into the law's condemning darkness and overcome it. Forgiveness is the
new way of life, the way of the Father's children.
2. Ecclesiology
The Commandment of Love is very typical of the Johannine theology. John wants a
community build on agape love, that which is other centered; the unconditional love towards the
beloved one; the total surrender and dedication in self-denial love Jn 13; 14 15; 21.
John shows great respect to Peter as the Institution, but also to the Charisma or love in some
of the other characters, including himself, as the beloved disciple Jn 18-21.
3. Preferred Scene: The Flesh of Jesus Christ (Locus Theologicus).
In a far higher degree than in the Synoptic Gospels, the whole narrative of the Fourth Gospel
centers round the Person of the Redeemer. From his very opening sentences John turns his gaze to
the inmost recesses of eternity, to the Divine Word in the bosom of the Father. He never tires of
portraying the dignity and glory of the Eternal Word Who vouchsafed to take up His abode among
men that, while receiving the revelation of His Divine Majesty, we might also participate in the
fullness of His grace and truth. As evidence of the Divinity of the Savior the author chronicles
some of the great wonders by which Christ revealed His glory, but he is far more intent on leading
us to a deeper understanding of Christ's Divinity and majesty by a consideration of His words,
discourses, and teaching, and to impress upon our minds the far more glorious marvels of His
Divine Love.
John is more at home speaking of Jesus himself, constantly making reference to his flesh, to
the point that Jesus is always the center of attention. The name of God in the OT (hwhy) means in
Hebrew: “I Am” (Ex 3:14; Is 41:1; 48:8; Ho 13:3l Joel 2:27). John applies this name to Jesus many
times, that’s why the Jews get angry with him and charge him with blasphemy. Used as a name
8:24.28.58; 13:19; 18:5.6.8. Used as a name with a predicate 4:26; 6:20. Used with a predicate:
The Bread of life 6:35.51; Light of the world 8:12; Sheep Gate 10:7.9; Good Shepherd 10:11-14;
The Resurrection and Life 11:25; The Way, The Truth and the Life 14:6; The Vine 15:1. Finally
without using the I Am, but making reference to the Name of the Son of God 3:18; 5:43; 10:25;
12:23.28; 14:13; 15:16; 16:23.
3. Uses in Liturgy
John is used in the Liturgy on the weekdays of:
Lent 2-4-5-6 Weeks.
Easter 7 Weeks.
Christmas Friday 3rd Week.
Dec 31 to Jan 7 and Jan 12.
On the Following Sundays and Solemnities:
Lent ABC 3rd and 5th Sundays.
Easter ABC 2-7 Sundays.
Ordinary ABC 2nd Sunday.
Christmas ABC.
Holy Thursday ABC.
Good Friday ABC.
Vigil of Pentecost ABC.
Pentecost ABC.
Christ the King ABC.
Trinity Sunday AC.
Corpus Christi A.
Sacred Heart B.
Advent ABC 3rd Sunday.
F. Open Questions
1. Authenticity and Canonicity
The fourth Gospel is attributed by tradition to John the Apostle, brother of James and son of
Zebedee (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). He was a fisherman from Betsaida and called by
Jesus while repairing the nets (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19). With his brother James and Peter he belonged
to the most intimate circle of Jesus’ friends (Mk 5:27; 9:2; 14:33).
The most important witness to this tradition is Ireneus (+220 AD). Ireneus was the disciple of
Polycarp of Smyrna, who knew John personally for John himself appointed him as Bishop of
Smyrna.
There have been scholars who dispute John authenticity and call for another author or a school
of authors (Brown, Schnakenburg, Lindars, Martyn, Butlmann, Boismard), but my rule of thumb
here is that in case of doubt, retain tradition.
Particularly, there is a great dispute on the authenticity of the prologue, chapter 8 and the
epilogue. Recent studies involving the style and the text itself prove that those portions contain the
same language of the rest of the gospel, and therefore could also be considered authentic.
Nonetheless, the Church has always considered them as being canonical.
2. Date and place of Composition
The terminus a quo is year 70, that is, after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. The
terminus ad quem is set at year 90 AD. There is more consensus among scholars for this dating
than for the dating of the Synoptic Gospels. I would agree with that dating since the style of writing
reflects an old man. Also the profundity of the reflections reveals someone with a lot of experience
and a long, meditative life.
3. Audience
A mixed community, struggling with frictions among the different groups: Baptists, Crypto
Christians, Jews. Written somewhere in Asia: Ephesus or Patmos? We don’t know for sure.
BASIC BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE GOSPELS
1. Gospel of Mark
Achtemeier Paul J., Mark, Proclamation Commentaries, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1986).
Beck Robert R., Nonviolent Story: Narrative Conflict Resolution in the Gospel of Mark
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996).
Best Ernest, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983).
Best Ernest, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology, Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990).
Bryan Christopher, A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in Its Literary and Cultural Settings
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Guelich Robert A., Mark 1:1-8:26, Word Biblical Commentary 34A (Word Books, 1989).
Hammerton-Kelly Robert G., The Gospel and the Sacred: the Politics of Violence in Mark
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
Harrington Wilfred J., Mark: Realistic Theologian (Dublin: Columba Press, 1996).
Head Peter M., Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority,
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 94 (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1997).
Hooker Morna D., The Gospel According to Saint Mark, Black’s New Testament
Commentary 2 (Hendrickson, 1993).
Kee Howard Clark, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1977; reprint: Mercer University Press, 1983).
Kelber Werner H., Mark’s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).
Kelber Werner H., The Oral and Written Gospel (reprint: Indiana University Press, 1997).
Kingsbury Jack Dean, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989).
Kingsbury Jack Dean, Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1989).
LaVerdiere Eugene, The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark, 2
vol. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999).
Marcus Joel, Mark 1-8, Anchor Bible 27A (New York: Doubleday, 2000).
Matera Frank J., What are they saying about Mark? (New York: Paulist Press, 1987).
Moloney Francis J., Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2004).
Moore Stephen D. & Anderson Janice Capel, eds., Mark and Method: New Approaches in
Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
Oden Thomas C., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove,
IL: Intervarsity Press, 1998).
Painter John, Mark’s Gospel: Worlds in Conflict, New Testament Readings (New York:
Routledge, 1997).
Rhoads David M., Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of A Gospel (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1982).
Robbins Vernon K., Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1992).
Smith Stephen H., A Lion With Wings: A Narrative-Critical Approach to Mark’s Gospel, The
Biblical Seminar 38 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Taylor Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1966).
Telford W.R., The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, New Testament Theology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Tolbert Mary Ann, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in a Literary-Historical Perspective
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).
2. Gospel of Matthew
Allison Dale C., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
Bauer David R., Mark Allan Powell, eds., Treasures Old and New: Recent Contributions to
Matthean Studies, SBL Symposium Series 1 (Atlanta, GA: Scholar’s Press, 1996). .
Carter Warren, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1996).
Garland David E., Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First
Gospel, Reading the New Testament Series (New York: Crossroad, 1999).
Harrington Daniel J., Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina 1 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1991).
Kingsbury Jack Dean, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1989).
Kingsbury Jack Dean, Matthew as Story, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988).
Luz Ulrich, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament Theology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995).
Meier John P., The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New
York: Crossroad, 1991).
Meier John P., Matthew, New Testament Message 3 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980;
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Patte Daniel, The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
Senior Donald, What are they saying about Matthew? (New York: Paulist Press, 1996).
Senior Donald, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Wilmington: Michael Glazier,
1985 / Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Senior Donald, Matthew, Abingdon New Testament Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon,
1998).
Sim David C., Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996).
Stock Augustine, The Method and Message of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press
[A Michael Glazier Book], 1995).
Gospel of Luke & Acts of the Apostles
Bock Darrell L., Luke, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3, 2 vol.
(Baker Book House, 1994 & 1996).
Bosetti, E., Luke: The Song of God’s Mercy (Boston: Pauline 2006).
**Bovon, F., Luke, the Theologian (Pennsylvania: Pickwick, 1987).
Conzelmann Hans, The Theology of St. Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).
Conzelmann Hans, Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia Series (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1987).
Craig A. Evans & James A. Sanders, Luke and Scripture: the Function of Sacred Tradition in
Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
**Dupont, J., OSB, Les Béatitudes, I, II, III (Louvain: Abbaye de San André : Gabalda, 1958,
1969, 1973).
Ellis, E., The Gospel of Luke (London: Century Bible, 1966).
**Fitzmyer Joseph A., Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Theology (New York: Paulist Press,
1989).
Fitzmyer Joseph A., The Gospel According to Luke, Anchor Bible 28-28A, 2 vol. (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-1985).
Fitzmyer Joseph A., The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible 31 (New York: Doubleday,
1998).
**Friedlander, G., The Jewish Sources of the Sermon of the Mount (New York: KTAV
Publishing House, 1969).
**George, A.S.M., Études sur l’œuvre de Luc (Paris : Editions Gabalda, 1979).
Green Joel B., The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995).
Harrington, D., “The Gospel according to Luke,” in NJBC (New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1990).
Harrington, J.W., Luke: Gracious Theologian (Dublin: Columba Press 1997).
Jervell Jacob, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Theology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Johnson Luke Timothy, Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina 3 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press
[A Michael Glazier Book], 1991)
Johnson Luke Timothy, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina 5 (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press [A Michael Glazier Book], 1992).
**Karris Robert, Luke, Artist and Theologian: Luke’s Passion Account as Literature,
Theological Inquiries (New York: Paulist Press, 1985).
Kingsbury Jack Dean, Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991).
**Kissinger, W., The Sermon of the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography
(Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, 1975).
Knight Jonathan, Luke’s Gospel, New Testament Reading (New York: Routledge, 1998).
**LaVerdiere, E., Luke (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980).
Lambrecht, J., The Sermon on the Mount (Wilmington: Michael Glazier 1985) 206-232.
Maynet, R., Quelle est donc cette Parole? (Paris : Cerf, 1979).
Neyrey Jerome H., The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publications,
1991).
Neyrey Jerome H., The Passion According to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke’s Soteriology,
Theological Inquiries (New York: Paulist Press, 1985).
Pelikan, J., Divine Rhetoric: The Sermon on the Mount as Message and as a Model in Augustine,
Chrysostom and Luther (Crestwood, St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2001).
Powell Mark Allan, What are they saying about Luke? (New York: Paulist Press, 1989).
Powell Mark Allan, What are they saying about Acts? (New York: Paulist Press, 1992).
Reiling J., - Swellengrebell, J.C., A Translator Handbook on the Gospel of Luke (Leiden: Brill,
1971)
Rasco, E., La Teología de Lucas (Roma: EPU Gregoriana, 1976).
Ravens David A.S., Luke and the Restoration of Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995).
Sabourin, L., L’Évangile de Luc (Roma: EPU Gregoriana 1987).
Schweiser Eduard, The Good News According to Luke (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984).
Senior Donald, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke (Wilmington: Michael Glazier,
1989).
Talbert, Ch., Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Montana:
Scholars Press, 1971).
Tannehill Robert C., Luke, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1996).
Tannehill Robert C., The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vol.
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991-1994).
Talbert Charles H., Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles, Reading the New Testament Series (New York: Crossroad, 1999).
Tuckett C.M., Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, Journal for the Study of the
New Testament, Supplement 116 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
Tylor, Vincent, Behind the Third Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966).
Gospel of John:
Ashton John, Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1995).
Ashton John, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Ball David M., ‘I AM’ in John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background, and Theological
Implications (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Brodie Thomas L., The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
Brown Raymond E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979).
Brown Raymond E., The Gospel of John, Anchor Bible 29-29A, 2 vol. (New York:
Doubleday, 1966).
Bultmann Rudolf, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).
Charlesworth James H., The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?
(Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995).
Culpepper P. Alan & Segovia Fernando F., eds., The Fourth Gospel from a Literary
Perspective (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1991).
Culpepper P. Alan, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1987).
Culpepper P. Alan, The Gospels and Letters of John, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville:
Abingdon: 1998).
Dodd C.H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1968).
Ellis Peter F., The Genius of John: a Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984).
Fortna Robert Tomson, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988).
Haenchen John Ernst, John, trans. Robert W. Funk (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Koester Craig R., Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995).
Kysar Robert, John: the Maverick Gospel, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993).
Kysar Robert, John’s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Lindars Barnabas, The Gospel of John, New Century Commentaries (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982).
Moloney Francis J., Glory Not Dishonor: Reading John 13-21 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1998).
Moloney Francis J., The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1998).
Painter John, The Quest for the Messiah: the History, Literature, and Theology of the Johannine
Community (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993).
Peterson Norman R., The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light: Language and
Characterization in the Fourth Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International,
1993).
Schnakenburg Rudolf, The Gospel According to St. John, 2 vol. (New York: Seabury Press,
1968, 1980).
Segovia Fernando F., What is John? Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, SBL
Symposium Series 3 (Atlanta, GA: Scholar’s Press, 1996).
Senior Donald, The Passion in the Gospel of John (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991).
Sloyan Gerald, John:, Interpretation Commentary (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988).
Sloyan Gerald, What are they saying about John? (New York: Paulist Press, 1991).
Smith D. Moody, Johannine Christianity: Essays on Its Setting, Sources, and Theology
(Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989).
Smith D. Moody, John among the Gospels: the Relationship in Twentieth Century Research
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
Smith D. Moody, John:, Abingdon New Testament Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999).
Smith D. Moody, The Theology of the Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995).
Talbert Charles H., Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel
and the Johannine Epistles, Reading the New Testament Series (New York: Crossroad,
1999).
Witherington III Ben, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1995).