In the 19th century a group of German Protestant scholars undertook a study of the NT purely from a secular historical viewpoint and reached various conclusions that contradicted traditional Catholic teaching and created various theological problems for Protestants of the time. One of the major points made was that the Gospel of Mark ‘must have’ been written before that of Matthew and, consequently, that the Apostle Matthew could not have personally authored the Gospel attributed to him since it was written too late for that to have been possible. The ‘higher critics’’ further attacked various traditionally held beliefs about scripture (previously common to all Christians) which they claimed with certainty and which caused a massive loss of faith in the Gospels themselves among Protestants in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. (It should be noted that archeological discoveries and scientific advances made since the 19th century have assisted in disproving some of their 'discoveries' about scripture). Nietzsche (of ‘God is dead’ fame and whose writings did so much to underpin later NAZI ideology) was one of many who lost his Protestant faith through reading and accepting the claims of the ‘higher critics’. The Church refuted these novel claims at the time and the Pontifical Biblical Commission has since absolutely confirmed the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew by that Apostle, and the same with that of the Apostle of John. I was surprised therefore to read a couple of years ago that Pope Francis had publically averred, after his election, that ‘Everyone knows that Mark was written before Matthew’. I found this quite troubling as I was aware of the original controversy and its results. Now, the website of the US Catholic bishops has published an article by an un-named person claiming that it is proven that the Gospel of Mark was written before St. Matthew’s. See link to the Remnant website discussing, and rebutting, this claim. http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/ind...o-wrote-the-gospel-of-matthew-let-s-tell-them
What never ceases to amaze me is how convinced these so called experts are about something that happened a couple of thousand years ago. While at the same time they can't figure out what is happening all around them in the here and now.
Well, to "develop" the "doctrine" of the Superior General of the Jesuits, the Apostles didn't have smartphones so couldn't post videos of Jesus on Youtube, therefore, everything we thought we knew could be wrong. What difference does it make whether Matthew's Gospel was written before Mark's if both of them are open to reinterpretation?
That Mark is older is not a new idea. It's pretty well accepted. Higher criticism is a form of modernism that does not depend on whether or not Matthew was written later. Matthew could be the source and the material was put in a unified form after his death. If he was martyred, it may be he had intended to do that and someone else had to do it for him much later. To me, it only proves it's a real document. The length of Matthew actually makes it hard to imagine an Apostle writing it early. It would have required him to spend a great deal of time just writing and that is not what they did. Only John did that late in life. Higher criticism does everything it can disprove the gospels, up to and including the bodily resurrection. They would do that no matter what point the gospels were put in final form.
Our Parish Priest preached a lovely sermon on the Resurrection on Easter Sunday. It did my heart good to hear it. He spoke about the evidence in support of the Man Jesus Christ found in the ancient records. And he mentioned some people are disputing the Resurrection. He pointed out how many people who knew Jesus were prepared to give their lives in defending what they knew and believed about Jesus and His Resurrection. It was awesome. Praise God.
thank goodness! it needs repeating we believe in a physical resurrection. one time I was at a talk and the teacher said something to the effect, so you believe in a dead body walking around, just flesh, like a zombie. I could not believe it. I said no, he had his glorified body, but it was also still his physical body, but fully healed and alive. The same body. He acted like I was not too smart. Oh well, I'm glad I took a stand.
Thanks heavenlyhosts! On a positive note, a couple years after that my own parish priest gave a homily on the resurrection and said straight out we believe in a physical resurrection. One of the reasons I believe we are members of the true Church, as a opposed to Protestantism, is that if a teacher associated with the church or even a priest here or there says otherwise, we have the deposit of faith to rely on. Protestants have thousands of contradictory opinions interpreting scripture. I feel sorry for them because they seem never to think of this.
For those who don't believe in prophecy or miracles (like the 'higher critics'), Matthew cannot come first chronologically, because it would mean that Jesus prophesied the fall of Jerusalem. The critics date it after that event to avoid the 'impossible' conclusion that Jesus made an accurate prophecy. Although most biblical scholars believe that Mark was written first, the Church officially does not and never has and has, apart from unbroken tradition for nearly 2,000 years, solid reasons for doing so.
The prophecy of the destruction of the temple is in Mark. It's not really an issue. Very devout and orthodox biblical scholars think it came first, but it is not a controversy. Knowing the bottom line for higher criticism, it really would not matter--they will always find something and say this or that is not literal because of x. Both John Paul II and Benedict spoke about the failures of higher criticism. John Paul II had the catechism published so there would be no doubts on the basics of the faith. Have you found this to be an issue?
I remember years ago stopping believing in the Shroud of Turin because carbon dating appears to show it was from the middle ages. But more and more scientific evidence pointed to it being the real deal. Eventually many experts believed the carbon dated segments were from a much later repair patch. I am open to scientific method but it has our limits. At Medugoje Our Lady allowed scientific study but eventually said enough was enough and stopped it. In matters of Faith science has its limits
