The Synoptic Gospels

[The Liturgist]

Sounds like a simple case of:
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". John 3:6
Or, as Paul refers to those who are "vainly puffed-up in their fleshly mind". Colossians 2:18
John 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.
The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Thank you St. John. I cannot imagine how anyone can comprehend the apostolic doctrines
without these foundational truths. Romans 7 and 8? Those who struggle with Paul, in general?
John 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

A critical lesson from John the baptist that is not found in the Synoptic Gospels,
but is provided in John 3:27-36. And yet it would seem to be widely overlooked.
John 3:31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly
and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.
John 8:23 And He said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above.
You are of this world; I am not of this world.
"from above"=anothen [G509] used in John 3:7 and translated 'again',
but literally 'from above'.
Now, as the Baptist states:
John 3:27 John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been
given to him from heaven.
And so we learn from James
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down
from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
and,
James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle,
willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.

Imagine the Gospels without this one word used repeatedly by John:
[G3306] meno=abide, remain, and continue used 41 times in his Gospel,
and 23 times in first John.
1 John 2:24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning.
If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son
and in the Father.

The teachings of the apostle John are primary weapons of my spiritual warfare.

Indeed, the Gospel of John is essential, which is why St. Epiphanios of Salamis mocks those who reject it by calling them Alogoi, which translates to “unreasonable,” for they have not the Logos (translated into English as the Word of God, and described in John 1:1, but as you doubtless know as a minister, Logos also means reason, logic, principle and speech.

Now, as important as the Gospel of John is to Christian theology, I don’t think we should underrate the importance of the synoptics; as I see it the four canonical Gospels all contain vital information, with each one having its own important perspective: for example, Luke plugs directly into Acts, providing a coherent narrative of the Apostolic ministry from its origins with the pregnancy of St. Mary and Elizabeth, the mother of St. John the Baptist, Matthew provides key details missing from Luke about the Nativity, and vice versa, and also contains the Beatitudes in their preferred form (there is of course the version in Luke, and I believe he preached both), and Mark stresses how our Lord sought to control the revelation of His divinity, and the extreme humility and humanity with which he compassionately cared for specific individuals, a somewhat more personal look at His ministry.

* Not to be confused with St. Epiphanios of Salami, which is an appropriate name for a blessed pizza one might look forward to eating after the end of Lent on Easter Sunday, St. Epiphanios of Salamis was a fourth century bishop who took the catalogue of heretical cults compiled by St. Irenaeus and greatly expanded it to include more recent heresies like Manichaenism, and of course, the most serious of the time, Arianism, in a book called the Panarion, which I would translate as “medicine case”, which was structured around the hilarious idea that each cult was like a venomous snake or spider or other nasty critter, and the thorough forensic demolitions he and/or St. Irenaeus, who he quoted extensively, wrote for each heretical cult’s belief systems, were the anti-venin or other appropriate medication. St. Irenaeus was also very amusing; in his second century classic Against All Heresies, he relentlessly mocked Valentinian Gnosticism by renaming the different aeons, or emanations of God, which seem quite a bit like deities in their own right, after various types of vegetables and melons. Just as Epiphanios quoted Irenaeus, St. John of Damascus in his eighth century classic The Fount of Knowledge includes the summaries of each heresy Epiphanios wrote to accompany his original polemics against Islam, Iconoclasm and certain other views he and the Eastern Orthodox deem to be heretical, some of which all other Christians would agree on, although I don’t recall him doing it with the same sardonic wit which characterized Irenaeus and Epiphanios.

That said, The Fount of Knowledge is a superb work, including among other treasures the earliest work of systemic theology I am aware of, The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, which is so good, it makes me wonder why Thomas Aquinas, who I respect as an intellectual but do not venerate due to his support for the Inquisition, bothered to write the Summa Theologica (although the Summa is very interesting, as is John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, and Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology; indeed the only work of systematic theology I am thoroughly disinterested in is Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, because I disagree with much, perhaps most, of his theology, and it takes up ten massive volumes, and I just don’t have the time to read something on that scale which I don’t agree with).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Before the obligatory footnotes I attach to a post like this, I feel a desire to ask some of my seminary-educated friends @Deegie @Paidiske @Shane R and @GreekOrthodox if when they were in Seminary this was still being taught, or if it had been set aside in favor of newer and better source theories, or was simply not used, with the traditional belief that Moses composed most of the Pentateuch except for the obvious portions dealing with his demise, which seem to flow effortlessly into the historical narrative of Joshua, his successor, taught instead.

We spent an entire semester on the Pentateuch going over the JEDPXYZ123 theories. At the end, our professor, Dr. Fr. Eugene Pentiuc:
(Languages: Modern: Romanian (native), French, German, Modern Hebrew, Italian
Ancient: Hebrew, Akkadian, Syriac, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Ethiopic (Ge'ez), Greek,
Latin)

He concluded with, basically it doesn't matter who wrote these books because we accept them as authoritative and the revelation of God.

So I have my own vague theories, which are pure speculation on my part. The Pentateuch was written mostly by Moses, but with the fall of Israel, when the Jews returned as we see in Ezra, the various books were compiled into what we know as the OT today. There may have been scribal notes that got incorporated, but the majority of the 5 books are by Moses.

Mark may have ended his Gospel with the intent that a witness to the resurrection would then speak. The ending was added at some point as living witnesses died off.

Again, pure speculation on my part, and completely irrelevant as I accept them as the revelation of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

Eusebius wrote about Mark being martyred in Egypt in his book, “Ecclesiastical History.”

I toured Israel before. The Christian Holy Sites in Israel seem to be the result of guess work. Sometimes they contradict each other.

The Roman Catholics have the Church of the Annunciation where they claim Mary was in her kitchen when visited by an angel announcing she was highly favored. It is below ground and was probably once used as a cistern.

The Greek Orthodox Church of St. Gabriel is in Mary’s Well Square over the site of a well spring where Mary was supposed to have been drawing water when an angel visited her to announce her calling.

The reason why they tend to contradict each other is because the Holy Sites maintained by the Orthodox churches were the result of a careful survey conducted by a group of scholars, priests and historians led by St. Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine, during the restoration of Jerusalem, whereas the Roman Catholic sites, when they differ from the Orthodox sites, are the results of Crusaders and later, the Franciscan Friars, who took over the ministry in these sites, second guessing the archaeology of the fourth century, without access to the historical evidence that still existed 800-1000 years previously, and without modern techniques of archaeological science.

There js also Gordon’s Calvary, a proposed alternate location for the Holy Sepulchre, which basically resulted from the famous and very pious Christian General, who later died a martyr in Khartoum, but whose Christianity could be eccentric at times, to put it mildly, finding what looked like a tomb in the city walls next to some gardens and assuming “this must be it.” Subsequently it has been proven not to be it, whereas conversely, there are traces of Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre at the Church thereof.

I myself see no reason to doubt the traditional Orthodox sites; I am skeptical however of anything holy sites not discovered by the early church.

You have to realize also the Roman Catholics had a reason to deprecate the Orthodox sites and promote their own: sharing the Basillica of the Holy Sepulchre has always been an ecumenical nightmare, and it is indeed fortunate that the Orthodox Church uses the Julian Calendar in the Holy Land, because in those years when Julian and Roman Easter, and especially Good Friday, coincide, the Basillica is not really large enough to safely cope with the masses of pilgrims. In its case, the access of the Romans and the Orthodox was the result of a Firman issued by the Turkish governor, with a Muslim appointed to ensure access, mediate disputes, hold the keys, and lock and unlock the building, whose family has since converted to Orthodox Christianity (I am very good friends with a Syriac Orthodox family from Bethlehem who knows them personally). In the case of the other holy sites, where the Romans were unable to forcibly gain exclusive access after the crusades, in several cases, such as the Church of the Nativity, and the Monastery of St. Mark, home to the Upper Room, the Orthodox had exclusive access.

The Romans felt a need for their pilgrims to have somewhere to go instead, and while I don’t doubt the sincerity of their efforts, I do question their methodology; it seems highly improbable that surveys conducted after the downfall of the Crusader Kingdom, or by the Crusaders themselves, who were soldiers and not historians, would be as reliable as a survey conducted by the several of the most educated Christians in the world, just 293-295 years after the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Cenacle on Pentecost, in areas of Jerusalem which were abandoned and more or less untouched during the period when it was a minor Roman administrative center after the expulsion of the Jews in 130 AD. It is also a given that Byzantine education was vastly superior to the education of most people in the High Middle Ages, especially crusading warriors.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Indeed, the Gospel of John is essential, which is why St. Epiphanios of Salamis mocks those who reject it by calling them Alogoi, which translates to “unreasonable,” for they have not the Logos (translated into English as the Word of God, and described in John 1:1, but as you doubtless know as a minister, Logos also means reason, logic, principle and speech.

Logos is a perfect example of how I study the scriptures as a personal devotion,
in fellowship with the Holy Spirit. I ask Him a lot of questions!
I have never studied the use of this word in Greek writings, philosophically or otherwise.
Here is my comprehension of the word after thoroughly studying how the word
is used in the NT. Particularly, John 1.
In a word: intent. For example, my father was not much of a communicator.
Here is a familiar exchange from when I was growing up.
He would ask my why I was doing something, and I would say, "but you said to
do so and so. His stock reply was always, "don't do what I said, do what I meant".
Yeshua as the Son of man and logos teaches, and shows us what His Father intended.
Not simply what was said, but what He meant.
Hence,
“You have heard that it was said to those of old... but I say to you"..Matt 5:21
Here is a statement I worked out with His help.
We are all what became of Adam and Eve.
In Christ, we are becoming what God intended.

 

[The Liturgist]

Nice post, I saved it to my study notes so I can spend some time with it.

Thank you. With your permission I would like to include your question so I can post it to my ChristianForums blog without editing it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Logos is a perfect example of how I study the scriptures as a personal devotion,
in fellowship with the Holy Spirit. I ask Him a lot of questions!
I have never studied the use of this word in Greek writings, philosophically or otherwise.
Here is my comprehension of the word after thoroughly studying how the word
is used in the NT. Particularly, John 1.
In a word: intent. For example, my father was not much of a communicator.
Here is a familiar exchange from when I was growing up.
He would ask my why I was doing something, and I would say, "but you said to
do so and so. His stock reply was always, "don't do what I said, do what I meant".
Yeshua as the Son of man and logos teaches, and shows us what His Father intended.
Not simply what was said, but what He meant.
Hence,
“You have heard that it was said to those of old... but I say to you"..Matt 5:21
Here is a statement I worked out with His help.
We are all what became of Adam and Eve.
In Christ, we are becoming what God intended.

Well with all due respect, it really helps to know the basic terminology of theology. I mean, Logos is extremely foundational; to not know what it meant when St. John the Beloved Disciple wrote it in his Gospel, or to the early Christians, puts your exegesis at a severe disadvantage. Biblehub.com, which is my preferred scriptural reference site, provides free access not only to all of the major translations and several minor ones (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, et cetera, but also versions like the Geneva Bible and Bishops’ Bible, which were replaced in the Church of England (Anglican) and the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) by the KJV, and translations of the Peshitta and Septuagint, but also provides a free Interlinear translation and Strong’s Concordance. These are invaluable. Of course, it also helps to have access to good study Bibles; to cover a full range of conservative theological perspectives, I myself use the Orthodox Study Bible (which represents Patristic and Eastern Orthodox amillenial traditionalist theology and presents the Septuagint Old Testament with a balance of Alexandrian Typological-Prophetic-Metaphorical and Antiochene Historical Literalist exegesis which varies with each book as appropriate), the King James Study Bible (which represents a Premillenial Dispensationalist, Reformed and Evangelical theology, with the Masoretic Old Testament interpreted according to Antiochene Historical-Literalist exegesis, and the Lutheran Study Bible (which represents traditional Lutheran theology, which is very similiar to the Orthodox Study Buble, in that it is very Christological in its interpretation of the Old Testament, but uses the Masoretic text); the first two are available as ebooks on Scribd, which is how I usually access them, along with other study bibles; I have the Lutheran Study Bible in Kindle, and the other two in hardcopy. As I see it, when all three agree on an interpretation, which is more common than one would think, although to be clear there are sharp differences in perspective, especially between the Orthodox Study Bible, and the King James Study Bible, such an interpretation can be considered more or less definitive.

One annoying thing is the lack of an Anglican King James Study Bible, since the KJV was originally composed for use in the Church of England, and it includes the deuterocanonical books because Anglicans read them in the Divine Office (morning prayer and choral evensong), whereas the KJV Study Bible really rejects even the traditional theology of the Church of Scotland, where the Geneva Bible was replaced ultimately as a matter of convenience, rather than optimal doctrinal conformity, and it lacks the Deuterocanonical books, which are in the KJV as originally published, instead featuring a long winded article on how worthless they are. But I would still want the KJV Study Bible I have, because I use it to study the views of those I disagree with theologically.

 

[The Liturgist]

As God is my witness, I have never studied any of this, and for this I give Him
thanks and praise. My focus has always been on first, breaking down the NT by keyword,
comparing every verse where the word is used, to see the common authorship throughout.
Understanding these words from a Hebrew perspective by finding the equivalent OT teaching,
beginning with verses that were quoted by the NT writers.
Understanding how important the Psalms and Isaiah 40-66 are to a deeper
understanding of salvation.
The Law of Moses for reconciliation and "drawing near" to God.
The prophets for providing "God commentary" on human behavior.
Anchored to the "beginnings" of our faith, found in Genesis.
Of course, "all scripture is profitable...for instruction in righteousness".
I admire your dedication to the body of Christ, and the thorough presentation
of the basis for your understanding, and I am in no way trying to denigrate
what you have been presenting here.
We are on different paths to the same goal, to ascend.

To be clear, I would not have suggested you study the Documentary Source Hypothesis. As I said in my post, it represents the nadir of Biblical scholarship, insofar as it is a disastrous dumpster fire of a hypothesis that denies essential beliefs of most Christians, like for example, the not unreasonable idea that Israel was monotheistic when the Scriptures say it was, and that El Elyon and YHWH have always been two names for the same God, and that the Pentateuch was not retroactively edited during and after the Babylonian captivity (given the extreme role the theory assigns to the Deuteronomists, it is difficult to see how, when one attributes so much to them, that they would not have been in a position to write the entire work, and the P, E and J sources were actually just reflective of changing Deuteronomist perspectives, which is a huge problem). The theory seems to deny divine inspiration, Scriptural truth and thousands of years of Christian and Hebrew history and tradition. Aside from that, it is also so complicated it requires a diagram to explain it.

It is helpful for ministers to have some awareness of textual criticism and higher criticism, just so you know, for example, the difference between the sources used by the KJV, NKJV and other traditional translations, and certain newer translations like the NIV, and also the differences between the Masoretic text (and its history, in that it was edited by Jews in the eighth century and was not produced with Christians in mind), the Hebraic text translated into Latin and Syriac in the Vulgate and Peshitta, respectively, which was closer to the Old Testament at the time of Christ, and the Septuagint, which represents a snapshot of the Old Testament, being a translation of it into Greek 200 years before our Lord was born, and which was the Old Testament usually cited in the New (although St. Jude cites 1 Enoch, which survives intact only in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, which is also invaluable as a Ge’ez translation of the Old Testament of great antiquity.*

So basically, knowing that is helpful, but as far as Documentary Hypothesis is concerned, be glad you didn’t waste your time or have your time wasted. I think when I was in seminary we at least had moved beyond it, because I remember being really annoyed by the concept when my Episcopalian friend first explained it to me.

*the Ethiopians converted to Judaism when Queen Kan’dake and Solomon “exchanged royal gifts,” bearing a son who became the first Emperor of Abyssinia of the Solomonic Dynasty, which remained in power until the Derg communists strangled Emperor Haile Selassie for refusing to renounce Christianity; he was a great and pious Christian who had the Ethiopian Orthodox Church try to convert the Rastafarians, to get them to worship Jesus rather than himself and to give up Marijuana, with some success, particularly at diverting Jamaicans from Rastafarianism with a large scale evangelization and parishes in that country, and who also stood up to both Communism and Fascism (for his country was conquered by Benito Mussolini in the 1930s, and he was one of the first world leaders to sound the alarm about Hitler and Mussolini). And since he died for refusing to renounce Christ, that makes him a saint, a Holy Martyr. A similiar offer was also made to the Romanovs in Russia; they refused and so the Bolsheviks murdered them, including their 13 year old boy Alyosha (Prince Alexis) who had become paralyzed from the waist down, and in the months before he was shot to death, the communist guards used to amuse themselves by stealing his food. I have a particular love for child martyrs, in that I believe Jesus Christ loves them particularly for suffering for him during a period in life when such cruelty should not be inflicted on anyone; St. Abanoub, a 12 year old Coptic boy who was martyred only after several failed horrific attempts under the evil Roman Emperor Diocletian, is another. These children remind us of the angelic love of Christ for us and the thought of their willing sacrifice fills us with repentance for our sins.

 

[The Liturgist]

As God is my witness, I have never studied any of this, and for this I give Him
thanks and praise. My focus has always been on first, breaking down the NT by keyword,
comparing every verse where the word is used, to see the common authorship throughout.
Understanding these words from a Hebrew perspective by finding the equivalent OT teaching,
beginning with verses that were quoted by the NT writers.
Understanding how important the Psalms and Isaiah 40-66 are to a deeper
understanding of salvation.
The Law of Moses for reconciliation and "drawing near" to God.
The prophets for providing "God commentary" on human behavior.
Anchored to the "beginnings" of our faith, found in Genesis.
Of course, "all scripture is profitable...for instruction in righteousness".
I admire your dedication to the body of Christ, and the thorough presentation
of the basis for your understanding, and I am in no way trying to denigrate
what you have been presenting here.
We are on different paths to the same goal, to ascend.

To be clear, I would not have suggested you study the Documentary Source Hypothesis. As I said in my post, it represents the nadir of Biblical scholarship, insofar as it is a disastrous dumpster fire of a hypothesis that denies essential beliefs of most Christians, like for example, the not unreasonable idea that Israel was monotheistic when the Scriptures say it was, and that El Elyon and YHWH have always been two names for the same God, and that the Pentateuch was not retroactively edited during and after the Babylonian captivity (given the extreme role the theory assigns to the Deuteronomists, it is difficult to see how, when one attributes so much to them, that they would not have been in a position to write the entire work, and the P, E and J sources were actually just reflective of changing Deuteronomist perspectives, which is a huge problem). The theory seems to deny divine inspiration, Scriptural truth and thousands of years of Christian and Hebrew history and tradition. Aside from that, it is also so complicated it requires a diagram to explain it.

It is helpful for ministers to have some awareness of textual criticism and higher criticism, just so you know, for example, the difference between the sources used by the KJV, NKJV and other traditional translations, and certain newer translations like the NIV, and also the differences between the Masoretic text (and its history, in that it was edited by Jews in the eighth century and was not produced with Christians in mind), the Hebraic text translated into Latin and Syriac in the Vulgate and Peshitta, respectively, which was closer to the Old Testament at the time of Christ, and the Septuagint, which represents a snapshot of the Old Testament, being a translation of it into Greek 200 years before our Lord was born, and which was the Old Testament usually cited in the New (although St. Jude cites 1 Enoch, which survives intact only in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, which is also invaluable as a Ge’ez translation of the Old Testament of great antiquity.*

So basically, knowing that is helpful, but as far as Documentary Hypothesis is concerned, be glad you didn’t waste your time or have your time wasted. I think when I was in seminary we at least had moved beyond it, because I remember being really annoyed by the concept when my Episcopalian friend first explained it to me.

*the Ethiopians converted to Judaism when Queen Kan’dake and Solomon “exchanged royal gifts,” bearing a son who became the first Emperor of Abyssinia of the Solomonic Dynasty, which remained in power until the Derg communists strangled Emperor Haile Selassie for refusing to renounce Christianity; he was a great and pious Christian who had the Ethiopian Orthodox Church try to convert the Rastafarians, to get them to worship Jesus rather than himself and to give up Marijuana, with some success, particularly at diverting Jamaicans from Rastafarianism with a large scale evangelization and parishes in that country, and who also stood up to both Communism and Fascism (for his country was conquered by Benito Mussolini in the 1930s, and he was one of the first world leaders to sound the alarm about Hitler and Mussolini). And since he died for refusing to renounce Christ, that makes him a saint, a Holy Martyr. A similiar offer was also made to the Romanovs in Russia; they refused and so the Bolsheviks murdered them, including their 13 year old boy Alyosha (Prince Alexis) who had become paralyzed from the waist down, and in the months before he was shot to death, the communist guards used to amuse themselves by stealing his food. I have a particular love for child martyrs, in that I believe Jesus Christ loves them particularly for suffering for him during a period in life when such cruelty should not be inflicted on anyone; St. Abanoub, a 12 year old Coptic boy who was martyred only after several failed horrific attempts under the evil Roman Emperor Diocletian, is another. These children remind us of the angelic love of Christ for us and the thought of their willing sacrifice fills us with repentance for our sins.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Well with all due respect, it really helps to know the basic terminology of theology. I mean, Logos is extremely foundational; to not know what it meant when St. John the Beloved Disciple wrote it in his Gospel, or to the early Christians, puts your exegesis at a severe disadvantage.

So are saying that reading every verse of the Bible where logos is employed lacks foundation?
All I am saying is that I know what John wrote without input from early Greek thought. I find
as a corrupting influence when people tell me "for the early Greek philosophers, logos meant..."
Not interested. The New Testament defines what it was they were searching for, therefore, I
know the answer to what they were merely questioning.

 

[The Liturgist]

We spent an entire semester on the Pentateuch going over the JEDPXYZ123 theories. At the end, our professor, Dr. Fr. Eugene Pentiuc:
(Languages: Modern: Romanian (native), French, German, Modern Hebrew, Italian
Ancient: Hebrew, Akkadian, Syriac, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Ethiopic (Ge'ez), Greek,
Latin)

He concluded with, basically it doesn't matter who wrote these books because we accept them as authoritative and the revelation of God.

So I have my own vague theories, which are pure speculation on my part. The Pentateuch was written mostly by Moses, but with the fall of Israel, when the Jews returned as we see in Ezra, the various books were compiled into what we know as the OT today. There may have been scribal notes that got incorporated, but the majority of the 5 books are by Moses.

Mark may have ended his Gospel with the intent that a witness to the resurrection would then speak. The ending was added at some point as living witnesses died off.

Again, pure speculation on my part, and completely irrelevant as I accept them as the revelation of God.

Indeed, you have the right attitude. And your speculation is in no sense contrary to Eastern Orthodoxy, since, correct me if I am wrong, it constitutes a great example of a Theologoumemnon.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Indeed, you have the right attitude. And your speculation is in no sense contrary to Eastern Orthodoxy, since, correct me if I am wrong, it constitutes a great example of a Theologoumemnon.

I wouldnt even elevate it to Theologoumemnon Highly speculative! I'm more concerned about my repentance.

Antonius asked the youngest of the three monks how he thought about the matter. The young man responded immediately; what he lacked in knowledge, he supplemented with his fire and enthusiasm. When he was finished, Father Antonius remained silent for a while, then said, “You haven’t found the right answer yet.“

Then the second one got the floor. He was a little older, read some books and gained experience. He chose learned words and formulated them more carefully. When he was finished, Father Antonius said: “You too have not found the right answer yet.“

Finally, the oldest of the three was allowed to give an answer. He dropped long silences, spoke thoughtfully, and you could tell he had read many books and had a long prayer experience. When he was finished, Father Antonius remarked: “You haven’t found the right answer yet.“

The moment he opened his mouth to say something about the very difficult issue of faith himself, he thought Father Paul was still in his corner. He turned to the old abbot and asked, “Father Paul, could you possibly say something about it?” Now it remained silent for some time. Finally, Paul said: “I don’t know …“

Father Anthony turned to his three disciples and with a raised finger, he said: “Father Paul has found the right answer.“

 

[The Liturgist]

So are saying that reading every verse of the Bible where logos is employed lacks foundation?
All I am saying is that I know what John wrote without input from early Greek thought. I find
as a corrupting influence when people tell me "for the early Greek philosophers, logos meant..."
Not interested. The New Testament defines what it was they were searching for, therefore, I
know the answer to what they were merely questioning.

I am not saying St. John wrote the Gospel based on early Greek thought, nor am I suggesting, God forbid, that he conceived of the Logos as the same concept that Plato had thought of. Rather, inspired by the Holy Spirit, he used the appropriate word cognizant with its multifaceted definition, in writing his Gospel in Greek. On this point, we know he did write it in Greek - this has been established and is beyond the hypothetical realm of the Documentary Source Hypothesis I lambasted earlier, and beyond the realm of theories, but rather belongs to that blissful domain of established fact, for 250 years of careful linguistic and philological analysis has confirmed that the entire New Testament that has survived* was written in Koine Greek, and St. John, whose ministry was largely in Greece, in Ephesus, from which he was exiled on Patmos for a time, when he had the Revelation, would need to have acquired that language, which for the Apostles was not a problem, because they had received the true charism of “speaking in tongues,” in that they were instantly blessed with the languages their vocation required.

Thus, as it happens, St. John used the word most appropriate, Logos, which like most Greek words, has multiple meanings. He did not obviously use it in the Platonic philosophical-metaphysical-theological sense, because that would require paragraphs to explain, and while the Apostles and Early Church Fathers did make secular use of Plato to a limited extent, they regarded Platonism and Neo-Platonism as dangerous Pagan theologies, and indeed Gnosticism arguably was the result of a later heretic combining the proto-Gnostic heresy of Simon Magus**,, which was based on Zoroastrian Dualism and Emanationism with Neo-Platonism. However, Gnosticism ultimately came to rely more on Aristotle, ironically, considering Aristotle is perceived as being less into metaphysics and theology and more into scientific and logical inquiry than his tutor, and so Aristotle was shunned during most of the Patristic era, only to become of use in Palamist and Scholastic theology, Palamism being the basis for Eastern Orthodox understanding of divine grace, and Scholastic theology being the basis for Renaissance era Roman Catholic theology and traditional Protestant theology.

So to summarize, one should know what the Greek words mean. One does not need to explore how the words were used by random Pagan philosophers, because that is irrelevant.

The early church and indeed the modern church makes use of philosophy, going back to Socrates and earlier, but never uses their constructs as the basis for our theology, except to the very limited extent that some of the great apologists of early Christianity, like St. Paul, did use analogies with Greek philosophy, and Greek Pagan superstition in the case of St. Paul, with his famous sermon on the Aereopagus, where the Greeks had a shrine to the “Unknown God.” Paul turned this into the basis for a church, and converted a local pagan to Christianity, who ran the church in Athens, St. Dionysius the Aeropagite, not to be confused with Psuedo-Dionysius, the fifth century Christian author who wrote under the name of St. Dionysius to avoid self-glorification.

* We do know from tradition there was a version of the Gospel According to Matthew written in Aramaic, but it is not the version that has survived; there was also a Gospel of the Hebrews which was quoted favorably by several Church Fathers and also would have been in Aramaic.

** Magus is the Greek translation of the word Mobed; it means a Zoroastrian priest, or rather a Zoroastrian hierus, since the word priest is actually an Anglicization of the Biblical word Presbyter meaning Elder and the fact that we now use it to refer to the religious officials, often hereditary castes, who preside over sacred rites and sacrifices in non-Christian religions such as Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism and various Pagan religions of antiquity, among others, is really annoying). But in a nutshell, Simon Magus claimed to be a Zoroastrian priest, although since the data suggests he was not actually Persian but rather from Seleucia-Cstesiphon in Mesopotamia, part of the Persian Empire but culturally Eastern Aramaic with the pagan Chaldean religion of ancient Babylon and other Mesopotamian cities still in existence, he probably acquired his status as a Mobed through illegitimate means and hoped to bolster his credentials by buying his way into the Apostles, since he saw real power in the acts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Minister Monardo]

I am not saying St. John wrote the Gospel based on early Greek thought, nor am I suggesting, God forbid, that he conceived of the Logos as the same concept that Plato had thought of. Rather, inspired by the Holy Spirit, he used the appropriate word cognizant with its multifaceted definition, in writing his Gospel in Greek.

So to summarize, one should know what the Greek words mean. One does not need to explore how the words were used by random Pagan philosophers, because that is irrelevant.

I agree.

 

[The Liturgist]

I wouldnt even elevate it to Theologoumemnon Highly speculative! I'm more concerned about my repentance.

Antonius asked the youngest of the three monks how he thought about the matter. The young man responded immediately; what he lacked in knowledge, he supplemented with his fire and enthusiasm. When he was finished, Father Antonius remained silent for a while, then said, “You haven’t found the right answer yet.“

Then the second one got the floor. He was a little older, read some books and gained experience. He chose learned words and formulated them more carefully. When he was finished, Father Antonius said: “You too have not found the right answer yet.“

Finally, the oldest of the three was allowed to give an answer. He dropped long silences, spoke thoughtfully, and you could tell he had read many books and had a long prayer experience. When he was finished, Father Antonius remarked: “You haven’t found the right answer yet.“

The moment he opened his mouth to say something about the very difficult issue of faith himself, he thought Father Paul was still in his corner. He turned to the old abbot and asked, “Father Paul, could you possibly say something about it?” Now it remained silent for some time. Finally, Paul said: “I don’t know …“

Father Anthony turned to his three disciples and with a raised finger, he said: “Father Paul has found the right answer.“

Indeed, our repentance ( @Minister Monardo might also be interested to know the Greek word for repentance is metanoia, which literally means to change your mind, which means that repentance is us changing our mind and deciding not to engage in a sinful activity, having been moved to contrition over our sins by the grace of the Holy Spirit; the word for sin is of course Hamartia, which means “to miss the mark” and the reason why I prefer Orthodox theology to Western Rite Roman Catholic and Calvinist theology is because the Eastern churches, and some Protestants influenced by them, but not as many as I would prefer, understand sin as a disease to be cured, a medicinal model vs. the forensic model of a minority of early church fathers, well, really just St. Augustine, and subsequent Roman Catholicm Scholastic theology, which was excessively dependent on Augustine while tending to ignore much better theologians, even among Latin speakers, such as Saints Ambrose, Gregory the Great, John Cassian, Isidore of Seville and Vincent of Lerins, indeed, the neglect of John Cassian’s theology was particularly tragic and ironic, since his model of original sin proposed in response to the heresy of Pelagius is less carnal and much more plausible in light of what Scripture says, and it also does not require unpleasant derivative doctrines such as Limbo, the Immaculate Conception, and so on.

And unfortunately, Luther and Calvin were both excessively influenced by St. Augustine; fortunately, St. Jan Hus, who along with Jerome of Prague is officially venerated as a martyr in the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, and Thomas Cranmer, and later Protestant theologians such as Archbishop Laud, the non-juring Scottish Episcopalians, and John Wesley, among others, used their knowledge of Biblical Greek to access a much broader range of theologians who are more talented and important than St. Augustine, for example, St. Athanasius, the principal defender of the deity of Christ against Arius, the final editor of the New Testament canon, and the biography of St. Anthony, and St. John Chrysostom, the greatest preacher who ever lived, and one of the most important contributors to Scriptural exegesis and moral theology, and St. Basil the Great, who was also like St. Chrysostom a great liturgist and moral theologian, who along with his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote some of the oldest surviving Patristic condemnations of homosexual perversion, and also wrote a canon prohibiting abortion (canon 2 of St. Basil addresses abortion and Canon 73 addresses homosexuality, if memory serves), but beyond that, St. Basil also invented the first hospital that we would recognize as a hospital.

Thus, for St. Basil, and many other early Christians, who were often physicians, indeed, there were many priests who were also physicians and a whole category of saints, the Unmercenary Physicians, who took care of people without charge, which was a radical idea in the first millennium. Prior to that, wealthy people received medical care and surgery, which even then were of benefit, and poor people only had recourse to divine mercy and sacramental grace via the Eucharist, Holy Unction (annointing of the sick with oil as described in the Epistle of James), and blessed water. Fortunately these can be remarkably efficacious, but the Orthodox way is to make full use of medical care. I have seen the sacred mysteries of the Eucharist and Holy Unction deliver people from disease and also mitigate the severity of disease, but medical treatment is still imperative to control the disease and to cure it; the sacraments work like so much else involving Divine Grace in a state of synergy with our human efforts, such as proper medical care.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Indeed, our repentance ( @Minister Monardo might also be interested to know the Greek word for repentance is metanoia, which literally means to change your mind, which means that repentance is us changing our mind and deciding not to engage in a sinful activity, having been moved to contrition over our sins by the grace of the Holy Spirit; the word for sin is of course Hamartia, which means “to miss the mark”

I am aware, and would add that the apostolic doctrine does not simply deal with our
sins, but the nature of sin, which is why KJV often uses the word "remission", rather
than forgiveness. We die to "the desires of the flesh" that the Spirit can give "newness
of life". This is also why John states:
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
When the sinful nature is "in remission", we experience the glorious liberty of the
children of promise.

 

[jd01]

Is the Gospel writer Mark the John Mark described in Acts? Luke is also mentioned in Acts.
Who was John Mark in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

I believe so. He was a companion of Peter while in Rome, I think Peter mentions him in one of his letters.

 

[Shane R]

There is more to it than this, of course; indeed the theology as fully developed is fiendishly complex, as shown by this diagram:

So for me, a traditionalist priest, the aforementioned liturgical discrepancy concerning the D source, although not impossible to resolve, combines with every other non-traditional belief including this presumptive progressive metamorphosis from polytheism to monotheism via paganism, to shoot down this hypothesis (which it must be stressed, is not a theory, because theories must be falsifiable according to the Scientific Method, and the Documentary Source Hypothesis cannot be tested in a definitive way, but only against subjective alternative Biblical scholarship, and also the traditions of the Christian faith and what the Scriptures themselves say of their history. Ergo scholars less bound by tradition and a belief in the inspired nature and honesty of Scripture than myself naturally rejected it based on more “scholarly reasons.”:

Despite its complexity, and for me at least, a lack of credibility, I still encounter this system among older clergy, for example, a retired Episcopalian priest I am friends with.

Before the obligatory footnotes I attach to a post like this, I feel a desire to ask some of my seminary-educated friends @Deegie @Paidiske @Shane R and @GreekOrthodox if when they were in Seminary this was still being taught, or if it had been set aside in favor of newer and better source theories, or was simply not used, with the traditional belief that Moses composed most of the Pentateuch except for the obvious portions dealing with his demise, which seem to flow effortlessly into the historical narrative of Joshua, his successor, taught instead.

Neither of the schools I attended was strong in OT instruction. My first instructor of OT was a female Pentecostal apostle who was primarily concerned with the chronology of the material. The main project for her class was to compile a Bp. Usshur style timeline of the OT. She was openly hostile to the deutero-canon and shaved 15 points off of a defense I wrote for those books because she disagreed with my position.

The president of the seminary I attended had a difficult time with the OT, concluded it was confusing to lay people and largely irrelevant to preaching, and did not encourage a robust curriculum on the subject. Also notable was that the Septuagint was given preference over the Hebrew text at the school in those days. In fact, when I attended I don't recall there being a Hebrew instructor. His tenure ended several years ago and the school has since reworked the entire academic catalogue and changed most of the faculty.

 

[jd01]

Matthew was not an eye-witnesses? News to me.

Well the author of the Gospel of Matthew, whoever he was, was not an eye-witness. Obviously, disciple Matthew was an eye-witness.

 

[jd01]

I would note there is no compelling reason to accept the modern narrative that the Gospel of Mark predates Luke and Matthew. There is a compelling reason to accept the modern view that the Gospel of John postdates them, and that is simply because the fathers of the early Church said the same thing.

Actually, there are many very good reasons for thinking Mark was written first and quite early by traditional standards, my analysis places Mark at around 40 CE (vs 70+ CE) based on commentary by Mark in Chapter 13. This is a good thing for those who believe MArk is essentially accurate as it places the text within the lifetime of many eyewitnesses who would have ensured its accuracy. I also believe John was written last which is in accordance with the early Church.

 

[jd01]

An example of this would be three well known probable interpolations, the first two identified through textual criticism through manuscript analysis, and the specifically because they are not attested in the oldest known manuscripts: the Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 10:10-16), and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-9, which explicitly identifies the persons of the Trinity who are otherwise implied. Then there is the Adultery Pericope (John 8:1-20) where textual criticism is less clear but higher criticism suggests St. John the Beloved probably did not write it, and one thing textual criticism can say is that it is found in manuscripts of texts other than the Gospel According to John. Many newer bibles like the NIV simply omit the longer ending of Mark and the Comma Johanneum, while usually making a subjective decision that the Adultery Pericope in John was worth retaining, although I know of one particularly liberal Bible edition which omits it.

Thank you, Mr. Liturgist. Excellent points. Also thank you for mentioning the Comma Johanneum, I was unaware of the issue and will study it further! You should start two new threads one for each of the other two the Pericope (mentioned by Papias and he associated it with John the Elder) and the Longer Ending which I believe was the original ending for various reasons.