Letters

New Testament books (letter)

Fr G.H. Duggan SM

Contents - Jul 2001 - Buy a copy now Editorial: Archbishop Pell receives the pallium - Peter Westmore New Vatican guidelines call for sound, accurate liturgy translations - Michael Gilchrist News: The Church Around the World AD2000 makes impact on the Internet - Francis Young Thomas More Centre Winter Schools 2001 for Ballarat and Brisbane Education: National Catholic Education Conference: but who chose the guest speakers? - Michael Gilchrist Carnivale Christi: an inspiring display of Christian culture - Angela Smith Archbishop Carnley: controversial Primate - Dr Ian Spry QC Basic Ecclesial Communities - Archbishop Leonard Faulkner Report on Marins BECs workshop in Ballarat - Peter Finlayson The case for more Church History in Catholic schools - Michael Lynch First Tetum-language New Testament for East Timor Letters: Australia's Patroness? (letter) - Rev W.J. Robley Adm Letters: Ballarat Diocese (letter) - Peter Jenkins Letters: Ambiguities (letter) - Philip Robinson Letters: Mass media (letter) - Errol P. Duke Letters: New Testament books (letter) - Fr G.H. Duggan SM Letters: De facto relationships (letter) - Deirdre Lyra Letters: Church land (letter) - Charles Haber Books: Testimonies to the Glory of God: World Youth Day Pilgrimage AD2000 - Catherine Sheehan (reviewer) Books: 'Five Loaves and Two Fishes' by Archbishop F. X. Nguyen Van Thuan - Anthony Cappello (reviewer) Books: The Gift of the Rosary: How to make and How and Why to Pray, by Brian Peachey - Barry Morgan (reviewer) Music: From the Great South Land of the Holy Spirit: - John Miles (reviewer) Corpus Christi Seminary Inquiry Day Reflection: An Australian World War II hero - Ron Cowban

The editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary - Fathers R. Brown, R. Murphy O. Carm and J. Fitzmeyer SJ - decided that the commentaries on the books of the New Testament would follow what, in their opinion, is the chronological order in which the books were written. So the commentary on the Gospel of St Mark precedes that on the Gospel of St Matthew, and the commentary on the Gospel of St John comes near the end of the volume.

This ordering of the material is, so far as I know, unique and it can be sharply criticised on many counts.

First, the chronological order they have adopted may have been fashionable in 1966, or even in 1991, but will, in due course, be overturned.

Secondly, their placing of St Mark before St Matthew was almost certainly dictated by their acceptance of the "Two Document Hypothesis", which was condemned by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 26 July 1912 and decisively refuted by Dom John Chapman in his book Matthew, Mark and Luke (pp. 13-83) and Claude Trésmontant in his book The Hebrew Christ (pp. 128-214).

This hypothesis makes Matthew and Luke dependent on two sources - Mark and a document called "Q". Of "Q", Chapman wrote, "It has no style, no vocabulary, no characteristics, and no wonder - for it never existed but in the minds of modern biblical scholars."

As for the Gospel of St John, it is true that Christian tradition has put it late, but as Trésmontant has observed, there never was a closely reasoned case for the late dating. Bishop John A.T. Robinson, in his books Redating the New Testament and The Priority of John, has presented a convincing case for a date before 70, and recently Klaus Berger of Heidelberg has published a closely-argued case for 66AD.

Finally, one may ask if it was fair of the editors to impose their private opinion on the Catholic reading public, few of whom would feel competent to question or challenge it.

FR G.H. DUGGAN SM, DD
Marist Community
Silverstream, New Zealand

Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 14 No 6 (July 2001), p. 15