Revised Schedule

Our schedule has changed slightly, due to the inclusion of a visit to Petra in Jordan. (Thanks Fr. Bart!) I was redoing the syllabus and schedule to send to my Uncle, who does not have e-mail, a computer or even a cell phone: it almost brought me to tears, reviewing what we were going to be studying and seeing where we were going to be. Fr. Steve and I leave in less than two weeks. Wow! At any rate, I thought you might be interested:

June 10 Arrival
June 11 The Citadel, the Walls, St. Anne’s, the Holy Sepulcher
June 12 John the Baptist

• John the Baptist 13 (Mt 3:1-6; Mk 1:2-6; Lk 3:1-6; Jn 1:19-23)
• John’s Preaching 14/15 (Mt 3:7-10; Lk 3:7-14)
• John Testifies 16 (Mt 3:11-12; Mk 1:7-8; Lk 3:15-18; Jn 1:24-28)
• The Baptism 18 (Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:29-34)
• John and Elijah 162 (Mt 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13)
• John and Jesus 106/107 (Mt 11:2-19; Mk 1:2; Lk 7:18-35)
• Herod and Jesus 143 (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9)
• The Death of John 17/144 (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20)
• Fasting Question 45/94 (Mt 9:14-17; Mk 2:18-22; Lk 5:33-39; Jn 3:29-30)
• The Question about John’s Baptism 276 (Mt 21:23-27; Mk 11:27-33; Lk 20:1-8; Jn 2:18-22)
• The Law until John 54 (cf. 293) (Mt 11:12-13; Lk 16:16-17)
• Miscellaneous (Jn 3:23-4:1; Jn 10:40-41; Acts 18:25)

June 13 Western Wall, Kidron Valley
June 14 Davidson, City of David
June 15 Exorcisms

• Temptations 20 (Mt 4:1-11; Mk 1:2-13; Lk 4:1-13)
• The Demoniac in the Synagogue 36 (Mk 1:23-28; 4:33-37)
• Healings at Evening 88/38 (Mt 8:16-17; Mk 1:32-34; Lk 4:40-41)
• Preaching Tour in Galilee 40 (Mt 4:23; Mk 1:39; Lk 4:4)
• Beelzebub Controversy 97/117/188 (Mt 12:22-30; Matthew 9:32-34; Mk 3:22-27; Lk 11:14-23; Jn 7:20; 10:20; 8:48; 8:52: 6:30)
• The Sin Against the Holy Spirit 118/197/73/82 (Mat 12:31-37; 7:15-20; Mk 3:28-30; Lk 12:10; 6:43-45)
• Return of Unclean Spirit 120/189 (Mt 12:43-45; Lk 11:24-26)
• The Gerasene Demoniac 137/91 (Mt 8:28-34; Mk 5:1-20; Lk 8 26-39)
• The Syrophoenician Woman 137/91 (Mt 15:21-28, Mk 7:24-30)
• The Possessed Boy 163 (Mt 17:14-21; Mk 9:14-29; Lk 9:37-43)
• The Strange Exorcist 167 (Mt 10:42; 12:30; Mk 9:38-41; 9:49-50; 11:23 [cf. Acts 19:11-20])
• Miscellaneous (Lk 13:31-33; Mt 11:18; Mk 16:9; Lk 8:2; Lk 22:3; Acts 18:25; Jn 6:70; 13:2, 27; Jn 8:37-47)

June 16 Possible audience with the Latin Patriarch; Healings

• John’s Question 106 (Mt 11:2-6; Lk 7:18-23)
• The Paralytic 43/92 (Mt 9:1-8; Mk 2:1-12; Lk 5:17-26; Jn 5:1-9)
• The Man with the Withered Hand 47/112/298(/214) (Mt 12:9-14; Mk 3:1-6; Lk 6:6-11; Lk 14:1-6)
• The Woman with Osteoporosis 208 (Lk 13:10-17)
• The Centurion at Capernaum 85 (Mt 8:5-13; Lk 7:1-10; Jn 4:46-54)
• Bartimaeus 264/96 (Mt 9:27-31; Mt 9:27-31; Mk 10:46-52; Lk 18:35-43)
• Blind Man at Bethsaida 156 (Mk 8:22-26)
• The Man Born Blind 248 (Jn 9:1-41)
• The Leper 42/84 (Mt 8:1-4; Mk 1:40-45; Lk 5:12-16)
• The Ten Lepers 233 (Lk 17:11-19)
• Jairus’ Daughter and the Woman with a Hemorrhage 138/95 (Mt 9:18-26; Mk 5:21-43; Lk 8:40-56)
• Peter’s Mother-in-law 37/87 (Mt 8:14-15; Mk 5:21-43; Lk 4:38-39)
• The Deaf-Mute and Many Ill People 152 (Mt 15:29-31; Mk 7:31-37)
• The Widow’s Son of Nain 86 (Lk 7:11-17)
• The Raising of Lazarus 259/228 (Lk 16:19-31; Jn 11:1-45)
• The Ear of the High Priest’s Slave (Lk 22:51)

June 17 Study of St. Jerome, Basilica of the Nativity, the Milk Grotto, Bethlehem University, Herodion, Mar Saba
June 18 Feedings and Table Fellowship

• The Five Thousand 146 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:32-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15)
• The Four Thousand 153 (Mt 15:32-39; Mk 8:1-10)
• Cana 22 (John 2:1-11)
• Draught of Fish 41/34 (Lk 5:1-11; Jn 21:1-19)
• Call of Levi 44/93 (Mt 9:9-13; Mk 2:13-17; Lk 5:27-32; Lk 19:1-10)
• Bethany 267/306 (Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9; Lk 7:36-50; Jn 12:1-8)
• Zacchaeus 265 (Lk 19:1-10)
• John and Jesus 106/107 (Mt 11:2-19; Mk 1:2; Lk 7:18-35)
• Last Supper 311 (Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:15-25; Lk 22:15-20; Jn 6:51-59)

June 19 Commissions

• The First Disciples 34/41 (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11; Jn 1:35-51)
• The Twelve-call 49/99 (Mt 10:1-15; Mk 3:13-19; Lk 6:12-16; Acts 1:13)
• The Twelve-mission 99/142 (Mt 10:1-15; Mk 6:6-13; Lk 9:1-6)
• The Seventy 177/180 (Mt 9:37-38; 10:7-16; 11:20-24; 10:40; Lk 10:1-12-20; Jn 4:38; 13:20: 12:31)
• Sons of Zebedee 263 (Mt 20:20-28; Mark 20:35-45; Lk 12:50; 22:24-27; Jn 13:4-5, 12-17)

June 20 Free / Bethany, Bethphage, Mount of Olives
June 21 Sunday Free
June 22 Epiphanies

• Walking on the Water 147 (Mt 14:22-33; Mk 6:45-52; Jn 6:16-21)
• Stilling the Storm 136 (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25)
• Transfiguration (2 Pt 1:16-18) 161 (Mt 17:1-9; Mk 9:2-10; Lk 9:28-36)
• The Temple Tax 165 (Mt 17:24-27)
• Cursing the Fig Tree 272/275/207 (Mt 21:18-27; Mark 11:12-14, 20-33; Lk 13:6-9; 20:1-8; Jn 14:13-14; 15:7; 16:23 2:18-22)
• Peter’s Confession 158 (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30; Lk 9:18-21; Jn 6:67-71)

June 23 The Triumphal Entry, Temple Incident, Apocalypse

• Mt 21:1-22:46; Mk 11:1- 12:37; Lk 19:28-20:44
• Mt 24:1-36; Mk 13:1-32; Lk 21:1-33

June 24 Mass in Holy Tomb, Caesarea Maritima, Mount Carmel
June 25 Acre
June 26 Mount Gerizim, Nablus
June 27-28 Weekend Free
June 29 Hebron, Mamre
June 30 Bethany, Last Supper, Gethsemane

• Mt 26:1-56; Mk 14:1-52; Lk 22:1-53

July 1 Denials and Trials

• Mt 26:57-27:26; Mk 14:53-15:15; Lk 22:54-23:25

July 2 Johannine Passion

• Jn 11:55-19:16

July 3 Death, Burial, Resurrection

• Mt 27:27-28:20; Mk 15:16-16:8; Lk 23:26-24:43 Jn 19:16-20:29

July 4-5 Weekend Free
July 6 Tel Beer Sheva, Tel Arad
July 7 Masada, Qumran
July 8 Controversies

• Antitheses 54-59 (Mt 5:17-48; 19:3-12; Mk 11:25; 9:43-38; 10:2-12; Lk 16:16-18; 12:57-59; 6:27-361 Co 7:10-16)
• The Temple Tax 165 (Mt 17:24-27)
• Nicodemus 27 (Mt 22:16; 18:3; Mk 12:13-14; 10:15; Lk 20:20-21; 18:17; Jn 3:1-21)
• Washings 29 (Mt 9:15; Mk 2:19-20; Lk 5:34-35; Jn 3:23-36)
• Defilement 150 (Mt 15:1-20; Mk 7:1-23; Lk 11:37-41)
• Washing Hands 194 (Mt 15:1-9; 23:25-26, 23, 6-7, 27-28, 4, 29-6, 13, 15; Mk 7:1-9; Lk 11:37-54)
• The Man with the Withered Hand 47/112/298 (Mt 12:9-14; Mk 3:1-6; Lk 6:6-11; Lk 14:1-6)
• The Woman with Osteoporosis 208 (Lk 13:10-17)
• Plucking Grain 46/111 (Mt 12:1-8; Mk 2:23-28; Lk 6:1-5)
• Bethesda 141 (Jn 5:2-47)
• Sukkoth 240 (Jn 7:14-39)
• The Man Born Blind 248 (Jn 9:1-41)
• Sign of Jonah 119/191/154 (Mt 12:38-42; Mt 16:1-4; Mk 8:11-12; Lk 11:16, 29-32; 12:54-56; Jn 6:30)
• Seeking a Sign 154 (Mt 16:1-4; Mt 12:38-39; Mk 8:11-13; Lk 11:16; 12:54-56; 11:29; Jn 6:30)
• Fire Upon the Earth 204/102 (Mt 10:34-36; Mk 10:38; lk 12:49-53)
• Leaven 155 (Mt 16:5-12; Mk 8:14-21; Lk 12:1)

July 9 Blessings and Curses

• The Beatitudes 51/78/79 (Mt 5:3-12; Lk 6:20-26)
• Galilean Woes 108/178 (Mt 11:20-24; Lk 10:12-15)
• Jesus’ Mother 190 (Lk 11:27-28)
• Children 253/254 (Mt 19:13-22; Mk 10:13-22; Lk 18:15-23; Jn 2:3-5)
• Jerusalem 213 (Mt 23:37-39; Lk 13:34-35
• Woes 284 (Mt 23:1-36; Mk 12:37-40; Lk 20:45-47)

July 10 Parables

• Salt of the Earth 52/218 (Mt 5:13; Mk 9:49-50; Lk 14:34-35)
• Light of the World 53/125/192 (Mt 5:14-16; Mk 4:21; Lk 8:16; Lk 11:33; Jn 8:12)
• The Sower 122/123 (Mt 13:1-23; Mk 4:1-20; Lk 8:4-15; Jn 9:39; Jn 12:37-40)
• Mustard Seed 128/209 (Mt 13:31-32; Mk 4:30-32; Lk 13:18-19)
• Wicked Tenants 278 (Mt 21:33-46; Mk 12:1-12; Lk 20:9-19)
• New Cloth and Wineskins (Mt 9:16-17; Mk 2:21-22; Lk 5:36-38)
• The Shut Door 298 (Mt 25:1-13; Mk 13:33-37; Lk 12:35-38; 13:22-30)

July 11-12 Weekend Free
July 13 Jericho, Belvoir, Beth Alpha
July 14 Nazareth, Sepphoris, Horns of Hattin
July 15 Tabgha, Capharnaum, Mount of Beatitudes
July 16 Bethsaida, Caesarea Philippi, Dan
July 17 Hamat Gader, Kursi, Mount Tabor
July 18-19 Weekend Free
July 20-22 Parables

• House Built on Rock 75/83 (Mt 8:21-27; Lk 6:46-49)
• Leaven 129/210 (cf 128/209) (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:20-21)
• Lost Sheep 169/219/249 (Mt 18:10-14; Lk 15:1-7; Jn 10:1-18)
• Great Supper 216/279 (Mt 22:1-14; Lk 14:15-24)
• Unforgiving Steward 173/222 (Mt 18: 23-35; Lk 16:1-9)
• Pounds/Talents 266/299 (Mt 25:14-30; Mk 13:34; Lk 19:11-27)
• “As in the days of Noah” 296 (Mt 24:37-44; Lk 17:26-36; 12:35-40)
• Two Slaves 297 (Mt 24:45-51; Lk 12:41-46)
• Seed Growing Secretly (Mk 4:26-29)
• Tares (Mt 13:24-30; 36-43)
• Hidden Treaure/Pearl/Dragnet/Scribe (Mt 13:44-52)
• Laborers in the Vineyard (Mt 20:1-16)
• Two Sons (Mt 21:28-32)
• Sheep and Goats (Mt 25:31-46)
• The Scribe (Mt 13:53)
• Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37)
• Rich Fool (Lk 12:16-21)
• Lost Coin (Lk 15:8-10)
• Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32)
• Fig Tree (Lk 13:1-9)
• Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31)
• Importunate Widow (Lk 18:1-8)
• Friend at Midnight (Lk 11:5-8)
• Pharisee and Publican (Lk 18:9-14)
• Building a Tower (Lk 14:25-35
• Unworthy Servants (Lk 17:7-10)
• Two Debtors (Lk 7:41-43)

July 23 Infancy Narratives (cf. Protoevangelium of James)

• Genealogy 6 (Mt 1:2-17; Lk 3:23-38)
• Annunciation 2/3 (Lk 1:26-38; Lk 1:5-25)
• Visitation 4 (Lk 1:39-56)
• Births 5/7 (Mt 1:18-25; Lk 2:1-7; Lk 1:57-80)
• The Child Adored 8 (Mt 2:1-12; Lk 2:8-20; Jn 7:41-42)
• Nazareth 11 (Mt 2:22-23; Lk 2:39-38
• Whence the Christ? 241 (Jn 7:40-52)

July 24 Kerak, Petra
July 25 Petra, Shobak
July 26 Jerash
July 27 Mount Nebo, Madaba
July 28-29 Free Days
July 30 Departure

Contra Q

Despite my delay in posting, I actually finished Goodacre some time ago. There is lots to be done before leaving the Farm! Yesterday, for example, was my debut as a preacher at University Public Worship. It was challenging since it's been a while since I've preached to a non-Catholic congregation. Besides the usual grammatical hazards of personal pronouns and attributions to God, I really had to think about what I could say (and not say) about Jesus, the Resurrection and Ascension. There was also the added challenge of it been Memorial Day weekend. All in all, I enjoyed the challenge and my preaching seems to have been well received. I'm preaching next weekend at home for the last time before leaving on this marvelous trip. More about that in upcoming posts.

To the business at hand: Q. Chapter 6, where Goodacre discusses the evidence against Q, is the longest chapter in the book. I am not going to try and summarize section by section. He states that the case against Q, as the case for its existence, is not definitive. As I was reading, I was reminded of the classical philosophical principle near and dear to my heart (and mind): Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is the philosophical version of the contemporary KISS Principle (i.e., Keep It Simple, Stupid). I was delighted to turn the page toward the end of the chapter to see him invoke it in his summary! But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here are some highlights:

• If one posits that Matthew and Luke drew independently from Mark, the Q hypothesis is a needed to explain the agreements between them (i.e., the Double Tradition material). In Goodacre's view, there is little evidence today that supports the assumption of Matthaean and Lucan independence.
• The standard arguments for Q's existence are inflated in terms of their persuasiveness by those who hold the existence of Q (going all the way back to B.H. Streeter) and they also underestimate the evidence of Luke's use of Matthew.
• Markan priority stands on solid scholarly ground; the existence of Q gains credibility simply by association. Entrenchment of Q happens on the unjustified assumption that the Two Source Theory is correct.
• The positive arguments of Luke's knowledge of Matthew:

1. there are many so-called "minor agreements" between Matthew and Luke against Mark; there are particularly strong ones in the Passion narratives which by definition cannot come from Q, which is supposedly a "Sayings Gospel" like Thomas.
2. passages where Mark is not the middle term, i.e., pericopae occurring in all three Synoptics that feature substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark (e.g., John the Baptist: Mt. 3:11-12, Mk. 1:7-8 and Lk. 3:16-17).

• Q seems to have a narrative frame, which goes against the starting assumption that it is only a source of sayings.
  
• There are places where Matthew and Luke in copying material from Mark inadvertently kept Markan language; there also seem to be places where Luke does the same when drawing material from Matthew. There are no contrary examples in Matthew.
  

Goodacre may as well have titled his last chapter "Occam's Razor in the Synoptic Maze." (Given the cogency of the evidence he presented, he could have easily done a chapter called "Using Occam's Razor To Cut Q Down to Size.") Positive effects of renewed scholarship in the area:

• A more proper appreciation literary abilities of each Evangelist;
• Incorporating the important content of oral tradition into this area;
• Refreshing interesting in the Synoptic Problem in general in the community of scholars.

All of this makes me more excited to roll up my sleeves and get in there!

2009 Clergy Study Days

I am currently taking a "break" from my Jerusalem preparations to attend the annual Study Week of the Diocese of San Jose. The topic this year is youth and young adult ministry. The talks Monday and Tuesday were given by Mike Hayes of Busted Halo. He was very interesting. A predictable dynamic occurred: the older priests were overwhelmed and/or mystified by blogging, Twitter, podcasts and the like, when the younger guys nodded in agreement. I got no end of good natured ribbing by two of the senior fathers for bringing my laptop (as opposed to pen and paper) to the sessions to take my notes. The San Jose Diocese just revamped its website and is trying to embrace these technologies (which is good since we "are" Silicon Valley and Bishop McGrath is on Twitter!).

This group of priests is, on the whole, a very edifing one. Being a religious, I have been part of many presbyterates. They have a sense of camaraderie and unity that I have not experienced elsewhere. They hold diocesan events like these study days in high value and make attendance and participation a high value. It has much to do with the "founding fathers" and early days of the diocese (founded in 1981), the first bishop, Pierre DuMaine and its current bishop. They are welcoming of religious (some diocesan priests see religious priests as almost enemies) and of the great ethnic diversity of the people of diocese. It is no accident that they have the highest number of seminarians of the local dioceses (who are also welcomed at things like this).

So I'll be back to "things Jerusalem" this weekend with my last entry on Goodacre, Contra Q...

Q: Not just from James Bond or Star Trek

I must begin with a confession: everything I learned about Q, I learned outside of the classroom. My venerable Intro. to the New Testament and Synoptics professor, Fr. Sam Parsons, made no more than passing references to the hypothetical common source of Matthaean & Lukan material not found in Mark. I am much more familiar with the Q's of fiction. So this and the next entry are much more a reporting (as opposed to commenting) on what I have read.

In chapter 5, Goodacre summarizes the arguments in favor of the existence of Q, the now-lost source of the Double Tradition material, that is the roughly 200-250 verses that appear in both Matthew's and Luke's Gospel but not in Mark's. There are three possibilities to explain the material:

1. Matthew used Luke
2. Luke used Matthew
3. Matthew & Luke used Q

He states that the case for Q rests on the assumption that Matthew and Luke both drew on Mark, but did so independently, therefore most of the traditional arguments for the existence of Q are arguments against #2, with no one seriously arguing for #1. He summarizes six arguments:

• Negative arguments

1. Luke's use of Double Tradition material is inexplicable if one assumes Luke used Matthew (Matthew's use is in neatly structured blocks; in Luke it is disparate. Matthew places the material within a Markan context, while Luke does not [e.g., Matthew's Sermon on the Mount versus Luke's Sermon on the Plain.])
2. Luke seems unaware of Matthew's additions to Mark.
   
3. Luke does not use any of the unique material from Matthew. (Why did this happen if Luke knew Matthew?)
4. Both Matthew & Luke seem to have alternatively older material. (Easily explained if one assumes a common source from which they drew independently.)

• Positive arguments
  

1. Some independent source, with a distinct theology, history, genre and character, makes its presence felt in the Synoptics.
2. Redaction criticism: the study of how the author (Luke and Matthew) used and edited source material with a eye toward explaining the author's theology, which many scholars have done successfully by assuming the existence of Q.

While all of this was interesting since I had not previously come across such a succinct sets of arguments for Q, I found his discussion of the linguistic style Q proponents more interesting. Goodacre points out that there is a great deal of "over the top" rhetoric in the discussion of Q. He sees reasons for it:

• Arguments of the Q's existence tend to be material where there are serious word limitations (e.g., book introductions and biblical dictionaries) so "rhetorical questions and overstatements stand in for patient argumentation." (p. 119)
• Conscious or unconscious imitation of B.H. Streeter who famously (famous to New Testament scholars, perhaps, but not to this friar!) argued against Luke's use of Matthew in 1924 and who is much quoted in the field.
• Frustration by a Q-positing majority (near consensus?!) of scholars (who therefore also see the Two-Source theory as the best explanation of the Synoptic Problem) at a small, persistent group of "Q skeptics." (pp. 120-121)
• It performs of the function of telling a student/reader at glance how implausible Luke's knowledge of Matthew is commonly held to be.
  

Venerable, emigmatic Mark

Not you, O'Leary, though you are both! :-)

I've just finished Goodacre's synthesis (chapters 3 & 4) of the case for and against Markan Priority (i.e., the Gospel of Mark was written first) and how much good scholarship can come from and how much more things make sense by taking it as a starting point. It was interesting to note that he outright admits the circumstantiality (if that is even a word; if not, hopefully you see what I mean) of the evidence: it explains things most neatly, yet there is nothing conclusive that points to it (p. 71). This stands in marked contrast to those who follow the so-called Quest for the Historical Jesus, who so often make dogmatic, absolute statements (even as they assume Markan Priority and that earlier material is necessarily better, more "authentic"). I found his discussion of the "convicting" factor (scribal fatigue of Triple Tradition material) convincing. It strikes me that even with its clarity, it too could be put into the category of circumstantial evidence, albeit with more difficulty than his previous points.

The section that most caught my attention, as a longtime wannabe amateur patrologist, was on the Fathers, who favored Mattaean Priority. First, it was nice to see a contemporary Scripture scholar take patristic sources seriously. I don't remember seeing that when I was in school. Goodacre's discussion was knowledgeable and nuanced. He takes the Fathers and their authority seriously while pointing out that they very different ends in mind than contemporary readers of the Bible (establishing and maintaining the authenticity and authority of the four canonical Gospels in a time when other gospels, e.g. Gospel of Thomas, were in circulation). It made me wonder too about texts that the various Fathers had access to. The citations/translations of Scripture within patristic writings vary from easily recognizable to almost paraphrases of modern texts. I am sure some of it is due to the translation into English, but in my experience of reading the Fathers, while no means exhaustive, seems to point to significant textual variation between the Fathers themselves. (Does editorial fatigue, or something akin to it, in the transmission of patristic texts play a role?)

I had never heard the term redaction-criticism used at the beginning of chapter 4. Reflecting on my Synoptics class from the venerable Fr. Sam Parsons (a decade and a half ago!), I think I would appreciate this approach, given his almost exclusive pedagogical emphasis on The Text. I appreciated that Goodacre suggested a method (pp. 90-91). The discussion of textual criticism was interesting. A friend asked how close scholars were to having a critical "critical edition" of the Bible; I confess I don't know, but it seems germane in a discussion of this subject.

A couple of interesting points from the chapters:

• Only in Mark does Jesus use physical agents like saliva in his healings (p. 60)
• Mark's mention of Simon of Cyrene (Mk. 15:21) as the father of Alexander and Rufus, which goes against Scriptural norms (people are identified by their parents), which reasonably assumes that Alexander and Rufus are known to the Mark's audience (p.70)
• There is no tradition of variation within the Fathers when naming the Gospels (p. 78)
  

Coloring: Not Just for Kids

I delved into Goodacre this weekend. I was pleasantly surprised that I remembered a good deal of material he covered, at least in the early chapters. He talked about the definition of the Synoptic Problem, the Two-Source Theory (to Q or not to Q, that is a question), Markan vs. Matthaean Priority and the like. So far, so good. There were two tidbits that I had either forgotten or were new to me:

• the so-called "historic present tense," used in Mk & Mt to speak of past events in the present tense (something to look for, I think, as I begin my study)
• the actual definition of pericope: an order of accounts (I've used the word, but without knowing it's meaning)
  

So about the title of this entry. In the second chapter, Goodacre suggests coloring the text of a synopsis according to whether a word or phrase is either unique to one of the synoptic Gospels or is shared between two or all three of them. I have a problem with this: not with the theory (enabling one to see differences and similarities in the text at a glance), but with the actual execution. I have real trouble marking a book with pen, pencil or highlighter. This aversion is very deep seated in me. I felt troubled reading Goodacre's suggestion and glancing over at the brand new, pristine, hardcover synopsis I recently purchased for the course. I was comforted when I thought that I can do this same task on the software I also just bought. No book will be harmed in this process; all I have to do is to learn how to use the program!

On a more serious note, I am curious about the value of this exercise in a translation. I can certainly see its usefulness with a critical-edition Greek text (if there is such a thing), but a translator may render an identical word or phrase differently in different contexts. I suppose this is where something like Strong's Numbers come in handy, to see where the same word appears and how the same word or phrase is translated in various places. Perhaps this is why our professor, Fr. Gregory, says he prefers using the RSV translation for classes, since it is more literal and so (presumably) is more consistent in rendering words and phrases in the same way than translations designed for purposes other than study, like public proclamation (e.g., the NAB used for Mass readings).

Good Shepherd Sunday

Just a quick update for Sunday, in between the three liturgies I have today.

I made it to REI yesterday afternoon and got the pants I was looking for. The sale was so good I was able to get a shirt and a belt too. My dinner with friends went well; lots of good conversation and pictures. Good advice too.

This year I been following the adventures of a Stanford grad I met when I served the Catholic Community from 2002 to 2005. He and a group of friends have been traveling around Asia living on what they can earn as temporary workers, staying in one country no longer than three months. The project is called Jet Set Zero. It has been quite something to follow, especially when they could not find work in Tokyo earlier this year and the riots they have witnessed over the last few days in Seoul. These riots, which I have only heard about through them, sound horrendous. There is frequently talk on campus about the so-called "Stanford bubble;" how easy it is to get so absorbed in all things Stanford that one forgets there is a world outside. I think we in the United States live in a similar bubble with regard to the rest of the world. There is so much happening around the globe that we miss, either because it's not covered by the media or we simply put it outside of our consciousness. I thought of this on my way home from Mass this morning when I saw a homeless man begging in the "usual" spot of another man. How many people go by them with no notice? How many times have I driven by him "pretending" I don't see him? Fortunately Jesus Christ, our Good Shepherd, is more attentive and responsive to us, His errant sheep. Thank God! But it does not excuse us.

On the lighter side, I was reflecting on the title I almost gave this blog, "A Friar Cardinal-Priest in Jerusalem." While I think it's cute and clever, I expect it would have drawn some folks who would be disappointed in the content once they got here. This was, only those who know and care about me will follow it. I am touched (seriously!) that in my first 24 hours as a blogger, I have 5 committed "followers." I've never had followers before! :-)

Well, I guess I should stop procrastinating and do some reading before I head back for Mass.

In the beginning...

First, a word of thanks to all who have made this trip a reality: Fr. Gregory, our professor and the instigator of this program, Fr. Emmerich, our Provincial, Fr. Richard, the chair of our Province's Intellectual Life Commission and the brothers and lay staff who will be covering our ministries while we're away. We could not do this without you! Thank you. Also, a word of thanks to Fr. Bartholomew whose beginning of a blog gave me the idea and impetus to do the same. (Visit the first entry of his blog for our syllabus and itinerary).

"After these days we made ready and went up to Jerusalem." (Acts 21:15) That's where we are at the moment, preparing for our June departure. I am beginning by reading one of the books our esteemed prof suggested: The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze by Mark Goodacre. I hope to get to REI this afternoon to take advantage of the sale for a pair of travel pants. I also have to learn the software (Accordance) I purchased for this trip; I may have to sacrifice a day off for that. It caught my attention last week when I saw in the newspaper the flight that Fr. Steve and I will be on was diverted shortly after takeoff from New York because of a man who charged the cockpit. We are traveling to a volatile part of the world. Tonight I am having dinner with two friends who traveled to Jerusalem two summers ago. They are sharing some pictures (they promised not TOO many) with me. They also recommend a couple of historical/devotional books. Each of these kinds of things brings this trip just a little bit closer. But if my previous trips are any indication, I won't be able to focus on the deeper meaning of the trip until just a few days just before leaving. In the mean time, I will focus on the practicalities (Like, Do I have everything I need for class and gallivanting around the environs of Jerusalem? or Will the 2nd couple whose wedding I have the day after I return wait until the last minute to plan their ceremony?).