reading Brown pp.

ix-xi (preface), xv-xxiii (introductory background material),

xxv-xxvii (maps), 1-97 (up through chapter nine).

In the first, please state:

● the single thing from the reading that surprised you the most, and why.

Surprise

According to Brown, the Gospel of Mark was likely written before the Gospel of Matthew
(page 38 and 45) This surprised me because my previous exposures to the bible have
left me with the impression that it is organized chronologically, thus with Matthew having
been written first. I had previously noticed the similarities between the Gospels and
wondered about how they had ended up quite so similar and the Marcan Priority along
with the Two-Source Hypothesis makes a lot of sense in answering that question.

In the second, please state:

● one thing from the reading that you have a question about, either because it is
not clear to you or because it piques your curiosity.

Question

According to Brown there is a significant amount of overlap in the details between the
Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke pointing toward a Two-Source Theory, a
shared source, for their writings referred to as Q (pages 39-43) My questions are, who
is purported to have compiled this Q reference to begin with? Who were they and what
was their role during the time period? Was it assembled by a single person or a group?
This is an interesting concept I have not run across before.

In the third, please state:

 ● a main point or take-away from the reading that you find to be particularly
significant, and why.

Main Point

It is addressed in the introduction (page xiv) that there are multiple translations of the
Bible and New Testament that all have slightly different interpretations of the text that
may vary from canonical Scripture. According to Brown “the most appropriate
translation must be judged from one’s purpose in reading”. I find this main point to be
particularly significant because growing up in a Non-Denominational/Evangelical church
I was taught that the New International Version was the “right” version and all of the
others were sub-par, though it was never explained to me why they thought this. Seeing
the various versions listed out on pages xvi-xviii with a bit of information regarding their
history and differences was very enlightening.

Brown pp.98-209 (up through chapter twenty-four)

In the first, please state:

● the single thing from the reading that surprised you the most, and why.

Surprise

According to Brown the Gospel of Luke and Acts both address the period of Jesus’
ascension but on completely different timelines (page 99). This surprised me because it
feels like there should be better continuity in the depiction of events within a single
document. I have trouble thinking of this as a compilation of different sources rather
than a single cohesive document.

In the second, please state:

● one thing from the reading that you have a question about, either because it is
not clear to you or because it piques your curiosity.

Question
According to Brown, John II and III are both written by someone described as “the
presbyter” (page138). I assume this is related to where the Presbyterian denomination
got its roots. This piqued my interest and made me wonder what the origin of the
various christian denominations are, what order they popped up in, and how they have
evolved over the years.

In the third, please state:

● a main point or take-away from the reading that you find to be particularly
significant, and why.

Main Point

In chapter 15 Brown addresses the order and formatting of the various texts that
compose the New Testament, and that many of them are letters addressed to specific
people or regions (page 144-147). I find this main point to be particularly significant
because it clarifies a cognitive dissonance I have of wanting to picture the Bible as a
single document, when it is in fact a collection of related but targeted documents.

Module 4.1: reading Brown pp.210-310 (up through appendix ii).

In the first, please state:

● the single thing from the reading that surprised you the most, and why.

Surprise

One thing that I found particularly surprising was the idea that authorship could be
considered a loose attribution rather than specifically the person that penned a
document (page 210-212). This surprised me because today authorship is a much
tighter concept where the author or authors are those that specifically wrote down the
ideas. I suppose the older interpretation could be more related to today's concept of
intellectual property.
In the second, please state:

● one thing from the reading that you have a question about, either because it is
not clear to you or because it piques your curiosity.

Question

According to Brown, “Many people read it as a guide to how the world will end,
assuming that Christ gave the author detailed knowledge of the future that is
communicated in coded symbols.” (page 284). Later in the same chapter he addresses
that “Nevertheless, throughout Christian history some have taken the thousand years of
Rev quite literally and speculated about it.” This piqued my interest and made me
wonder why humans are so intent on finding some sort of proof that declares that they
are the ones living at the end of the world. It is a theme that can be seen across
religions and cultures throughout time, and each time “the end” scoots on by we simply
come up with a new explanation for “the end”.

In the third, please state:

● a main point or take-away from the reading that you find to be particularly
significant, and why.

Main Point

One main point Brown addresses across the rest of these chapters is an interpretation
nicely laid out in II Peter stating ““All prophecy of Scripture is not a matter of one’s own
interpretation; for not ever is prophecy brought forth by human will; rather people who
were car-ried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (page 281) I find this main point
to be particularly significant because it highlights to me an idea that is still closely held
today by many, that the biblical stories are divinely inspired, and not simply the
perspective of those who penned them.
1 Corinthians 7

25 Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one
who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that, in view of the impending[e] crisis,
it is well for you to remain as you are. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be
free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin,
and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in
this life,[f] and I would spare you that. 29 I mean, brothers and sisters,[g] the appointed
time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they
had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who
rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no
possessions, 31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with
it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

Matthew 24

36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the
Son,[h] but only the Father. 37 For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the
Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39 and they knew
nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the
Son of Man. 40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. 41
Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. 42
Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day[i] your Lord is coming. 43 But
understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief
was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken
into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an
unexpected hour.

Mark 13

32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son,
but only the Father. 33 Beware, keep alert;[f] for you do not know when the time will
come.
I agree that the authors of the New Testament held differing beliefs about when the
parousia and eschaton would occur. After reviewing various passages within the New
Testament, I found surprising differences in some books, and surprising similarities in
others. For example, in Mark 13 verse 32-33 it reads “But about that day or hour no one
knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert;
for you do not know when the time will come.” and in Matthew 24 verse 36 says ““But
about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but
only the Father.” and verse 44 says “Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of
Man is coming at an unexpected hour.” The similarities between the phrasing in these
passages supports the hypothesis that both books were written based off of similar
source material. The passages are fairly clear in their statement that the time and date
for the parousia and eschaton are unknown, and we must simply wait in anticipation
until it finally occurs. These passages are in contrast to 1 Corinthians chapter 7 verses
29 which states “I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short;”.
This phrasing suggests to me that Paul was under the impression that the end days
were upon him, or would occur quite soon. My non-expert interpretation believes these
differences may have developed because of the time that had passed between when
Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, and when Mark and Matthew wrote their
gospels. Paul’s first letter was written roughly around late 56 to early 57 ce (Brown, page
186) whereas the Gospel of Mark was written most likely between 68 and 73 ce (Brown,
page 45) and the Gospel of Matthew was likely written between 80 and 90 ce (Brown,
page 59). If Paul was speculating that the time was near in 56-57 and a decade or more
had passed before the other two were written, Paul’s claim had already been mostly
refuted using most typical interpretations of “short”. It gives the claims made by Mark
and Matthew a bit more weight if they don't try to pin down when things will actually
occur and just say “it will happen at some point”. Based on these several verses it
shows that while the various authors were in agreement that some sort of parousia and
eschaton events would occur, they were in disagreement over when they would
ultimately occur.

.... I understand this passage to mean .... Second, in (book, chapter, verse/s) .... I
interpret this passage like so: .... Though I may not be an expert, my educated guess is
that these different beliefs could have developed as follows: ....

I concur that Titus and 1 Timothy are almost definitely not Paul's work. For instance,
within the undisputed letters of Paul there is the following reference to women's roles
and/or the place of marriage: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for
them to remain unmarried as I am.” (1 Corinthians, 7, 8). Compare that with this other
reference from the disputed pastoral epistles: “So I would have younger widows marry,
bear children, and manage their households, so as to give the adversary no occasion to
revile us.” (1 Timothy, 5, 14). The second does not fit with the first because in Timothy
he is explicitly stating that a young widow should remarry, which completely contradicts
his letter to the Corinthinans where he states that it is totally fine to remain unmarried.
Both books are quite explicit and clear, and they most definitely do not agree. About
possible motives, I think the pseudepigrapher may have wanted to specifically address
younger widows who have more sexual potential than older widows, as that age detail is
explicitly called out in Timothy where it is not in 1 Corinthians. As for the question of any
intent to deceive, my thoughts are that it is possible that the author believed he was
explaining consistent Pauline doctrine but allowed personal bias to slip in without
realizing it. In my non expert opinion I believe it can be very easy to put a personal spin
on a subject when attempting to re-explain a subject, and it would make sense that
there was no specific intent to deceive readers.

I concur that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. For instance, this is clear to me
in case study 2, from the assigned reading, where Matthew (chapter 13, verses 13-16)
and Luke (chapter 9, verses 18-20) evidently follow Mark (chapter 8, verses 27-29), with
very minor alterations. Within these verses the phrasing is incredibly similar, even word
for word at some points.

One minor but notable difference that I noticed is a passage on the Transfiguration.
Matthew Chapter 17 verse 1 and Mark Chapter 9 verse 2 both state a timeframe of six
days before Jesus ascended the Mountain with Peter and James and the two passages
are almost verbatim. Luke references the scene very similarly but with a timeframe of
eight days. Between these three similar writings Matthew is the most verbose which
accounts for the slight deviations between books, but those deviations are only in how
wordy the verses are, not the content discussed. This much shared content would
surely get students today thrown out of school without proper citation, and a firm
talking-to regarding original content even if they did cite.