The Four Living Creatures

[kafka]

{1:10} But as for the likeness of their face, there was the face of a man, and the face of a lion on the right of each of the four, then the face of an ox on the left of each of the four, and the face of an eagle above each of the four.

This verse from the Prophecy of Ezekial has been attributed as a prophecy of the four Gospels of Jesus Christ, written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Traditionally the Gospel of Mathew is interpreted as the man, Mark's the lion, Luke's the ox, and John's the eagle.

A couple of years ago my Sicilian friend came up with a new interpretation which I agree with and have added too. He came up with the idea that the four living creatures have something to do with the location in which they were written. So,

~Mathew's Gospel was written in Judea. In Jewish tradition, the lion was the symbol of tribe of Judah which eventually settled in a region they named Judea:
{49:9} Judah is a lion’s young. You have gone up to the prey, my son. While resting, you have lain like a lion. And just like a lioness, who would rouse him?
Therefore Mathew's Gospel is symbolized by the lion.

~Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. The eagle was a symbol of the Roman Empire, therefore Mark's Gospel is symbolized by the eagle.

~Luke's Gospel was written in a Grecian province. Oxen were highly prized in ancient Crete, and soon became a symbol for the Hellenistic culture in general. Therefore Luke's Gospel is symbolized by the ox.

The three synoptic Gospels are symbolized by animals, some material can be found in all three, just as animals all possess the same general nature.

~John's Gospel is not called Synoptic, and is symbolized by a man, since he writes in an abstract, lofty and transcendent manner, just as human nature is supreme above animal nature. He wrote His Gospel a considerable amount of time after Mathew, Mark, and Luke wrote theirs. Whereas the Synoptics were focused on writing to particular groups of people, John knew He was writing for the entire Church, hence his unique style and approach of conveying truths.

Edited February 23, 2009 by kafka

[CatherineM]

Interesting way to look at it. There are some scholars that believe Mark was written in rural Syria, but since it was still to a Gentile audience, so mostly Romans maybe. I'm one who believes it was in fact written in Rome.

[kafka]

It is said that Mark's Gospel was influenced by Saint Peter, though he wrote it while Peter was from Rome for the winter preaching the Gospel somewhere. It is also said that Mark's Gospel was influenced by Mathew's Gospel, since Mathew's Gospel was written well before Mark's and would have been in circulation in Rome where there was a thriving Christian community. Mark grew up in Judea, hence He would have understood the Hebrew of Mathew's Gospel. Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin and he probably translated Mathew's Gospel into Latin, and that would account for some minor differences in otherwise similar passages. That view makes sense to me.

Edited February 23, 2009 by kafka

[kafka]

Here is a verse of the Four Living Creatures taken from the Book of Revelation:

{4:7} And the first living creature resembled a lion, and the second living creature resembled a calf, and the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature resembled a flying eagle.

[CatherineM]

The synoptic problem is not definitively decided on Matthew being the first gospel. It is obvious when reading the first 3 gospels that they have many similar passages. The “synoptic problem” refers to the attempt to discern in what way these writings are related. One possible solution is the existence of a proto-Gospel that all three evangelists made use of. Another solution is the Griesbach Hypothesis where Matthew was written first, Luke drew upon Matthew, and Mark is an abbreviated form of Matthew and Luke. The two source hypothesis deems Mark to be the original that Matthew and Luke drew from with the addition of sayings of Jesus taken from a document called the Q materials.
While none of the hypotheses solve all the construction issues, I believe that the Two Source Hypothesis is the most likely. First, most scholars believe that Mark was written first. Early church tradition puts the date of Mark to before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This is based partially on Mark 13 where Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple, but no where in Mark are there any additional references that point to the author having knowledge of the actual physical destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Mark’s Jesus uses the term, “desolating sacrilege” to describe the coming destruction. Desolation is the same term used in the book of Daniel 11:31 to describe the Temple’s mere desecration in 167 BC.
Some scholars interpret Matthew 22:7, where an enraged king burns their city, as a reference to the destruction of the Temple. If it does, that would place the date of Matthew later than Mark. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1911 held that an Aramaic version of Matthew was probably written before 70AD. At that time in the Church there was a fear that acceptance of the two source hypothesis being proposed by Protestant scholars might call into question the actual authorship of Matthew. The thinking being that Matthew as an actual witness would not need to copy from Mark, who was not an Apostle. Since the promulgation of Dei Verbum in 1965, Catholic scholars have primarily held with Marcan priority.
Unless some new discovery in archeology uncovers an actual copy of the Q materials, or some type of proto-gospel, we will be unable to definitively settle upon either primary hypothesis.

[kafka]

to me, those above hypothesis is a good example of modern biblical scholarship gone astray. This is an example of scholarship being exalted above faith. These modern scholars dismiss the testimony of Eusibeus and Jerome that Mathew was written first. They dismiss that Mark would have been very young and likely not able because of circumstance to write the Gospel before Mathew's. No copy of the Q-source even exists today. It is pure hypothetical source material and treated as if it truly existed, and could in a way be reconstructed and even like a fifth Gospel. These scholars lack faith. They in there unfaithfullness act as if Christ could not prophesize the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, therefore Mathew must have written it after 70 a.d. and after Mark.

I dissent from them with a raging dissent. It is a part of the Living Tradition that Mathew's Gospel was first Mark's second, Luke's third, and John's last. It is the testimony of holy men such as Jerome and Eusebius who lived much closer to the event of the writing of the Gospels than our unashamedly modern puffed up scholars did.

[kafka]

double post.

Edited February 23, 2009 by kafka

[CatherineM]

I am aware that no copy of the theorized Q has ever been found, but new discoveries are being made all the time, so I remain hopeful that someday it may be found. Scholars have not lost their faith just because they do not agree with you. Things such as redaction criticism, composition criticism, and emendation analysis have just given us new insights.

I know that a lot of early sources thought that Matthew was first, but perhaps that was because the early church power was in the Jewish community that Matthew wrote to/for. What makes more sense - that Matthew and Luke, which are much longer than Mark, and of a higher style of writing, more refined in grammar, etc., were first, and then Mark takes these higher writings, and edits them down, and simplifies the language, or that Matthew and Luke took the cruder, shorter Mark, and expanded and refined it?

Marcan priority vs. the two gospel hypothesis is hardly a matter of dogma that will destroy the church if we find out definitively one way or the other.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1789123' date='Feb 23 2009, 12:52 AM']I am aware that no copy of the theorized Q has ever been found, but new discoveries are being made all the time, so I remain hopeful that someday it may be found. Scholars have not lost their faith just because they do not agree with you. Things such as redaction criticism, composition criticism, and emendation analysis have just given us new insights.

I know that a lot of early sources thought that Matthew was first, but perhaps that was because the early church power was in the Jewish community that Matthew wrote to/for. What makes more sense - that Matthew and Luke, which are much longer than Mark, and of a higher style of writing, more refined in grammar, etc., were first, and then Mark takes these higher writings, and edits them down, and simplifies the language, or that Matthew and Luke took the cruder, shorter Mark, and expanded and refined it?

Marcan priority vs. the two gospel hypothesis is hardly a matter of dogma that will destroy the church if we find out definitively one way or the other.[/quote]
the acts of, the hypothesis of, the way in which they treat S.S. are proves of modern scholar's unfathfulness. It has nothing to do with them disagreeing with me. They disagree with an entire tradition (little t) rooted in the earlier beliefs and teachings of the Fathers and rooted in sound reason. The Q-text will never be found, for their are and only will be only four Gospels as is taught in the symbols of the four living creatures of God's infallible Sacred Scripture.

Mathew was first. Mark was influenced by Mathew, and Luke was influenced by Mathew and Mark. And John's Gospel was influenced by none of them, since by his time of composing his Gospel he knew that their Gospels were not only for particular groups of people but for the entire Church for all times. Therefore John wrote with the view he was writing for the entire Church for all times.

The three Synoptic Gospels are a reflection of the Holy Trinity.

The Gospel of Matthew represents the Father who is first in procession. Matthew was a Jew presenting the New Testament in the light of the Old Testament. Jesus is presented as the Son of the Father, who led the Jews in Old Testament times, and who promised to send His Son as Messiah.

The Gospel of Mark represents the Son who is second in procession. Mark focuses on the earthly ministry of Jesus, omitting his childhood, and emphasizes the actions of Christ as the Son of God Incarnate.

The Gospel of Luke represents the Holy Spirit, who is third in procession. Luke presents the early events which prepared for the ministry of the Messiah, especially the Incarnation, which occurred by the power of the Spirit, and also the visitation, when John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit, and also the Magnificant, when Mary spoke in the Spirit, and the presentation in the Temple, when Simeon prophesied in the Spirit.

The Gospel of John represents the Divine Nature, which is One and is shared by all three persons of the Trinity. John's Gospel is heavenly and abstract, teaching that the Nature of God is Love.

Three Synoptic Gospels represent the Three Divine Persons. One non-Synoptic Gospel representing the One Divine Nature shared by the Three Divine Persons.