1.) Jesus is portrayed differently in each synoptic gospel, he may be a suffering messiah in Mark, the true messiah of Israel in Matthew, or the true Messiah of Israel. The portrayal of Jesus may change throughout the gospels, but his word remains the same. Jesus was adamant in getting across a message of loving one's neighbor, and not being stuck on tradition or rules. Jesus was an innovative thinker, and created a social uproar amongst the traditional society he preached to. Much like a modern Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus was not liked for the ideas of acceptance and love he taught.

2.) Jesus is hope for tomorrow.

3.) Messiah

This course has changed a lot of what I thought about the gospels, Jesus, and Religion. I always thought that Matthew, Mark, and Luke just wrote the same things with slight variations. I had no idea that the redaction, omissions, and additions of the authors were part of historical-criticism. Historical-criticism helped me see the bigger picture in why the gospels were written in different ways and the communities they were written toward. Also, I had no idea that Q existed and it makes much more sense knowing why some stories were only found in Matthew or Luke. I am glad that I have a better understanding about the synoptic gospels because it helped me expand my views on Jesus and religion.

I always thought the authors of the synoptic gospels portrayed Jesus in the same way, and that he was always thought of to be mighty and powerful. However, when I looked at Jesus in the way he is portrayed in Mark, I see a suffering man. This does not make me think any less of Jesus, it helps me think of him in a different way. Jesus meant something different to each author which helped me learn that his message was what really mattered. Also, I enjoyed focusing on the hardships of Jesus's mission and what it meant for him to stand against the social norm of that time. It makes me think of Jesus in a more relatable way, where before I thought of him as a holy being who I had little in common with.

The way in which we explored the different gospels and views on Jesus helped me strengthen my personal views on religion. I know that there is content in Matthew and Luke that was not found in Mark, and instead of being skeptical I understand that Q is a valid source for Matthew and Luke. This course also helped me understand what it means to be Catholic. I understand that the Catholic church has rules, but not to get so caught up in the rules that I forget the message altogether. For me, I want to do what Jesus taught and act out kindness in my everyday life. Overall, this course helped me gain knowledge not only about the Synoptic Gospels, but about Jesus and the Catholic religion as well.

Shelly Dunne

Synoptic Gospels 124-08

April 9, 2010

Exegesis Paper- The Call Of Levi (Matthew to Mark)

The story I selected to analyze for my pericope is number forty four, The Call of Levi (Matthew), because it embodies a good portion of Jesus’ message of loving one’s neighbor. This story is mainly about how Jesus called Matthew (Levi), a tax collector, to join him at his table. What caught my eye about this pericope was what Jesus says in response to the Pharisees when they question why Jesus is eating with sinners, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” This pericope has a lot to do with Jesus’ mission to spread the good news to everyone, especially those who need it the most. By eating with the sinners and tax collectors, Jesus is causing a stir in society and is sending the message that he must give special love and attention to those who need it. Jesus is helping the outcasts in society, which is one example of his undying love for God’s children. It inspires me to give the mercy God always gives me, and hope others will show me the same.

Many scholars agree that the Synoptic Gospels share a similar literary relationship, due to the verbal agreement and order of episodes between the gospels. However, some scholars disagree on the order of which gospel came first and who copied from whom, so there are many different hypotheses. These disagreements and diversity of the order between the different hypotheses is called the Synoptic Problem. Out of the three different hypothesis, I chose to explain Matthew and Mark through is the Two Document Hypothesis for my source criticism. This hypothesis assumes that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a source called “Q” to write the gospels, and never saw each other’s work. In order for this theory to work, we assume that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke and Mark did not use “Q”. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that Matthew and Luke do not agree against Mark in his wording, and when both authors use Q, they place the sayings in a different place relative to Mark. For example, when Matthew relocates an episode or saying in Mark, Luke’s episode or saying will be similar in location to Mark’s. Also, those sayings are not the same relative to Mark’s sequence, but when looked at independently share similar sequence, proving Matthew and Luke used “Q” but not Mark. In contrast to Matthew, Mark does not have any sources to compare to because Mark was written before Matthew and Luke and he did not know of “Q”. Therefore, Mark’s gospel paints a different picture because it was written in an earlier time when the parousia was imminent and the audience was mainly Jewish. The Two Document Hypothesis supports this order of Mark coming first, never using “Q”, and Matthew and Luke using both sources without ever seeing each other work. Also, this unique order allows me to see the features of a gospel like Mark and Matthew.

The pericope of “The Call of Levi” is located fairly early in Mark’s gospel and closer to the middle of Matthew’s gospel. Mark’s gospel does not have an infancy narrative, it begins with an adult Jesus, so “The Call of Levi” appears much earlier. However, in contrast to Mark’s gospel, Matthew’s gospel begins with a genealogy, birth narrative, baby Jesus’s flight to Egypt, and then catches up to Mark with an adult Jesus’s baptism. In the outline of Mark and Matthew’s gospels, this pericope occurs after Jesus’s baptism, during Jesus’ Galilean Ministry and before his journey to Jerusalem. It is between the pericope of “The Cleansing of the Leper” and “The Question About Fasting”, and it seems to transition between a series of miracle stories to Jesus’s instructions to his disciples. It is important to understand where this pericope occurs in relation to each gospel because it reveals the historical context of each gospel as well as the message Jesus attempts to convey. First, the fact that this pericope does not occur later in the gospel of Mark reveals Mark’s focus on a less divine Jesus. This has a lot of to with Mark’s image of Jesus and the fact that his gospel was written in an earlier time when the community was primarily Jewish and there was panic after the fall of the temple. Due to these circumstances, Mark portrays Jesus as a suffering servant, with a Messianic secret, and did not include any divine narratives like Matthew. Matthew’s pericope shows up later because Jesus is portrayed as divine a divine leader, which is why he added the miraculous birth and genealogy connecting Jesus to King David. The context of this pericope was placed in between a miracle story and a question about a common Jewish Law, which sends a message that Jesus can save us if we trust in him above the common rule’s of society. Overall, “The Call of Levi” sends a message to readers that we must not be afraid to follow Jesus, even though it could be dangerous.

Matthew	Mark
	13 He went out again beside the sea; and the crowd gathered around him, and he taught them.
9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him	14 And as he passed on, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, “follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
10 And he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.	15 And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many that followed him.
11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”	16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.	17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, and those who are sick;
13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”	I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

This type of pericope is a controversy story because of the social statement Jesus makes about ignoring the purity rules set up by society. It is also a pronouncement story because a saying from Jesus is included. Jesus answered the question that those who are considered sinners should be shown love and empathy, especially by those calling themselves men of God. The saying of Jesus supports this when he says, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, and those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” What is unique about Matthew’s version of this story is his redaction, he adds in a “behold” and omits details about crowds following Jesus. Catchwords like “behold” are mentioned 62 times in Matthew’s gospel, they are important to his emphasis on Jesus’s divinity. By emphasizing Jesus’s power with words like “behold” and toning down his humanly position as a teacher, Matthew’s gospel contains higher Christology than Mark’s. Other catchwords like “follow me”, used in Matthew 25 times and Mark 18, and “righteous”, Matthew used it 22 times and Mark only 2, also add emphasis to Jesus’s authority. Also, Matthew changes “Levi” to “Matthew” because Matthew had an audience that was later then Mark, and probably more familiar with who Matthew was. Finally, Pharisees are much more important to Matthew’s gospel, he mentions them 29 times, because he uses them as an example for instruction to community on what to do and what not to do.

Here is a chart of Matthew’s redaction and narrative features...

Word	How many times used
righteous	twenty- two
behold	sixty-two
mercy	three
sacrifice	two
follow me	twenty-five
tax collector	eight
Pharisees	twenty-nine

Now I will locate the narrative features of Matthew version of the “Call of Levi”,

Action: As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew

Setting: sitting at the tax office;

Command: and he said to him, “Follow me.”

Response: And he rose and followed him

Setting:And he sat at table in the house,

Action: behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.

Problem: And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples,

Question: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Response: But when he heard it, he said,

Saying: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.

Command: Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’

Saying: For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Mark:

Setting: He went out again beside the sea;

Action: and the crowd gathered around him,

Result: and he taught them.

Action: And as he passed on, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus

Setting: sitting at the tax office,

Command: and he said to him, “follow me.”

Result: And he rose and followed him.

Setting: And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples;

Explanation: for there were many that followed him.

Problem: And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples,

Question: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Response: And when Jesus heard it, he said to them,

Saying: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, and those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Now I am going to take the bare bones of first Matthew, which is the story of Levi without the years of embellishments that oral tradition usually adds on.

9 As Jesus saw Matthew sitting at the tax office he said, “Follow me.” And he followed him.

10 tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples.

11 the Pharisees said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12 he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.

13 learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

The historical-critical method helped me break down how Jesus was considered to be different to each community he was presented it, each author portrayed Jesus in a different light. For a lot of my life I thought all the gospels portrayed Jesus the same and basically contained the same stories. By breaking down catchwords, omission, etc. I understand the way in which Jesus was altered to speak to the author’s community. I realize that Jesus was a suffering messiah in Mark’s gospel, and he is a true Messiah of Israel in Matthew’s gospel. It helped me expand my idea of who Jesus is and what he taught, because it is not the same in every gospel. Mark chose to focus on Jesus’s suffering, while Matthew wanted to portray Jesus as the True Messiah of Israel. I now know that these details can alter the focus on Jesus greatly, when I focus on things like redaction of each gospel. Overall, I learned how to combine all the things I was taught and read about source criticism, redaction, and Matthew and Mark’s gospel to understand historical-critical context. Jesus may have been portrayed differently in each gospel, however I noticed that his message of patience, loving ones neighbor, following God, and not getting caught up in social pressure is the same. That is something that stands out in each gospel, even if they are written differently.

April 15 , 2010

Jesus at the Movie 2- Chocolat

The movie, Chocolat, is set in a small French town in the 1950’s that is occupied by a traditional, tranquil group of townspeople. The town is led by its Mayor, Comte de Reynaud, whose image of God is led by rules which he forces upon many of the people. This is until a woman who owns a chocolate shop, Vianne Rocher, challenges Comte de Reyaund’s traditional set of believes with her own healing methods. Comte’s traditional practice of God’s rules is like the hypocritical Pharisees in Jesus’s time, whereas Vianne’s loving practices that defy the social norm are much like Jesus’ message.

Comte de Reynaud believes one must follow God’s every rule, just going through the motions without looking at the bigger picture of loving one’s neighbor. His image of God and reality is set in stone, much like the Pharisees of Jesus’s time. The Pharisees were too concerned with holding true to the practices of Jewish tradition, that they were being hypocritical in their actions by failing to practice God’s love. This is just like the Comte de Reynaud, he was so caught observing every rule, like Lent, fasting, denying himself goodness, that he failed to notice that the bigger picture which is loving others. Also like the Pharisees, Comte de Reynaud’s attitude toward others is judgmental and negative, he is so focused on making the town perfect that he does not notice how much people are suffering. For example, Comte de Reynaud thinks that if he forces an abusive husband to go through the motions of repentance, their marriage will be saved. However, like the Pharisees, Comte de Reynaud he so caught up in the motions that he fails to understand what repenting truly means. Due to Comte’s harsh judgement, the townspeople who listen to his criticism and follow his strict rules end up denying themselves a lot of goodness in life. Those who choose to follow Comte de Reynaud are like Jesus’s lost sheep led astray by the Pharisees, because they are misguided into the darkness. Caroline Clairmont is like one of those sheep, because when she followed Comte de Reynaud’s lead and caused her mother, son, and herself pain. It was not until Comte de Reynaud decided to embrace the goodness in life, and stop paying so much attention to the rules, that he and others around him were happy. Overall, Comte de Reynaud’s strict interpretation of religion causes him to become hypocritical because he is causing pain to those around him and himself instead of love, much like the Pharisees were.

Vianne Rocher has a daughter, no husband, does not attend church, and does not observe lent. Right away she is a social outcast in her town, yet her positive image toward life allows her to gain genuine loving relationships. Following Jesus’s message, she teaches others how to truly love themselves, and she does it without following a traditional set of rules like Comte de Reynaud. Vianne image of God and reality is led through practice, she befriends other social outcasts in the town, she even has a romance with a “river rat”. She also does the unthinkable and dines with the “river rats”, much like Jesus dines with those considered sinners and outcasts. Following the message of Jesus to love one’s neighbor as themselves, Vianne loves everyone around her unconditionally without caring about social stigmas. Vianne’s untraditional, yet positive attitude influences others to break out of the mold and embrace goodness. This is seen through her friendship with Josephine Musca, a housewife with low self esteem whom she helped gain self-respect and leave her abusive husband. Also, Vianne even showed Comte de Reynaud endless compassion and patience, like Jesus does, that he eventually embraces change. Vianne’s actions, practicing loving ones neighbor, are an example for those around her to transform from emotionally injured to healed. Vianne’s loving actions spoke much louder than Comte de Reynaud’s words because she led by a positive example, befriended everyone, and showed patience like Jesus would.

Pere Henri said that one should measure goodness not by what they deny themselves, by what they do not do, but by what they create, who they include. I agree with Pere Henri, a lot of the time people will measure goodness by the important people they surround themselves by and focus a lot on what they do not have. However, what Jesus teaches us is to count of blessings and live with tolerance and patience toward others. In my case, I try to measure my goodness by counting my blessings and having tolerance and patience. However, I usually fall victim to not counting my blessings, especially when it comes to coveting my neighbors goods and talents. I spend a lot of time thinking about talents or things I have not accomplished, instead of counting this gifts I have been given. Also, I try to have patience but sometimes I fall victim to a need for things to get accomplished quickly instead of just enjoying the little things. However, I can measure my personal level of goodness through the high amount of tolerance I show toward other people, I get a joy out of helping others out because I know someone else would do the same. Adding onto what Pere Henri said, I also measure goodness by what people are willing to sacrifice for someone else, even if that person is not a friend. For example, I think someone shows true goodness when they will give a stranger a dollar, stay in and help a friend clean, etc. A lot of people will only help out others when it is convenient for them, which it not a way to measure true goodness. Many people, including myself sometimes, are in such a rush that they do not take time to think about Jesus’s message.