Category: Apologetics

Echoes of Mark in the Gospel of John

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.

In analyzing the Gospels, scholars have often claimed that John’s Gospel was written by someone who had no clear knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The theology in John is more advanced, and must come from a later date in the “evolution” of Christian doctrine. From this scholarly debate has come a fresh look at the literary evidence in the Gospels themselves, and the results have been startling (or encouraging, depending on your perspective). NT scholarship is starting to change its tune on this point, in fact. Even for those of us who aren’t scholars (I include myself here for sure), there are meaty takeaways that can improve our grasp of the interplay between the Gospels – and heighten our appreciation of the revelation of Jesus we find there.

In this post, I want to highlight that the author of the Gospel of John (who I hold is John the Apostle), is not only familiar with the Gospel of Mark, but that he also assumes that many of his readers have read Mark. He even structures His Gospel (John) so that it fills out and explains much that Mark does not include in his Gospel. In short, there are echoes of Mark in John’s Gospel, and John intends His Gospel to differ from Mark’s. As Richard Bauckham puts it, “John is explicitly incomplete in aspects which… the Synoptic Gospels supply.”[1]

Puzzling Statements (John 3:24; 11:2)

What follows here is drawn from a chapter titled “John for Readers of Mark” by Richard Bauckham[2]. In reading Jonathan Pennington’s book Reading the Gospels Wisely, I came across a summary of Bauckham’s thoughts on this, and I have dug up more on the topic from simply following the helpful footnotes for more info.[3]

Two small and seemingly insignificant verses reveal John’s knowledge of Mark. And following their lead, a few other verses throw open the door to how John and Mark dovetail together.

John 3:24 “(For John had not yet been put in prison).”

John 3:24 is an aside, a parenthetical expression that is quite odd. Bauckham himself explains this quite clearly:

To understand the reason for the explanation, we are obliged to postulate implied readers/hearers who know more than the Gospel itself has told them. They seem to be expected already to know that John’s ministry came to an end when he was imprisoned, but even this knowledge is not sufficient to account for the explanation. Whether or not readers/hearers already know that John was imprisoned, they do not need to be told the obvious: that he was not yet imprisoned when he was still baptizing.[4]

Of the few references to John the Baptist’s imprisonment in the Synoptics, the one most likely referred to here is Mark 1:14. The comment in John 3:24 is there to let the reader know that this portion of Jesus’ ministry is taking place in between Mark 1:9-13 (which details Jesus’ baptism and subsequent temptation in the wilderness) and Mark 1:14 (which has Jesus going to Galilee to start his ministry there — right after John is imprisoned). This section in John’s Gospel, begins right after Jesus’ baptism (as hinted at in John 1:30) and continues through John 4:43 (where Jesus goes into Galilee for formal ministry — his time at Cana in John 2 was before his public ministry). So John wants his readers to know that John 1:19-4:43 fits between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.

John 11:2 “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”

This statement in John 11:2 is similarly puzzling. Why name Mary of Bethany as the one who anointed Jesus one chapter before the story of Jesus’ anointing (by Mary) is told in John (chapter 12)? Readers of Mark (and the other Synoptics) would have known of a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany. John connects their knowledge of that story with his account by naming the woman here. (She is not named in Mark 14:3-9.) John will go on in chapter 12 to use a different chronology than Mark, putting the anointing before the triumphal entry, rather than after it.

Filling Out, Re-Ordering, and Summarizing Mark

From these two examples, you can almost imagine John as he is writing his account of Jesus’ ministry. He feels the need to re-order a story here or there from Mark, and add a name or highlight a detail. He moves the clearing of the Temple (Mark 11:11-25) to the beginning of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 2:13-22), and gives a new account of Jesus’ trial before Annas (John 18:13-23) not mentioned in Mark, just prior to the trial before Caiaphas (John 18:24). John’s briefer mention of Caiaphas’ trial is due to it already being discussed in detail by Mark (Mark 14:53-65).

At other points John quickly passes over long sections already mentioned by Mark, and fills out what Mark only hints at. John skips the sending of the 12 (which Mark includes), but gives a fuller account of the feeding of the 5,000 – explaining why Jesus and the disciples have to leave in such a hurry (Mark 6:45 compared to John 6:14-16). John also includes the longer discourse about the Bread of Life (John 6:22-71) which follows the miracle. And this is the closest John gets to mentioning the Lord’s Supper (this omission may serve to interpret/stress the significance of the Lord’s Supper).

Next, the second half of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Mark 6:54-9:50) “is summarized by John in a single sentence” (in John 7:1a)[5]. Mark 10:1 mentions a ministry in Judah followed by time beyond the Jordan (where Mark 10:1-31 takes place). John follows along by giving us a long description of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 7:10-10:39) understood as occurring in the gap implied in Mark 10:1, and then devotes just a few verses (John 10:40-42) to describe the beyond-Jordan ministry that Mark already described more fully (Mark 10:1-31).

One more puzzling reference in John may allude to Mark. John 14:31, ends with the curious words “Rise, let us go from here.” But John 15 continues the conversation from John 14. The words “rise, let us go” or literally “get up, let us be going”, are also found in Mark 14:42, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” Bauckham interprets this echo from Mark as a way John emphasizes that Jesus is voluntarily facing his death (mentioned in the verses just prior to 14:31)[6]. John uses these familiar words (to readers of Mark) as a way to call to mind Jesus’ decision to embrace his suffering.

For a fuller look at the arrangement of John in relation to Mark, the following two articles take Bauckham’s argument, expand on it, and provide tables comparing the two accounts side by side:

Historical Corroboration?

There may even be evidence from Church history that supports the treatment above. We have the following testimony of Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, of what Papias wrote (in the early second century) concerning Mark’s Gospel.

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.[7]

Concerning this passage (and the brief quote evidently from Papias on Matthew), Richard Bauckham draws this conclusion:

The only reason Papias could have had for thinking that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark both lacked the kind of order to be expected in a work deriving from an eyewitness is that he knew another Gospel, also of eyewitness origin, whose chronological sequence differed significantly from Mark’s and Matthew’s and whose ‘order’ Papias preferred.[8]

The presbyter (or elder) John, that Papias mentions, is sometimes understood as John the Apostle and author of John. In any case, a good argument can be made that Papias prefers the chronological order of John’s Gospel to that of Mark. Bauckham points out how the Muratorian Canon (late second century list of New Testament books with brief commentary) betrays influence by Papias, and so it’s statement that John wrote his Gospel “in order” suggests that Papias indeed did prefer John’s order to the lack of order in Mark and Matthew.[9] Here is the quote from the Muratorian Canon:

For so [John] confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.[10]

Even More (Interlocking/Transposing Mark’s Theology)

Beyond the literary dovetailing described above and the historical pointers that John intended to re-order the Gospel accounts of Mark and Matthew, other testimony to Mark’s presence can be found through observing John’s own theology and points of emphasis. Pennington pointed out what he calls “the interlocking relationship of John and the Synoptics.”[11] This is a broader look at the question, and examines how in John’s theology and inclusion of material he is aware of Mark (and the Synoptics). Pennington draws from D.A. Carson on this point. Carson points out that in “many places… John and the Synoptics represent an interlocking tradition… they mutually reinforce or explain each other, without betraying overt literary dependence…”[12] Carson goes on to list many ways where the Synoptics and John overlap and interlock when it comes to theology and message. Andreas Köstenberger goes further and calls John’s approach a “theological transposition” of the Synoptics. For further study on this, see the resources listed in this note.[13]

Conclusion

I have rambled on and on, but I hope you can now appreciate even more how closely intertwined the Gospels are with one another. A lot of literary crafting is going on here! Readers of John who are unaware of Mark, can still find a coherent account of Jesus’ life and ministry in John. But the pointers are included for those aware of Mark to see how and where John is adding to Mark’s account and providing a fuller picture of the life of Jesus Christ.

Paying close attention to how each Gospel develops vertically (through its own account of Christ’s ministry) and horizontally (through its parallel passages and interlocking/dovetailing with the other Gospel accounts) is important for fully understanding each author’s intent. I also trust that you are better equipped for responding to criticisms directed at the discrepancies between the Gospels. Most of all I hope you can see how the life of Christ and the significance and message of the Gospel transcends any single telling. None of the Gospels alone can contain or explain it, and all four together only scratch the surface, as John himself says:

John 21:25 “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Footnotes

[1] Richard Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus,” online essay, p. 3 (This essay matches the name of a chapter from Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology [Baker Academic, 2015]).

[2] Richard Bauckham (editor), “John for Readers of Mark”, The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences [Eerdmans, 1997], p.  147-172. [Preview available online here].

[3] Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction, p. 64-66; also p. 59 note 16 and p. 194 note 12.

[4] Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark”, 153. This quote is taken from Amazon’s “look inside” preview of the book. I had not yet purchased the book at the time this post was first published.

[5] Ibid, 156.

[6] Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus”, p. 8.

[7] “Eusebius of Caesarea – On Papias – original Greek Text with English translation“, [from Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39], paragraphs 14 and 15 accessed 11/13/18.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Eerdmans, 2006], p. 226. My attention was brought to this by Kyle R. Hughes, “Papias and the Gospels: Analysis and Evaluation of his Testimony in Eusebius’ H.E. 3.39“, accessed 11/13/18.

[9] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 425, ff. Note also that Bauckham holds that “presbyter John” is a disciple who was an eyewitness follower of Christ and the author of the Gospel of John, but he does not believe he is the Apostle John (son of Zebedee).

[10] The Muratorian Canon, lines 35-37, accessed 11/13/18.

[11] Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, p. 64-65.

[12] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), [Apollos/Eerdmans: 1991], p. 52, ff.

[13] Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters [Zondervan, 2009], p. 555-563. Also see a fuller treatment (but without the handy tables) in “John’s Transposition Theology:
Retelling the Story of Jesus in a Different Key”, available online here (this is a chapter in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology [Mohr/Siebeck: 2012]).

Image created from icons available here and here.

In Theaters, April 24th Only: “Fragments of Truth: Can we trust the Bible?” (by Faithlife Films)

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

This week, on Tuesday only, there is a one-day showing of a new documentary exploring the trustworthiness of the Bible. The movie is produced by Faithlife Films, and features Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Dan Wallace among others. John Rhys-Davies (known for playing Gimli in The Lord of the Rings) is the narrator (he also narrated a documentary on the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible).

From everything I have heard and seen about the film, this looks like a good one to go see. Here is its description:

Can we trust the Bible?

Our faith is based on the New Testament—but can we really trust the Bible? Skeptics say no, arguing that the Gospel manuscripts have been doctored to push a theological agenda.

In this new Faithlife original film, Dr. Craig Evans takes this claim head-on, traveling the globe to track down the most ancient New Testament manuscripts. Along the way, he highlights groundbreaking new evidence, demonstrating that the case for the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts is stronger than ever.

Watch the trailer and click here to purchase tickets at a theater near you. Learn more about the film here.

UPDATE: If you go see the movie, you can get a $20 coupon to be used at Logos.com – details here.

Book Briefs: “Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

What is the biggest threat to biblical Christianity in America today? Many different answers could be given to that question. Some would say secular humanism or the new atheism. Others worry about the encroachment of Islam, or the modern rebirth of paganism or alternate spirituality. For many decades a strong case could be made that the truest answer is the growth of Mormonism, and its aggressive recruitment of evangelicals.

Mormonism from the outside looks benign from an evangelical perspective. Today’s “culture-warrior” atheists see it as a threat, but the wholesome family image and moralism that Mormonism projects is attractive to evangelicals. In fact, some evangelical scholars are dialoguing with Mormonism and taking the approach that Mormons are simply misunderstood and really share too many similarities with evangelicals to be shunned (as they have been by the evangelical Church for almost 200 years now).

The scholars who contributed to Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds (Kregel, 2017) beg to differ. Each tells a personal tale of their time spent within Mormonism (some as converts, one as a descendant of an honored Mormon family line) and how they came to understand Mormonism as antithetical to the Gospel that evangelical Christianity offers.

The book is unique in that it is not a sanitized, detached treatment of Mormonism. Neither is it a dialogue between Christians and Mormons: it is part-personal testimony, and part-scholarly critique. And since four different authors share their stories, it gives a unique perspective on the whole “Mormon question.”

The authors heavily tout their work by stressing the fact that all four authors have earned doctorates. And while I’m sure that is a good thing, the result can be hard for the not-so-learned reader! The book at times is heady and scholarly to a fault. It also comes across as uneven. One of the authors is much less dogmatic about Christian faith than his peers, and I almost felt that his inclusion was merely because he has a doctorate! (Although I suspect his perspective is shared in an effort to show that even those with questions can still keep on believing in God and also not be Mormon. Sadly, many who leave Mormonism abandon theism altogether.) Another author lets out that she is a member at a Church of Christ church, which led me to wonder what her view of baptism and its role in conversion really is (some Church of Christ denominations emphasize baptismal regeneration which is rejected by most evangelicals).

These quibbles aside, the book makes for riveting reading, and provides an immersion into the eerie world of Mormonism, for the uninitiated. Anyone who has left one denomination for another, or who might still be healing from time spent in a spiritually abusive church, will particularly benefit from this book. Mormons and those exploring Mormonism are encouraged to read it.

The book is packed full of Mormon history and doctrinal oddities. It also stresses the important role of an accepting and welcoming evangelical Church body for those leaving Mormonism. Those who have Mormon family members, or anyone who attempts to reach out to Mormons will greatly benefit from this work and the discussion of what steps led to the conversions of these former Mormons.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in (or troubled by) Mormonism.

Book Blurbs:

“This is truly a great book. In fact, I have never seen anything like it. Miller and Wilder have brought together a team of very knowledgeable ex-Mormon scholars to share from various perspectives why they could no longer stay Mormons. And while many who leave Mormonism simply fall off the grid, the good news presented by author after author is that there is an intellectually and spiritually vibrant alternative: moving from Mormonism to historical Evangelical Christianity. The book is fair, irenic, and inviting. This is now the first place to go for anyone who wants an honest, serious critique of Mormonism, along with an alternative to consider. I give it my top recommendation.” ~ J. P. Moreland, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

“This unique volume is not only written by former ‘insiders,’ who were all in their respective ways committed, but also by a group of deep thinkers who have taken the time to investigate and compare truth claims. Their histories, experiences, and education are all brought to bear on whether or not Mormon teaching is true, accurate, and reliable. As a resource to individuals, churches, or study groups, who will have to read carefully and thoroughly, this is a great tool…. I believe it deserves to be widely read, especially by those impacted or influenced by LDS teachings. It makes the Gospel clear by its amazing contrast. May that grace touch many as a result of this work.” ~ Stuart McAllister, D. D., Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

“‘Leaving Mormonism’ today all too often means rejecting Christianity entirely in the mistaken belief that if Mormonism isn’t true then no form of Christian faith is true. In Leaving Mormonism, four Christian scholars, each of whom also happens to be a former Mormon, show that faith in Jesus Christ as he is revealed in the Bible is intellectually and spiritually viable for disillusioned Latter-day Saints. The authors combine their authentic personal stories with scholarly analysis of critical issues and are not afraid to point out how evangelicals have sometimes failed to engage Mormons in a constructive manner. There is much for everyone to learn from this book.” ~ Robert M. Bowman Jr., Ph.D., Executive Director, Institute for Religious Research

“Written with compassion, charity, and courage, this will be the go-to book for those interested in Christian-Mormon dialogue for years to come.” ~ Paul M. Gould, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Kregel Publications.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Publications. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Book Briefs: “Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation? Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Science and Faith are at a crossroads in today’s world. The new atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Hawking are pushing the conclusion that Science rules out Faith. No need to believe in a “God of the gaps” anymore. Everything can be explained by Science.

Christians can seem to corroborate this view by disputing the widely held claims of Science and clinging stubbornly to a young earth based on their interpretation of the first book of the Bible. Case in point. You either take Science, or you hold to your Faith.

Increasingly, evangelical Christians are moving away from an “anti-Science” approach (which itself largely stems from the 1961 book The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris), and embracing an “old-earth creationist” approach which has an affinity with evangelical positions held widely from the 18th through early 20th Centuries. Two of the most influential Christian organizations which respect Science and hold to an old earth, yet also stand against the new atheism and its denial of a Creator, are Reasons to Believe (RTB) and BioLogos.

The main difference between the two is RTB’s denial of evolution as the mechanism by which God created animals and man. Instead RTB believes in a series of special creative acts throughout Earth’s long history. BioLogos on the other hand, sees evolution as testament to God’s handiwork and not at all antithetical to a belief in human exceptionalism and humanity’s creation in the Image of God. Their approach is termed evolutionary creation.

Such is not a small difference, but over the past several years representatives from both of these organizations have met routinely to dialogue and better understand their respective positions. This book is one of the results of that ongoing interaction. The moderators for their meetings have been professors at a number of Southern Baptist institutions, who mostly represent a young earth approach. Each chapter in the book starts with one of the Southern Baptist moderators presenting the stage for that chapter’s topic and asking questions of both organizations.

Rather than being a typical “two views” book, the use of moderators keeps the tone gracious and the result is an introduction to the views of both organizations on a host of important topics related to the intersection of Science and Faith generally, and on the evidences for evolution in particular. Key topics covered include how each group explains natural evil and death predating “the Fall”, what range of options concerning Adam and Eve are viable positions for each group, what role does natural theology play, how does the Bible inform their scientific positions, how is the fossil evidence for evolution and particularly the hominids best explained, and how does genetics support each group’s position.

This book delivered a fantastic introduction to each organization and points the way forward for further research. It will introduce people to viable evangelical positions and raise questions and evidences that the reader may not have thought of before. It is a technical book, and there will be sections over the head of the average reader, but for the most part the moderators do a good job of keeping things grounded.

For those who hold to a young-earth, there is not much in this volume that directly addresses the evidences for an old-earth and why each organization holds to that understanding, even though one or two of the moderators seem to ask for some of this. Instead both groups agree and move on to the areas where they disagree. In a few of the chapters, there are points I would have raised for or against a given position that don’t arise. I am surprised, for instance, that the fusing of two chromosomes found in chimpanzees into a single chromosome found in humans is not brought up (as potential evidence for evolution to be dealt with) in the chapter on genetics. That being said, I learned a lot more about genetics than I had previously, and that illustrates the only real problem I have with this book: there is so much more that could be said in any of these chapters! But all things considered, the editors do a great job of including as much content as they do and still keeping the book readable.

Above all, this book does a great job illustrating how Christians can and should interaction on such issues. The gracious spirit and charitable dialogue found here should be an example for all of us as we think through how best to comprehend the data that Science continues to bring forth in light of the bedrock reality of the Authority of Scripture. This book goes along way toward lighting the way for those who seek to embrace both Science and Faith, and at the very least it advances the discussion in meaningful ways.

Blurbs:
“This conversation is definitely worth listening to! The book is deeply satisfying, with knowledgeable and articulate advocates of differing positions expounding on areas of disagreement clearly as well as respectfully. At the same time, it is deeply unsatisfying, but in a good way: I found my own assumptions challenged, my horizons stretched. I think differently after reading it. An excellent job by all participants, moderators included.”
—C. John “Jack” Collins, professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis

“This Reasons to Believe and BioLogos conversation is highly commendable, and it’s important for a number of reasons. First, its tone is irenic, gracious, and humble. Second, its participants trust the Christian integrity of the other conversation partners. Third, it takes the authority of Scripture seriously as participants grapple with the implications of biblical interpretation in light of scientific discovery. Fourth, the Southern Baptist theologians serving as moderators are effective in guiding and focusing the conversation as they call for clarification and further elaboration from both sides. Finally, this conversation takes for granted the strong evidence for an ancient earth, allowing the discussion to push past the young-earth versus old-earth debate to far more pressing issues needing attention within the Christian community”
—Paul Copan, professor and Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University, coeditor of The Dictionary of Christianity and Science

“Origins, particularly human origins, continues to be a controversial issue among evangelical Protestants. In Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation?, the organizations BioLogos and Reasons to Believe model a respectful interchange of ideas in spite of their significant differences. The result is an intelligent and illuminating discussion of this crucial and timely topic.”
—Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont College

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from IVP.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by IVP Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Quotes to Note 42: Why the Reformation Was Needed

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

Tomorrow is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, as Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the church door of All Saints Church in Wittenburg on October 31, 1517. For the occasion, I have been reading through Diarmaid MacCulloch’s masterful work The Reformation: A History (Penguin, 2005), which comes recommended by Carl Trueman. I stumbled up on a passage which highlights one of the basic reasons why the Reformation was required. Some Roman Catholics like to insist that the Reformation pushed the Catholic church to reform, with its own “Counter Reformation.” So they thank Luther but insist that the Council of Trent is what was needed, not a reactionary movement to leave the Catholic church.

Yet this quote from a post-Trent Counter-Reformation pope proves why Reformers (and their Protestant descendants) found the Catholic church still so lacking. Here is Pope Paul V confronting the Venetian ambassador with the following rhetorical question in 1606:

“Do you not know that so much reading of Scripture ruins the Catholic religion?” ~ Pope Paul V, 1606

MacCulloch goes on to explain.

“One of the tasks of the 1564 Tridentine Index [of prohibited books] had been to keep vernacular Bibles away from the faithful; anyone wanting to read the Bible in a modern language required permission from the local bishop, and in the 1596 Roman Index the ban became complete and without exception. In Italy, the Index’s ban was enforced. Bibles were publicly and ceremonially burned, like heretics; even literary versions of scriptural stories in drama or poetry were frowned on.”

MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, p. 406, words in brackets were added for clarity.

Before the Reformation, it is true that vernacular Bible translations had been somewhat in vogue, but they were based on the Latin Vulgate. The Reformation saw the introduction of vernacular translations based directly on the Greek and/or Hebrew. In areas where the Catholics had to coexist with Protestant neighbors, knowledge of the Bible was important — at least for priests who were trying to convince the Protestants of their errors. But even priestly study of the Bible was frowned upon by the Counter-Reformation pope and his heirs.

There are many other reasons for the Reformation, which we cannot detail here. But one of the lasting fruits of this movement was the liberation of the Bible for the average Christian. If the Catholic church was correct on its doctrine, why was it seemingly so afraid to let the lay people have access to the Bible? Good question indeed. Be thankful today that you live on this side of the Reformation, and you have the privilege and liberty to read God’s Word for yourself.