In my opinion, today's Gospel reading is the biggest head-scratcher in the three-year Sunday lectionary.
FWIW - our parish did something today which I've noticed it frequently does when this reading comes around: rather than force its clergy to come up with a homily, it scheduled some special-event preaching with outside visitors. In today's case, we had seminarians come in and talk to our parish about what it's like to be a seminarian. And then during collection time, we took a 2nd collection for the Seminarian Education Fund. So nobody had to craft a homily on today's Gospel reading. Whew!
What spiritual lesson(s) do you think should be drawn from this reading (Luke 16:13)? Here is the passage:
Jesus said to his disciples,"A rich man had a stewardwho was reported to him for squandering his property.He summoned him and said,'What is this I hear about you?Prepare a full account of your stewardship,because you can no longer be my steward.'The steward said to himself, 'What shall I do,now that my master is taking the position of steward away from me?I am not strong enough to dig and I am ashamed to beg.I know what I shall do so that,when I am removed from the stewardship,they may welcome me into their homes.'He called in his master's debtors one by one.To the first he said,'How much do you owe my master?'He replied, 'One hundred measures of olive oil.'He said to him, 'Here is your promissory note.Sit down and quickly write one for fifty.'Then to another the steward said, 'And you, how much do you owe?'He replied, 'One hundred kors of wheat.'The steward said to him, 'Here is your promissory note;write one for eighty.'And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.
"For the children of this worldare more prudent in dealing with their own generationthan are the children of light.I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth,so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.The person who is trustworthy in very small mattersis also trustworthy in great ones;and the person who is dishonest in very small mattersis also dishonest in great ones.If, therefore, you are not trustworthy with dishonest wealth,who will trust you with true wealth?If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another,who will give you what is yours?No servant can serve two masters.He will either hate one and love the other,or be devoted to one and despise the other.You cannot serve both God and mammon."
Homily on Luke 16:1–13
25th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C
Brothers and sisters in Christ,
Today’s Gospel presents us with one of Jesus’ more puzzling parables—the story of the dishonest steward. At first, it can sound as though Jesus is commending corruption, praising someone who cheated his master. But as always, the Lord’s teaching goes deeper. He is not praising dishonesty—He is pointing to the urgency and shrewdness with which this man acted, and He is asking us: do we show the same kind of zeal, not for passing things, but for eternal life?
The Steward’s Urgency
Let’s start with the steward. He knows he’s about to lose his position. He cannot dig ditches; he is ashamed to beg. So, with very little time, he acts. He calls in the debtors and reduces what they owe so that they will be grateful to him later. He is dishonest, yes, but he is also decisive, creative, and clever in planning for his future.
And Jesus says, almost with a sigh: “The children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.” In other words, people who are worldly often throw themselves wholeheartedly into securing temporary goods—money, comfort, status, security. But we who belong to Christ sometimes treat eternal life casually, as though heaven can wait, as though there is always tomorrow.
The Call to Spiritual Urgency
Jesus is calling us to wake up. If a dishonest steward can act decisively to secure a roof over his head, how much more should we act decisively to secure a place in our Father’s house? Salvation is not something we stumble into by accident; it is something we pursue with intention, with urgency, with shrewdness.
St. Paul puts it this way in his letter to the Philippians: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” Not in a spirit of panic, but in seriousness. Life is short, and eternity is long.
Wealth as a Tool, Not a Master
The next lesson Jesus draws is about wealth: “Make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.”
Notice that He says when wealth fails, not if. Every possession we cling to will one day be stripped away. No one takes their bank account or their house or their retirement portfolio into the grave. Wealth is temporary. But while it lasts, it can be put to eternal use—if we use it in love.
Think about the lives touched by generosity. A family supported by parish food drives. A child educated because of Catholic schools. A missionary in another country sustained by your donations. A neighbor who is carried through a hard time because you gave—not just money, but time, kindness, and presence. All of these become “friends” in the kingdom of heaven, who one day will welcome you into eternal dwellings.
St. Ambrose, a bishop of the early Church, once said: “The bosoms of the poor, the houses of widows, the mouths of orphans are the barns which last forever.” What a striking image! Earthly barns and storehouses eventually rot, but mercy and generosity become everlasting treasures.
“No One Can Serve Two Masters”
Finally, Jesus makes the conclusion crystal clear: “No servant can serve two masters. You cannot serve both God and mammon.”
This is not simply about money—it’s about loyalty. Who is your master? What sits at the center of your heart? Is it God, or is it something else?
We live in a culture that constantly tells us money is the measure of success, security, even happiness. How easy it is to slide into trusting wealth instead of God. Yet wealth, when worshipped, is a false god. It promises security, but it can vanish overnight. It promises happiness, but it cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart. Only God can.
Concrete Applications for Our Lives
So what does this mean for us, here and now?
-
Live with spiritual urgency. We often procrastinate in our relationship with God. “I’ll pray more when life slows down. I’ll get serious about my faith after retirement. I’ll go to confession later.” But brothers and sisters, life is short. The dishonest steward acted quickly because he knew his time was running out. We should do the same. Is there a sin we need to confess? A person we need to forgive? A habit we need to change? Do it now.
-
Examine how we use our resources. Jesus calls us to turn wealth into love. That means giving generously—not only from what we have left over, but from the first fruits of our labor. That means supporting the Church, caring for the poor, helping family and neighbors in need. Even small acts of generosity—paying for someone’s meal, giving to a charity, volunteering time—become eternal investments.
-
Ask: who is my master? We all serve something—money, comfort, reputation, pleasure, or God. Take time this week to examine: what truly drives my decisions? Where do I put my trust when I’m worried or afraid? If wealth has become our master, Jesus calls us back to freedom. Money is a good servant, but it is a terrible master.
Conclusion
The dishonest steward teaches us not to imitate dishonesty, but to imitate urgency. To recognize that our lives, like his stewardship, are temporary. One day, we will all give an account of how we have managed the gifts entrusted to us. May we be found faithful, not because we built bigger barns for ourselves, but because we used what God gave us for His glory and for the good of others.
So let us act with shrewdness, but in a holy way—using our time, our talents, and our treasure to make friends for eternity. Then, when wealth and possessions fail, we will be welcomed, not into temporary dwellings, but into the eternal home of the Father.
Amen.
Our priest actually did preach on the Gospel reading. He said that the dishonest servant was facing an audit. No one wants an audit, especially if you know you aren't going to pass, but that we all face an audit at the time of our death. He said we should "build up treasures in heaven". And said that we should follow the advice of St. Therese of Lisieux, to do the little things in our lives with great love .
ReplyDeleteI am remembering that the last line in that Gospel, " You cannot serve both God and mammon" comes up as an antiphon fairly often in the Divine Office.
Our second collection was the one requested by Pope Leo XIV for humanitarian aid in Gaza and the Middle East, through Catholic Relief Services, and the Catholic Near East Association.
At the end of Mass the pastor made a rather sad announcement, that our parish school is being merged with the school on the other side of town at St. Bonaventure's. That has been coming for a while, we are already in a "family of parishes". But our school has been in existence since 1914. I plan to write more about that another time.
However the school merger won't take place until the fall of 2026.
DeleteCatholic schools are consolidating and closing around here, too. It means the loss of some teaching and administrative jobs. And some families don't stay in the Catholic schools.
DeleteI'd also focus on the audit. I also see it as a rich vs. poor story. The steward ends up doing right by all parties.
DeleteIt is one of the hardest parables to deal with. Here are two more takes on it.
Deletehttps://open.substack.com/pub/dianabutlerbass/p/sunday-musings-aa8?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
https://www.americamagazine.org/word/2025/09/16/wealth-dishonest-true-scripture/
Anne, thanks for those links. Both are thought-provoking.
DeleteJohn P. Meier (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vols 1-5) is among those who believe the parable does not date back to Jesus. Some others think the parable itself (Verses 1-8) is authentically from Jesus, but the following verses (9-13) are not. It is not at all clear to me what the "official" Catholic view is when exegetes believe a biblical text is questionable in some way. For example, I often come across comments that certain words or events in the Gospels (that is, regarding the earthly life of Jesus) are additions or modifications made by the early (post-Resurrection) Church.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that a difficult parable is almost an oxymoron. It would seem that the whole point of a parable is to clarify rather than confuse.
The NABRev2e has the following notes:
* [16:1–8a] The parable of the dishonest steward has to be understood in the light of the Palestinian custom of agents acting on behalf of their masters and the usurious practices common to such agents. The dishonesty of the steward consisted in the squandering of his master’s property (Lk 16:1) and not in any subsequent graft. The master commends the dishonest steward who has forgone his own usurious commission on the business transaction by having the debtors write new notes that reflected only the real amount owed the master (i.e., minus the steward’s profit). The dishonest steward acts in this way in order to ingratiate himself with the debtors because he knows he is being dismissed from his position (Lk 16:3). The parable, then, teaches the prudent use of one’s material goods in light of an imminent crisis.
* [16:8b–13] Several originally independent sayings of Jesus are gathered here by Luke to form the concluding application of the parable of the dishonest steward.
Yes. I think the steward likely was playing "both ends against the middle", skimming both from his creditor master and the debtors to enrich himself. When called to account, he sacrificed his own cut to ensure both creditor and debtor were made whole.
DeleteAnd it's pretty clear that Luke appended a series of sayings of Jesus, with varying degrees of applicability to the parable.
.
Maybe some of the verses were added later, I don't know.
DeleteBut is the point of a parable always to clarify? It seems like the purpose of some of them is to get us to scratch our heads and dig deeper.
"* [16:8b–13] Several originally independent sayings of Jesus are gathered here by Luke to form the concluding application of the parable of the dishonest steward."
DeleteAs I understand it, this method of piecing together the Gospel on the part of the evangelists, by stringingi is one of the great contributions of the biblical form critics.
Applying the concept to Sunday's Gospel reading: it consists of a parable, followed by some proverbs or pithy sayings. The form critic would question whether Jesus awg the parable with his listeners. Our evangelist, Luke, may have chosen to put those sayings of Jesus immediately after the parable. Or someone "upstream" from Luke (e.g. an earlier someone who had collected sayings of Jesus, which Luke used as one of his sources in composing the Gospel) may have made the decision to string together the chreia in that particular order, and Luke kept that order intact.
Sorry about the typos in the previous comment. I hope the gist of what I've written is discernible.
DeleteThis discussion illustrates why scripture must not be approached literally- much was added, or changed, or even invented - to reflect an unknown author’s views.
DeleteWould be interesting to look at the original text. Was there a page missing or damaged? Were there two or more scribes adding things to the same page? Were there a lot of corrections to the text making it hard to read? Are there earlier or later texts that flesh out the story in more detail or provide context? The physical text often tells a story that affects the meaning of a passage as much as the words on the page.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how well-known this is, but the manuscript tradition for biblical contents is incredibly complex and involves many judgments by experts.
DeleteI don't believe there are any 'original manuscripts' available for anything in the Bible. It would be amazing if we had Paul's letters written in the hand of the scribe to whom he dictated them. We have many old copies, and lots of bits and snatches. Multiple versions of the same texts or text fragments.
By way of comparison: IIRC, Shakespeare's First Folio was compiled by actors from his company. I think there are similar problems in that there were unauthorized copies of some of his individual plays that were published. But on the whole, I think the manuscript and memory sources on which the First Folio is based, are considerably closer to the mind and hand of William Shakespeare, than what we can say for Paul or Mark or John.
DeleteI'm not particularly well-read on this stuff, just picking things out here that have lodged in my brain and sharing them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry, post above crossed in the ether with Anne's link below. No need for me to school everybody about what happens to MSS of persecuted religious minorities (as Christianity was) when you can go look at them.
DeleteOh, nope, not gonna be lured into English teacher mode about Shakespeare's plays or other textual controversies of English literature, much less Gospels.
Delete"The miracle is that God ensured that what survived was accurate and complete enough for our salvation." Yes!
DeleteAbout St. Paul, he may have dictated his letters, but he was literate, and would have been able to write them himself if he chose to.
Delete"The miracle is that God ensured that what survived was accurate and complete enough for our salvation."
Huh? What is the evidence for this statement? It isn’t apparent that God had anything at all to do with which fragments of ancient copies of even more ancient texts (long lost) survived. We really have no way of knowing how “ accurate” any of the Bible is.
I think we do believe that the Holy Spirit had something to do with what was accepted as the canon of scripture?
DeleteWell, I guess that some believe everything the Catholic church teaches without evidence, and others of us don’t. That’s real faith. It doesn’t require evidence. I am hesitant to accept much of it on faith. After all, I’m the sceptic in this group. So I don’t think that God, in any of God’s, hmmm, personalities? Forms?, interferes with nature. I also don’t think the Holy Spirit guides the church to save it from error (plenty of errors as history shows) nor does the HS guide the election of popes. If that were the case, the HS either has a nasty sense of humor or made some really terrible choices during the last two millennia. I think the canon was chosen by smart but fallible human beings in the context of the limited knowledge base of a given ancient era of human history. And I don’t think that the HS picked fragments of ancient writings to preserve. The deterioration was the result of natural forces and was random.
DeleteI don't believe without evidence. But it is a process. Maybe the Holy Spirit directing the church is like herding cats. They meander around and don't always go in the right direction. But "Our Lord's patience is directed towards salvation". If I didn't believe that I'd have to stop saying the Nicene Creed.
DeleteIt helps get cats rounded up if you ding on a dinner dish. Not sure if the Holy Spirit has figured out what to use to herd theologians ...
DeleteLOL, I don't know what kind of bait you'd have to use for theologians!
DeleteI wrote, "But on the whole, I think the manuscript and memory sources on which the First Folio is based, are considerably closer to the mind and hand of William Shakespeare, than what we can say for Paul or Mark or John."
DeleteJust to expand on that for a moment:
As I understand it, the compilers of the First Folio, Heminges and Condell, were members of the company of performers for whom Shakespeare wrote. They knew him, and they performed his works. We might say there was one degree of separation between them and Shakespeare himself.
Scholars think that, for at least some of the plays, Heminges and Condell had access to "foul papers", i.e. manuscripts in Shakespeare's own hand, presumably with overwrites, cross-outs, additions to spoken lines, etc. And as actors who literally played some of the parts contained in the Folio, they may well have had lines and speeches burned into their memories. In addition, I understand there were authorized editions published of some of the individual plays in the First Folio, prior to the Folio's publication. The First Folio was published seven years after Shakespeare's death.
So how does that compare with the New Testament? First of all, there is no evidence that Jesus was a writer. Any "foul papers" of the New Testament texts would have been, not written in Jesus's hand, but in that of the people we now refer to as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, et al. It's possible that some of these writers/redactors were contemporaries or near-contemporaries of Jesus, and it's even possible that some of them knew Jesus personally.
But - the mainstream scholarly view is that the earliest writings in the New Testament were certain letters of St. Paul (1st Thessalonians, Galatians), the earliest of which may have been within 20 years of Jesus's death. If we are to believe him and Luke, Paul never knew the earthly Jesus and was not one of his followers prior to his dramatic conversion event on the road to Damascus.
Mark's Gospel is (in the mainstream view) the earliest of the Gospel texts. It was written about 35 years after Jesus's death and resurrection. There is no evidence I'm aware of that Mark knew Jesus personally. The tradition (pre-Historical Critical Method) is that St. Peter was Mark's source for the contents of the Gospel. If that is true, then Mark was two degrees separated from Jesus. And there certainly are scholars who would say there is scant evidence for that St. Peter connection. One of the foundational views of form criticism is: the more degrees of separation between Jesus and the evangelists, the less likely the Gospel text is based on what the historical Jesus actually said and did.
As for the other Gospel texts, scholars would tend to date Matthew at least 10 years after Mark, and Luke at roughly the same time as Matthew. John, in the mainstream view, is another 10 years or so (at least) after Matthew and Luke.
These dates/timeframes are when scholars believe the works were composed; there are no actual Gospel manuscripts or fragments with a date < 100 CE. And I believe there are no manuscript fragments of Paul's letters before ~200 CE.
My comment about theologians and cats is serious.
DeleteIf people reading the same modern English translation of Scripture can differ, sometimes widely, on what a passage means and how it should be applied, the Holy Spirit has either a) not figured how to squelch variation or that b) variations in interpretation are not important.
If variations in interpretation are not important, then denominations need to review the teachings they have extrapolated from Scripture and declare some of them non-essentials for salvation. And perhaps not make so many of these rules that seem open to interpretation.
I tend to look at Theology as a (sometimes) interesting intellectual exercise, but not as THE truth.
DeleteKatherine, I don’t say most of the creed. I stopped saying it many years ago, after I overheard a woman tell the priest that she keeps her fingers crossed when saying it. I wasn’t alone in my doubts at that church! So I only say “ I believe in God, …Creator of heaven and earth and of all things seen and unseen”. I leave out the father part. And then I stop, because I really don’t know if I believe much of the rest of it. I’m not only barely a Catholic (due to upbringing) I’m really barely a Christian, if being a Christian means accepting all the stuff in the creed. I call myself Christian because I try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I don’t know if he was the Christ - the anointed one- or the messiah, which are the definitions of the Christ according to what I have been taught.
Jean- “ the Holy Spirit has either a) not figured how to squelch variation or that b) variations in interpretation are not important.”
DeletePersonally, I don’t think that the HS is involved at all in choosing popes or ensuring that the scriptures are true, or in “ guiding” the church. Human beings have both souls and minds. We are expected to use them. If it’s the HS doing all of this, then maybe God is just a puppet master, pulling strings, and humans would not actually have free will.
Lotta things I don't think or believe, too, but not gonna deny because I don't actually *know.*
DeleteI do believe there is a universal Holy Spirit that tries to guide everybody, but, like with cell service, a lot of people seem to be stuck in dead zones.
If anyone is praying today, please send add one for the repose of the soul of Raber's brother. They disconnected life support this morning.
Jean - Prayers for Raber and his brother. Was he religious? I know that Raber wasn’t raised Catholic, right? May both Raber and his brother know peace.
DeleteMy husband’s sister died on Aug 27. The memorial service is in NYCity on Oct 11, so we have to spend the night. It’s very challenging traveling these days,, but my husband needs to attend. She was 15 months older.They weren’t close as adults but she was his sister. She was single, no kids. She was a devout Episcopalian and a “pillar” of her church for more than 50 years. It is a historic church - I think the oldest EC in New York City. We’ve been there in years past and is lovely in the manner of all old Episcopal churches I’ve visited. I prefer Episcopal liturgies from the Book of Common Prayer to the RC version. . I think it should be a “good” memorial service and provide comfort to the siblings. Unfortunately her sister is choosing the hymns. If the HS wasn’t on duty, I hope the priest has gently guided the choice of music. She seems a lovely, pastoral, gentle woman.
I don’t deny teachings such as those in the creed but I can’t affirm them either. That would be dishonest. So I just stop with what I can affirm. And ponder the rest. Nobody actually knows. It’s impossible for limited human beings to know God perfectly, the mind of God. Sometimes theology seems to be almost the height of arrogance. You don’t know. I don’t know. Theologians don’t know either. But they try, and they share their thoughts with others. But theologians don’t agree either. There is a reason that there are tens of thousands of different Christian churches. There is no agreement, including within the RCC. The RCC claims to “ know” God’s mind, but it doesn’t either. It is perhaps the best available because of its long history, but it’s not infallible no matter what they claim for themselves.The institutional church should reflect a bit on the sin of pride.
I would be more down on the arrogance of some theologians were I not busy asking St Jerome to help me rein in my own.
DeleteRaber's brother and family are Wesleyans. We became acquainted with the church when Raber's parents were alive. Super nice congregation and minister.
I’m not familiar with Wesleyans. I assume it’s a branch of the Methodist church? Or are they the same? I am familiar with Methodist churches - there are several around here and I know that the Methodists operate many humanitarian aid programs. Are Wesleyan churches different? Separate from Methodist churches?
DeleteI’m not sure I can ask St Jerome for help. He was a bit too misogynist for me.
It’s an interesting parable. My reaction: if a real jerk can work hard to do the right thing for the wrong reasons (self-interest) why can’t a follower of Christ do good for the right reasons. I look at MAGA energy, at the relentless evildoings of the Republican Party over the last four decades, and I wonder why the Democrats are so vapid. Mitch McConnell did a great job for evil. Can’t good people do a good job for goid?. Not if they sit on their butt and merely kwetch(me included).
ReplyDeleteStanley, it seems to me that many good people feel helpless. I know that I do. I can send money to campaigns and I can vote, but none of it seems to matter in a system that has become so corrupt that the most vile candidates can be elected by selling their souls to the highest bidder.
DeleteInteresting article here about ancient versions of scripture. The originals are lost, of course.
ReplyDeletehttps://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/
Anne, thanks for that article. My amateur view is that the dates given in that article are not the mainstream dates, e.g. it has Matthew's Gospel being written earlier than the date range I think of as the mainstream scholarly view.
DeleteI can’t disagree Jim. I studied the Bible in college - a semester of OT and a semester of NT. What I know of biblical history I have learned on my own. So I can’t say anything very enlightened about the dating of the gospels and epistles. I know only that they were written long after Jesus died, by people unknown, who relied on the stories of others to develop their version of Jesus’s life and teachings. And that they were rewritten and copied an unknown number of times before the copies were written that are now just fragments. PBS had a series we watched that got into this pretty extensively. It was very interesting, but I have no memory of the precise dates.
DeleteMark is often viewed as being written in the Sixties, Matthew and Luke in the seventies or maybe eighties and John in the nineties. There is a minority view that gives priority to John because there Jesus has at least a three-year public ministry as well as other his facts that appear to be more likely on the basis of evidence external to the Gospels.
DeleteSince we don't have a manuscript, author or location for Q, the assumption is that it was written at least earlier than Matthew and Luke.
As the article cited by Anne says, we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to NT manuscripts. There is a lot of variation among them, so scholars have studied their relationships.
ReplyDeleteThere is a widely accepted official scholarly text of the NT which has been put together and periodically revised by committees of scholars. However, it sometimes gives peculiar results, e.g. when scholars decide the majority of texts point to a particular text for the first half of a sentence and also for the particular text of the second half of a sentence, BUT there exists no manuscript which has both together!
While scholars have a created a common text for biblical study, they have long given up hope that someday through discovery of more manuscripts especially early manuscripts we will get a better idea of the original text.
In fact, in some sense there may have never been an original text. Most scholars think that the text of Mark was used by Matthew and Luke. However, those authors modified both the text and its placement in their Gospels.
Indeed, the original text of Mark may have been modified by the original author as he had copies made and sent to others. Matthew and Luke may have had different copies of Mark. As Matthew and Luke made copies of their Gospels, they as authors may have distributed different versions as they copied their Gospel for others.
Most of the early copies of the Gospels were likely made by rich men who kept their scribes busy copying books loaned to them by others. All of this likely took place without the more regimented replications that later took place in bigger copy establishments such as the imperial court, and leading episcopal places and monasteries once the Church became established.
Christianity mostly adopted the codex rather than the scroll for the Gospels. Like the Koine Greek in which the NT was written, the codex was mainly used for common speech and writing rather than for literary works.
And then there’s the hypothetical missing source called Q.
DeleteI have not studied this particular Gospel passage either formally or informally. I decided that I will do an analysis of it to illustrate how I go about approaching a text.
DeleteI have had many courses either for credit or as an auditor at Notre Dame, or John Carroll or the Local Seminary. These were all at the advanced undergraduate, beginning graduate student level: Pentateuch, Psalms, Mark, Synoptic Gospels, John, Pauline Literature, Passion Narratives of the Gospels.
What was very clear from the courses is that reading and writing were much different in the ancient world of manuscripts than our modern print world. Most people in the ancient world could not read. They had slaves who read aloud to them, and to others, such as guests of the wealthy people who could afford to own books, largely because they had slaves who could copy them. Just as readers heard books, writers dictated their manuscripts to slaves who could write. We know that this was true for Paul; it was likely true for the Gospels. Unlike scrolls, codices facilitated rearranging texts. The Gospels were likely written in chunks while being proclaimed to a community; their authors could easily have rearranged and edited those chunks.
The early church was a network of largely household communities in various cities and regions who were frequently visited by wondering apostles, prophets, and teachers whose teaching was oral. When Paul wanted to communicate to a community, he sent his letter by way of disciples who would have delivered the letter orally probably imitating their hearing of the letter as Paul dictated it. They would have left the letter so that periodically it could have been shared with the community.
Early Christian writing spread relatively quickly probably within several decades. While this network was extensive, there were not that many Christians. My analysis of this situation suggests that we probably have in some form all the books that were written in the first Century although many letters may have perished except for those which were collected like those of Paul. Matthew and Luke each had a copy of Mark and a hypothetical document which has not survived which scholars call Q. John was written without much direct influence from any of the Synoptic Gospels. John, Matthew and Luke all have material that is not found in Mark or Q.
The non-canonical Gospels or the second and third centuries were likely written by teachers trying to cash in on the Christian movement by casting their ideas in the form of Gospels. They were more competitors to the Christian network than members of it like the wandering apostles, prophets and teachers.
Some modern academics have attempted to use Q, reanalysis of the composition of the Gospels the non-canonical Gospels, and the search for the historical Jesus as a means to fashion a Christianity more to their liking. Rodney Stark, an agnostic sociologist who has studied and written a lot about the early church reticules them. Their work may provide interest to book readers, but they attract little institutional interest beyond some elite academic organizations.
A book review - especially for Stanley
ReplyDeletehttps://www.christiancentury.org/books/christian-case-against-capitalism?utm_source=Christian+Century+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c7f30e2c55-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_EdPicks_2025-09-23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b00cd618da-c7f30e2c55-224055984
Thanks, Anne. I see socialism and Christianity as joined at the hip. The early Christian communities held things in common and I would love to return to that. Plus, I am not really happy as an economic monad. Funny, I tried to help a friend out of his undeserved situation with a chunk of cash. He said he couldn’t take it. But yet he rails at God. Does he expect to win the lottery? Or have an angel of the Lord present him with a cubic meter of platinum? We are so programmed to esteem ourselves according to the principles of capitalism and private property. But, here we are, hell on earth.
Delete