The word for these readings is Son of Man. Jesus, evidently, used this third-person phrase to refer to himself during his lifetime.[1]  Later, Christians realized that he was referring to himself in his resurrected, glorious state.

 

This is a place to fill in the mission sections from my internet copy of Rosarium Virginis Mariae.[2]

 

The Family: Parents…

 

41.      As a prayer for peace, the Rosary is also, and always has been, a prayer of and for the family.  At one time this prayer was particularly dear to Christian families, and it certainly brought them closer together.  It is important not to lose this precious inheritance.  We need to return to the practice of family prayer and prayer for families, continuing to use the Rosary.

 

         In my Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte I encouraged the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours by the lay faithful in the ordinary life of parish communities and Christian groups;[3] I now wish to do the same for the Rosary.  These two paths of Christian contemplation are not mutually exclusive; they complement one another.  I would therefore ask those who devote themselves to the pastoral care of families to recommend heartily the recitation of the Rosary.

 

[continued at 030831 Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time 125B]

 

Wisdom 2:12, 17-20

 

Wisdom 2 forebodes the passion and death of Jesus, “the suffering “righteous one.”[4]

 

verse 18        For if the just one be the son of God, God will defend him

                               and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

 

The Vulgate (circa 410):               se enim est versus filius Dei

 

Douay-Rheims (1582-1610):         For if he be the true son of God

 

The above is how I would translate the Latin.

 

King James (1611):                      book not included

 

Jerusalem (1966):                        If the virtuous man is God’s son

 

New American (1970):                  For if the just one be the son of God

 

New Jerusalem (1985):                For if the upright man is God’s son

 

Footnote p:

 

In the Bible, the expression `child of God’ often means Israel or the Israelites, Ex 4:22-23; Dt 14:1; Is 1:2; Ho 11:1.  But there is a gradual tendency to reserve it for the upright or to the nation of the future, see already Ho 2:1.  It is occasionally applied to individuals, 2 S [=2 Samuel] 7:14; Psalm 2:7; Si 4:10.  Although, however, on occasion, an Israelite may invoke God as father, Si 23:1, 4; 51:10, see also Psalm 89:26, no Israelite ever calls himself `his child.’  Throughout the rest of the book, the title is applied to the Israelites of the past as members of a holy people, 9:7; 10:15, 17; 12:19, 21; 16:26; 18:4.

 

Psalm 54:3-4, 5, 6-8

 

verse 3b        and by your might defend my cause.

 

The Vulgate (circa 410):               et in virtute tua judica me.

 

Douay-Rheims (1582-1610):         and judge me in thy strength

 

The above is how I would translate the Latin.

 

King James (1611):                      and judge me by thy strength

 

Jerusalem (1966):                        by your power see justice done to me.

 

New American (1970):                  By your strength defend my cause.

 

New Jerusalem (1985):                in your power vindicate me.

 

The antiphon is

 

verse 6b        The Lord upholds my life.

 

meaning in the midst of trial and tribulation.

 

The Vulgate (circa 410):               et Dominus susceptor est animae meae.

 

Douay-Rheims (1582-1610):         and the Lord is the protector of my soul.

 

The above is how I would translate the Latin.

 

King James (1611):                      the Lord is with them that uphold my soul.

 

Jerusalem (1966):                        the Lord, supporter of my life.

 

New American (1970):                  the Lord sustains my life.

 

Note that the Lectionary does not follow the New American in this instance.  This may illustrate why special efforts have been made to translate the Psalms.

 

New Jerusalem (1985):                the Lord, among those who sustain me.

 

James 3:16—4:3

 

Scholars examined how little groups of not more than thirty or forty interacted during the time of James.  Scholars found the problems identified by James in those groups.  James distinguishes himself due to using the love of Jesus as the motive for getting along.  The epistle is better read as a communal instruction rather than as an ethic for individual believers.[5]

 

cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:14

 

God has called us through the Gospel

to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

is an explanation of the passage from James.

 

Mark 9:30-37

 

verse 30        Jesus and his disciples left from there and began a journey through

                                            Galilee

                               but he did not wish anyone to know about it.

 

The Aramaic consideration is that Jesus is about to predict that in three days he would be killed and after that resurrect.  As the Gospel developed as a teaching instrument, the Greeks insisted that Jesus rose on the third day.  The Gospel of Mark was written for the Syrian church that knew and assumed the Greek tradition.  A scholar projects that Mark was trying to preserve and modify the earlier tradition.

 

verse 31        He was teaching his disciples and telling them,

                               “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men

                               and they will kill him,

                               and three days after his death the Son of Man will rise.”

 

A scholar translates the quotation as follows, “The Son of Man is handed over to men who will kill him, and then, three days after his death, the Son of Man will rise.

 

The Vulgate (circa 410):               “Filius hominis traditus in manus hominum, et occident eum, et occisus post tres dies resurget.”

 

Douay-Rheims (1582-1610):         “The Son of Man will be delivered into the power of men; they will put him to death; and three days after he has been put to death he will rise again.”

 

King James (1611):                      “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death he will rise.”

 

Jerusalem (1966):                        “The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men; they will put him to death; and three days after he has been put to death he will rise again.”

 

 

New American (1970):                  “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death he will rise.”

 

New Jerusalem (1985):                “The Son of Man will be delivered into the power of men; they will put him to death; and three days after he has been put to death he will rise again.”

 

A scholar translates, “The Son of Man is [note the present tense] delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he is killed (apoktantheis), after three days he will rise.”  The scholar suggests that apoktantheis is inserted to make the final editing agree with the accepted Greek version of resurrection on the third, rather than the Aramaic version of the resurrection following thereafter.  The scholar suggests that the redundancy, in the Lectionary, they will kill him, and three days after his death, is caused by Mark insisting on the accepted Greek version.[6]

 

If the three Marcan predictions of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus (Mark 8:31-33; 9:31-41; 10:32-45),[7] had no editing, were these predictions as plain as Mark presents them, then scholars have a problem explaining how it happened that the disciples were astonished as the predictions came true.  It makes sense that the Gospels were written and edited for the purpose of evangelization, rather than only for documenting what happened.[8]

 

verse 35a      Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them.

 

Jesus seems so exasperated that he sits down to explain the kingdom of heaven.

 

verse 35c                he shall be the last of all…

 

The Vulgate (circa 410):               erit omnium novissimus

 

Douay-Rheims (1582-1610):         he shall be last of all …

 

King James (1611):                      the same shall be last of all …

 

Jerusalem (1966):                        he must make himself last of all …

 

New American (1970):                  he shall be the last of all …

 

New Jerusalem (1985):                he must make himself last of all …

 

verse 37 the other Gospels repeat verse 37: Matt 18:5; Luke 9:48; John 13:20.  This is part of an indication that the evangelists drew from common sources to write different gospels.[9]

 

verse 37a      Taking a child, he placed it in their midst,

                               and putting his arms around it, he said to them

 

The image is of Jesus hugging the child.  The Gnostics took becoming a child to be a “rigorous rejection of sexuality and corporality.”[10]  Becoming a child also subverts the usual household order at the time of Mark, “in which children are the least.”[11]  Son of Man means that Jesus is human, hugging the child and, by hugging, neither rejecting corporality nor sexuality.  Son of Man, the title, insists that Jesus himself, subject to human frailty, except sin, is child-like in his human grace-filled Godhead.  The Faithful are also to be meek and humble of heart, not puffed up, because of their grace.

 

verse 37c      receives not me but the One who sent me.”

 

The grammarian observes that this is a Hebraism, meaning not so much a dichotomy as an emphasis.

 

The Vulgate (circa 410):               non me suscipit

 

Douay-Rheims (1582-1610):         receives not me

 

The above versification is not the same as the Vulgate.  This difference is unexpected.  The different numbering of the Psalms, above, goes unnoted because such is the expectation.

 

King James (1611):                      receiveth not me

 

Jerusalem (1966):                        welcomes not me

 

New American (1970):                  receives not me

 

New Jerusalem (1985):                welcomes not me

 

The excerpt from the Apostolic Letter on the Rosary  is about the human family, about community.  Wisdom is about doing things God’s way, to paraphrase Frank Sinatra’s song, with a view to doing what is holy as distinct from what is otherwise advantageous.  The Psalm  is about trusting the promises of God, something the Faithful would call Faith.  James is more practical, instructing the Faithful on how to get along with one another in human frailty.  Mark is about the Son of Man finding his glory in death and resurrection into eternal life, something Faith promises the Faithful.

 

 

For sources, see the Appendix file.



[1] Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B., “Raymond Brown’s New Introduction to the Gospel of John: A Presentation—And Some Questions,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 1 (January 2003) 10.

 

[2] The following is taken from Father Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R., The Rosary: Chain of Hope (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003), page 165.

 

[3] Cf. no. 34: AAS 93 (2001), 290.

 

[4] Dennis Hamm, S.J., “The Tamid Service in Luke-Acts: The Cultic Background behind Luke’s Theology of Worship (Luke 1:5-25; 18:9-14; 24:50-53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30),” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 2 (April 2003) 225.

[5] Donald J. Verseput, “Genre and Story: The Community Setting of the Epistle of James,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 1 (January 2000) 104-106.

[6] John M. Perry, “The Three Days in the Synoptic Passion Predictions,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 4 (October 1986) 647.

 

[7] Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B., “Mark 6:6b-30: Mission, the Baptist, and Failure,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 4 (October 2001) 663.  Also see Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B., “Raymond Brown’s New Introduction to the Gospel of John: A Presentation—And Some Questions,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 1 (January 2003) 10 and John M. Perry, “The Three Days in the Synoptic Passion Predictions,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 4 (October 1986) 637.

 

[8] John M. Perry, “The Three Days in the Synoptic Passion Predictions,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 4 (October 1986) 646-651.

 

[9] Robert H. Stein, “The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: Insight from John,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3 (July, 1992) 485, 489.

 

[10] Benedict T. Viviano, O.P., “The Least in the Kingdom: Matthew 11:11, Its Parallel in Luke 7:28 (Q), and Daniel 4:14,” the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 1 (January 2000) 43.

 

[11] Carolyn Osiek, R.S.C.J., book review of Michael F. Trainor, The Quest for Home: The Household in Mark’s Community, the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 4 (October 2002) 781.