Since the sixteenth century, there have been hundreds of translations of the Bible in English. Do we really need another?
With his translations of Mark, John, and Matthew, Professor Michael Pakaluk of Catholic University demonstrates that there is indeed room for more, especially since his insightful commentary accompanies each of his Gospel translations. But in addition—and this is what makes his ongoing project so interesting—Professor Pakaluk provides not only a new translation and commentary but also a new perspective on Mark, John, and now Matthew. Accordingly, Professor Pakaluk takes into account the background and circumstances of the Gospel authors to gain a deeper and clearer understanding of their work.
In his first book in this series, Pakaluk proceeds from the general consensus that although St. Mark wrote the Gospel, St. Peter dictated it to him. This is how Mark, who was not one of the original disciples, could narrate in the first person and use the historical present tense as if he were there for the events he described.
The Gospel According to John is arguably the most mystical of the four Gospels; this seems especially true when John is considered together with his other canonical books: the three Epistles of John and the book of Revelation. If so, Pakaluk notes that as John wrote, his house guest was the Mother of God:
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold your son! Then he said to the disciple, Behold your mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. (John 19:26–27)
The sweeping, ambitious Gospel According to Matthew is only understood in all its richness by acknowledging the author’s “commercial vocation” prior to his call to discipleship—namely, that of a tax collector, with all the skill and background the Romans would have required of someone in that role.
Peter and Mark’s Collaboration
Michael Pakaluk begins the first of his Gospel translations with a reminder of the textual reliability of Scripture. He notes, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, a staple of ancient philosophy, rests upon only two manuscripts that only became readily available over a millennium after Aristotle’s time. By contrast, the Bible relies upon tens of thousands of manuscripts, some as close to Christ’s life as the second century. When it comes to the Gospel According to Mark, the careful reader is struck by the “immediacy” of the text; that is, the Gospel reads as if the writer were a witness to what he is writing, which has to mean the Gospel could not have originated with Mark.
The title of Pakaluk’s translation is taken from Justin Martyr, who in AD 150 referred to Mark’s Gospel as Peter’s “memoirs.” Though there are counterarguments, the weight of evidence supports Peter’s authorship with Mark as his amanuensis. Peter, moreover, was part of Jesus’s inner circle, along with James and John. For example, Jesus invited the three of them to “a high mountain” to witness his Transfiguration.
Additionally, Pakaluk underscores other episodes in the Gospel of Mark to support his thesis. For instance, only Peter, James, or John could have reported Jesus’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, since Christ had invited only those three to accompany him. Mark, of course, was not present. Although Peter doesn’t allow Mark to pull any punches about his impetuosity and betrayal, he is careful to have Mark record in chapter 16 that the “young man” (read: “angel”) instructed Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome to tell “the disciples, and Peter” about Christ’s Resurrection (emphasis added). This, we may surmise, was a sign of Peter’s emerging rehabilitation—and we shouldn’t begrudge Peter for noting it.
At the Last Supper in Mark 14, Jesus forewarns his disciples that one of them will betray him. Why? Pakaluk offers two reasons: First, so the disciples will not be shocked when the betrayal occurs; second, to give Judas room to repent. Remarkably, this second rationale is played out in the global phenomenon TV series The Chosen. In that portrayal, Jesus even meets separately with Judas to listen to his complaints and to try and persuade him to abandon his perfidy. While that may be extra-scriptural, it supports Pakaluk’s hypothesis—and Jesus’ merciful nature.
In Mark’s account of the feeding of the five thousand, Mark reports that there were five thousand “men” present. Given Jewish extended families, Pakaluk explains that each man would have represented, on average, five others. Accordingly, the feeding of the five thousand was really the feeding of about 25,000.
John and the Theotokos
We already know that the Gospel of John is not considered “synoptic” (literally, “seeing together”) and thus not included with the other three synoptic Gospels. John emphasizes Jesus’s divinity more prominently, structures his narrative differently, and introduces his account distinctly with the important Greek philosophical term logos (λόγος). John tells us the concept so central to ancient philosophy is actually a person: Jesus himself is the Logos.
Pakaluk helps us understand why John’s Gospel is different and why John chose to emphasize and report what he did. Pakaluk explains his working thesis:
So then, in sum, our method to discern the influence of Mary on John’s Gospel is this: Start with the working hypothesis that the Gospel does show the influence of the “Mother” of the Evangelist, who shared his home with her for many years. Then see which aspects of the Gospel seem to reflect the viewpoint of Mary as Theotokos, woman, virgin, spouse, or handmaiden.
He further qualifies that he is “not claiming that Mary contributed to the actual writing of John’s Gospel, since it was likely written years after Mary had assumed from this life. Rather, he continues, “I am supposing that what John wrote, in the end, arose from their discussions over decades together and bore the mark of their two hearts.”
Mary would have influenced John in several ways. For example, he would undoubtedly have maintained a deferential attitude toward the Mother of God, and in a sense, he would have been her disciple. After all, Mary had lived with the experience and knowledge of Jesus’s true identity for three decades before Jesus acquired his first disciple. It is not hard to imagine, in later years, Mary saying, “Let me help you understand this better, John.”
And then there is the story of the wedding at Cana, only reported by John. Mary apparently already knew of Jesus’s divine ability to solve the vinicultural crisis. John’s Gospel makes it clear that Mary knew exactly what she was expecting from Jesus. In response, after a brief demurral, Jesus himself deferred to Mary, as Pakaluk explains. I like to use this episode to explain why so many of us ask for Mary’s intercession: If Jesus is willing to miraculously keep the party going at Mary’s request, what more might he do if she were to ask on our behalf!
Dr. Pakaluk also notes the prominence and importance of the women in John’s Gospel. Mary Magdalene plays an especially notable role immediately after Jesus’s Resurrection. In the case of Lazarus’s return to life, which only appears in John, the prominent protagonist isn’t Lazarus—after all, he was dead—but the heartrending role that Martha and Mary play in their efficacious appeal to Jesus to act on Lazarus’s behalf, who does no more than stumble out of the tomb.
Commerce and Scripture
In what may be his most creative work yet, Michael Pakaluk convincingly demonstrates that the erstwhile tax collector’s commercial background influenced the way he narrates his Gospel, thus opening for the earnest reader a new dimension of an ancient story with this attractive new translation of Matthew’s Gospel.
Reading Matthew from Pakaluk’s perspective should immediately remind us of the many times Scripture describes the Christian life in economic terms . . .
The first thing that will strike the reader is Pakaluk’s title for his translation of Matthew: Be Good Bankers. It may be off-putting for a few who read no further. But Pakaluk demonstrates the phrase may reach back even to Jesus’s lifetime. Pakaluk says he first encountered the phrase in St. Francis de Sales’s Introduction to the Devout Life. In addressing the hypothetical individual Philothea (“Lover of God”), to whom de Sales addresses the book, the French saint writes,
Therefore, Philothea, on these occasions we must carefully practice what the Savior of our souls was accustomed to say, as the ancients have informed us, “Be ye good bankers,” or changers of money; that is to say, receive not bad money with the good, nor base gold with the fine. . . . Separate the precious from the vile.
This passage suggests that the phrase “Be good bankers” has not only a literal meaning but, more importantly, is metaphorically weighty. Pakaluk’s further research discovered that, while this phrase does not appear in the accepted canon of Scripture, a long train of Church fathers attributed it to Christ, including John Cassian, Origen, St. Ambrose, and St. Jerome.
Pakaluk’s further premise is that if we want to better understand this fiscal undercurrent, the Gospel According to Matthew is the place to go. Even more, Matthew may have been chosen as a disciple precisely because his erstwhile occupation meant he understood and was talented with the concept and use of money—better than, for example, a fisherman (Peter, Andrew, James, or John) or a political activist (Simon).
In The Chosen, the talented actor Paras Patel portrays Matthew as if the disciple were on the spectrum—that is, with a mild autistic bent. Such people are often hyper-attentive to detail, as an accountant should be. The Chosen’s Matthew, moreover, is one of the only disciples who appears to meticulously record Jesus’s discourse and activity.
Reading Matthew from Pakaluk’s perspective should immediately remind us of the many times Scripture describes the Christian life in economic terms, not only in Matthew but elsewhere in the New Testament. Even the word “redemption” means “to buy back.” The primary Greek word for redemption is apolutrosis (ἀπολύτρωσις), signifying the act of being freed or delivered, often through the payment of a ransom. An alternate scriptural word for redemption, this time the verb exagorazo (ἐξαγοράζω), is also used for financial transactions; once again, it means “to buy out” or “to ransom.” The latter word refers to the market, in ancient and New Testament times called the agora—so, “to buy out of the market.” But in the spiritual sense, it is not fish nor cloth that are bought but a human being.
Economic allusions are by no means confined to Matthew. For example, in Colossians 3:23–24, Paul admonishes,
Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward.
The Greek word Pakaluk translates as “payment”—misthos (μισθός)—is often translated “reward,” but “payment” or even “wages” are also correct.
Alternately, we find Paul reminding the Philippians that early in his ministry, no one “partnered” with him in “giving and receiving.” He then qualifies, “Not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit. I have received full payment” (Phil. 4:15–18).
Under Pakaluk’s guidance, we learn that Matthew’s word for “fulfillment”—as of a prophecy—is plēroō (πληρόω), which was commonly used for the fulfillment of a commercial transaction. Returning to Matthew, we note Jesus’s admonition:
But you, when you pray, enter into your room, and having shut the door, pray to your Father who is within what is hidden. And your Father who sees within what is hidden will repay you. (Matt. 6:6)
Pakaluk further translates,
Do not fill with treasure for yourselves treasure boxes on earth, where rust and moth consume and where thieves break through and steal. But fill with treasure for yourselves treasure boxes in heaven, where neither rust nor moth consume and where thieves do not break through, nor steal. For where your treasure box is, there your heart will also be. (Matt. 6:19–21)
Pakaluk explains in his introduction,
We can say that the Apostles found it natural to use commercial images for the Christian life, because the Christian life, as placed within a divine economy, is marked by reciprocal exchanges by which we grow in genuine wealth, with respect to the vital interests of our eternal life, for which the material economy serves as a clear model.
The illustrations multiply: Again, Matthew’s use of plēroō (πληρόω) applies to fulfillment of both prophecy and a commercial transaction. Pakaluk, moreover, translates Matthew 5:11–12 as “Happy are you when they revile you, and persecute you and speak every kind of evil against you, for my sake. Be glad and rejoice, for your payment in heaven is very great.”
In this case, “payment” emphasizes the transactional tone of the Beatitudes. To use another verse, the “meek” are “happy” because “they shall possess the land.” Stated conversely, they shall inherit the land because they are meek, and this brings happiness.
Although Pakaluk does not say so, this seems an opportunity to note, if only in passing, that this translation of Matthew puts into even further doubt the artificial separation of “faith and works” that some so emphatically endorse.
Even more than the language of commerce, Matthew organizes his ambitious Gospel into what Dr. Pakaluk calls Jesus’s ministry in Galilee—“the Deposit”—and his passion in Jerusalem—“the Payment.”
A Final Word
There is so much revelation in Be Good Bankers, as well as the previous two Gospel translations, that this review can do little more than encourage those who love Scripture to read Pakaluk’s three translations and commentaries. To do so will be immensely profitable (allusion intended).
In closing, we should note that the two concepts of innovation and orthodoxy don’t naturally work together, especially in this postmodern age in which only the new is good, no matter how bad it may be. Innovation, at least in a religious and philosophical environment, too often competes with truth and tradition. But in this case, innovation and orthodoxy walk hand in hand. Professor Pakaluk enhances and deepens the orthodoxy of the believer precisely by taking an innovative approach to the Gospels. The methodology is a further uncovering and illumination of the truth—that is, a return to the original meaning of Scripture.
And the remaining Gospel? Pakaluk reports that his book on Luke’s Gospel is underway, and the intriguing tentative title is The Gospel According to Luke: The Birth of Christian Romanticism.