Book Review: "Mary's Voice in the Gospel According to John" & St. John Henry Newman

Last week I purchased a copy of Michael Pakaluk's latest Gospel translation and commentary at Eighth Day Books. According to the publisher, Regnery:

The Gospel according to John has always been recognized as different from the “synoptic” accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

But what explains the difference?

In this new translation and verse-by-verse commentary, Michael Pakaluk suggests an answer and unlocks a two thousand-year-old mystery. Mary’s Voice in the Gospel according to John reveals the subtle but powerful influence of the Mother of Jesus on the fourth Gospel.

In his dying words, Jesus committed his Mother to the care of John, the beloved disciple, who “from that hour . . . took her into his own home.” Pakaluk draws out the implications of that detail, which have been overlooked for centuries.

In Mary’s remaining years on earth, what would she and John have talked about? Surely no subject was as close to their hearts as the words and deeds of Jesus. Mary’s unique perspective and intimate knowledge of her Son must have shaped the account of Jesus’ life that John would eventually compose.

With the same scholarship, imagination, and fidelity that he applied to Mark’s Gospel in The Memoirs of St. Peter, Pakaluk brings out the voice of Mary in John’s, from the famous prologue about the Incarnation of the Word to the Evangelist’s closing avowal of the reliability of his account.

This remarkably fresh translation and commentary will deepen your understanding of the most sublime book of the New Testament.

This review of the book in First Things by Max Torres provides an apt summary of Pakaluk's method:

Proceeding thus, Pakaluk posits four possible modes or causal pathways of Mary's influence: by virtue of John’s deference to her; by his familiarity with her and custom acquired by living with her for so long; by his love for her and attraction to her person and thought; and by the mutual influence and love she shared with Jesus, which beckons discipleship. He posits six types, marks, or forms we might expect her influence to take, each predicated on a particular role that John could not occupy: as Theotokos or God-bearer; as woman; as mother; as perpetual virgin; as spouse; and as handmaiden. How would things look from the perspective of one who conceived and bore God incarnate? How would one expect the roles of “woman” or “handmaiden” to color Mary’s experience and John’s account?

Pakaluk finds what he seeks in several features of John’s Gospel. For example, he points out how it consists mainly of conversations rather than accounts of deeds or teachings—a mode of communication that he argues is especially characteristic of women. Similarly, John’s Gospel is told from the point of view of a sympathetic observer who identifies with Jesus, much as a mother and Theotokos might tell it. Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus clearly and consistently proclaims his divinity by referring to himself in God’s name: “I am.” Mary would have understood from longer and more intimate knowledge of Jesus what the synoptics could only grope at in confusion; this would explain why John highlights Jesus’s startling revelation of his name when the synoptics could not, and did not, mention it in theirs. . . .

And you may read more about how Pakaluk came to write the book here in an interview at Crux.

As I noted when reviewing The Memoirs of Saint Peter, I think I benefited immediately from reading Pakaluk's translation of the Gospel according St. John merely by the fact that it was in a different format (printed separately and not in a "Bible" format of columns and notes at the bottom of the page of the text of the Gospel) and often by Pakaluk's word choices, made because as he says my eyes skim too quickly over the words I've always heard and read. 

One of the points of debate between those who have found such reverence and silence in the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite (aka The Tridentine Mass, celebrated since the Council of Trent in the 16th century until the mid-20th century in the Roman (not Eastern) Catholic Church) and those who appreciate the wider range of Scripture passages in the Ordinary Form of Latin Rite (with more or almost all vernacular language, in spite of the stated wishes of the Bishops of the Second Vatican Council) is the purpose and role of the Scriptures in the context of the celebration of the Mass. 

The Extraordinary Form has one cycle of readings (an Epistle--an Old Testament or New Testament reading NOT from one of the four Gospels and a Gospel), read every year at Daily and Sunday Mass; the Ordinary Form has three cycles of three readings for Sundays and two for Daily Mass (just two readings). Thus if one attended Mass or at least read the readings for every Mass every day for three years, one would read much (not all but almost all) of the Holy Bible. Thus, the Ordinary Form would seem to provide Catholics with the opportunity for a much fuller understanding of the Scriptures, with the Sunday homily or daily Mass feverino explicating and applying the readings. The Ordinary Form seems to provide more didactic opportunity for growth in the knowledge of Scripture. 

Proponents of the Extraordinary Form would respond that knowledge of Scripture is not the purpose of the Holy Mass. As Dietrich von Hildebrand writes in Liturgy and Personality, the purpose of attending the Holy Mass is for us to grow in virtues in conformity with Jesus Christ. We are mainly participating and offering ourselves with Jesus to the Father in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, not studying the Bible.

[This is at least one form of the argument between proponents of the two Forms of the same Latin Rite; both of which represent the Holy Sacrifice and feed us the Holy Sacrament, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. As also the Eastern Rites and the Anglican Use do.]

But that expanded selection of readings in the Lectionary of the Ordinary Form can't replace reading the Holy Bible outside of the liturgy (which includes the Liturgy of the Hours) and even for a Catholic like me who does complete the reading cycle every two and three years it's beneficial to read a book of the Bible separately and even explore it on its one. With the good commentary that Michael Pakaluk provides, I understand more what makes the Gospel of John different than the Synoptic Gospels and why. So that's one reason I recommended both The Memoirs of Saint Peter and The Voice of Mary in the Gospel According to John. In fact, I recommend reading Memoirs (Mark) and then Voice (John) in that order to see how the entire views and purposes of the two Gospels differ and I hope Professor Pakaluk offers his own translations of the Matthew and Luke too; he just needs to find his "hook".

Finally, what really induces me to recommend this book is Pakaluk's substantial use of the Parochial and Plain Sermons (PPS) and other works of Saint John Henry Newman--although you wouldn't know he did so from the Index, which never lists Newman's name!

Here's just a partial list of the PPS Pakaluk quotes, cites, and references:

The Mystery of Godliness

Scripture a Record of Human Sorrow

Christ the Son of God Made Man

Attendance on Holy Communion

The Eucharistic Presence

The Gospel Feast

Obedience to God the Way to Faith in Christ

The Incarnate Son, a Sufferer and a Sacrifice

The Shepherd of Our Souls

Tears of Christ at the Grave of Lazarus

Christ Manifested in Remembrance

Saving Knowledge

The Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Church

Obedience the Remedy for Religious Perplexity

The Indwelling Spirit

Righteousness Not of Us, but In Us

Christian Repentance

Witnesses to the Resurrection

Peace in Believing

The Gift of the Spirit

The Unity of the Church

The Christian Church an Imperial Power

When the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas are cited, they are noted in the Index, but not Newman's--I find that a strange and unfortunate omission. 

Pakaluk relies greatly on Newman in his commentary on this Gospel; if he isn't citing Newman's sermons and other works, he's referencing Newman's translation of the Catena Aurea! For example, when Pakaluk cites "The Mystery of Godliness" he notes that Newman helps "us to hear the voice of Mary here" (p. 36).  I am working on an index of my own to keep inside the book so I may have it as a reference in future! If Regnery wants to pay me for it in the paperback edition or a second edition of the hardcover, the publisher can contact me! 

Highly recommended, nevertheless!