Are there any problems with the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible?

[po18guy]

A mish-mash? I must point out that even though you are a 100% faithful Catholic, you are using the marginalizing language of the progressive left. I prefer solid argument - but that’s just me. My point is that there are multiple issues, including its unworthiness for liturgical use. That is not a red flag?

And, it is easier to simply dismiss ideas than to ponder them.

As to the footnote, let’s look at slightly more of it, for accuracy’s sake.

• [1:46–55]
  Although Mary is praised for being the mother of the Lord and because
  of her belief, she reacts as the servant in a psalm of praise, the
  Magnificat. Because there is no specific connection of the canticle to
  > the context of Mary’s pregnancy and her visit to Elizabeth, the
  Magnificat (with the possible exception of v. 48)
  may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate at
  this point in his story. Even if not composed by Luke, it fits in well
  with themes found elsewhere in Luke:

Please explain how “Even if not composed by Luke” does not assume that Mary never uttered the words. As you see, no reference is made to such a hymn which might have (name removed by moderator)sired Luke.

 

[Dovekin]

What you said was that it assumed that Luke had composed the Magnificat. But that is just my recollection, since you have wisely chosen to delete that note. As you said, we won’t convince one another since there is no standard of evidence that we both accept.

I use the marginalizing language in critical thinking, not of whatever boogeyman you cited. Thoughtful consideration is what you proposed, and that is what led to calling your questions a mish mash. Or is there a thoughtful theme that runs through your questions? I couldn’t see it.

 

[po18guy]

Won’t dignify such with a response.

 

[angel12]

A mish-mash? I must point out that even though you are a 100% faithful Catholic, you are using the marginalizing language of the progressive left.

I never knew that “mish-mash” belonged exclusively to a certain group.

 

[po18guy]

Not the term - the tactic. In another anonymous forum, it was the marginalizing language. Condescending. Arrogant in some cases. It is often intended to address your counterpoint from a position of moral superiority.

In any event, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI (IMO the world’s greatest living theologian) has quite a bit to say about the historical-critical method. He states without equivocation that it has its limits.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

My point is that there are multiple issues, including its unworthiness for liturgical use.

And yet, it is used in the liturgy in the US…

 

[po18guy]

It is usable only after modification. If you like it, by all means read it! Last I checked, the laity cannot purchase the liturgical edition(?) That may have changed, if anyone knows.

Not saying not to use it. It is helpful to have a catechism on hand, for any clarification.

And, on a personal note: being very likely a semi-high functioning autistic on high-dose steroids in order to survive, I sincerely apologize for any and all offense I have caused by:

1. Having provocative opinions
2. Expressing those opinions.

I do not seek the abrasion of dispute, discord or controversy. I hope only to be enlightened and perhaps to enlighten as I am able.

 

[bobperk]

Don’t worry, the NAB footnote authors freely expressed their opinions. Their opinion is that they know exactly what Jesus did and did not say, e.g. this “scholarly” footnote from Matthew 16: 21-23:

16:21–23 This first prediction of the passion follows Mk 8:31–33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Mt 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Mt 17:22–23; 20:17–19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Mt 26:29).

That is how the skeptical NAB scholars write; in coy, passive-aggressive doublespeak where they attempt to come across as scholarly but really are trying to sow seeds of doubt about the historicity of the Gospels or the divine inspiration of Scripture. Then peppered throughout are comments about “textual variants” which they want to appear useful and scholarly, but are instead placed to make the reader question the consistency and accuracy of Scripture.

 

[po18guy]

“However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death”

Having real trouble comprehending this, as the Word was made flesh and existed form all eternity, yet did not grasp that suffering and death was part of the Incarnation? Smokes!

I know that we are dancing around a delicate subject here (why?), having been forewarned by another member, but while many other notes are fine, these serve only to confuse, as they are not consistent with the Apostolic Tradition. But, what do I know?

Just for kicks, here is the same content from the Rev. George Leo Haydock Commentary.

Ver. 21. From that
time, &c. Now when the apostles firmly believed that Jesus
was the Messias, and the true Son of God, he saw it necessary to let
them know he was to die an infamous death on the cross, that they
might be disposed to believe that mystery; (Wi.) and that they might
not be too much exalted with the power given to them, and
manifestation made to them. A.
Ver. 22. Peter taking him, &c. out of a tender love, respect and zeal
for his honour, began to expostulate with him, and as it were to reprehend
him,[3] saying, Lord, far be it from thee, God forbid, &c. Wi.
Ver. 23. Go after me, Satan.[4] The words may signify, begone from
me; but out of respect due to the expositions of the ancient fathers, who
would have these words to signify come after me, or follow me, I have
put, with the Rheims translation, go after me. Satan is the
same as an adversary: (Wi.) and is here applied to Peter, because he
opposed, out of mistaken zeal, Christ’s passion, without which the
great work of man’s redemption could not be effected. Peter,
however, unknowingly or innocently, raised an opposition against the
will of God, against the glory of Jesus, against the redemption of
mankind, and against the destruction of the devil’s kingdom. He did
not understand that there was nothing more glorious than to make of
one’s life a sacrifice to God. V. — Thou dost not, i.e.
thy judgment in this particular is not conformable with that of God.
Hence our separated brethren conclude that Christ did not, in calling
him the rock in the preceding verses, appoint him the solid
and permanent foundation of his Church. This conclusion, however, is
not true, because, as S. Augustine and theologians affirm, Peter
could fall into error in points regarding morals and facts, though
not in defining or deciding on points of faith. Moreover, S. Peter
was not, as S. Jerom says, appointed the pillar of the Church till
after Christ’s resurrection. T. — And it was not till the
night before Christ suffered that he said to Peter: Behold, Satan
hath desired to have thee; but I have prayed for thee, that “thy
faith fail not,” and thou being once converted
confirm thy brethren. Luke xxii. 31. A.

 

[bobperk]

Having real trouble comprehending this, as the Word was made flesh and existed form all eternity, yet did not grasp that suffering and death was part of the Incarnation? Smokes!

What a contrast between footnotes. The NAB skeptics treat the sayings of Jesus as anecdotal at best, but more commonly as mere invented insertions of the “community” of authors. They continue this assault on our Lord’s words with an additional note about verses 22-23: 16:22–23 Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account (Mt 4:10: “Get away, Satan!”). Peter’s satanic purpose is emphasized by Matthew’s addition to the Marcan source of the words 'You are an obstacle to me.’

Well, according to the NAB Jesus never predicted His suffering anyway, so logically they conclude that Peter never actually said his words either; rather, they were just “Matthew’s addition to the Marcan source.” The NAB sees the Gospels of Sts. Matthew and Luke as legendary embellishments of St. Mark, not as longer works of our Lord’s life which provide more details. Our Lord’s rebuke of Peter was not actually said; rather, the words “recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil” from chapter 4. To them, the invented words of Jesus to Peter are just a clever “Easter egg” used by the Gospel author to make a connection to a similar line earlier in the story.

Contrast the theologically sterile NAB footnotes with the thoughtful and edifying words from the Haydock commentary which serve to connect the faithful to the Lord’s impending passion and the reaction of St. Peter to Jesus’ coming trials. It is obvious looking at these two differing sets of footnotes how the NAB picks apart Sacred Scripture, treating it more like an ancient novel than the inspired Word of God.

 

[angel12]

He states without equivocation that it has its limits.

“Limits” doesn’t mean it has no value at all.

In another anonymous forum, it was the marginalizing language. Condescending. Arrogant in some cases. It is often intended to address your counterpoint from a position of moral superiority.

Rather like dismissing someone’s opinion as “using the marginalizing language of the progressive left.”

 

[po18guy]

Didn’t say that! Please, my actual words get me in enough trouble without adding to them!

Thank you.

Point worth pondering: I wonder how Christianity survived almost 2,000 years without historical-critical authors to de-construct and re-construct our Lord?

I honestly cannot see why they have any fans at all, let alone the fervent “true believer” supporters that we see.

 

[Dovekin]

Contrast the theologically sterile NAB footnotes with the thoughtful and edifying words from the Haydock commentary which serve to connect the faithful to the Lord’s impending passion and the reaction of St. Peter to Jesus’ coming trials. It is obvious looking at these two differing sets of footnotes how the NAB picks apart Sacred Scripture, treating it more like an ancient novel than the inspired Word of God.

I have the exact opposite reaction. Haydock decides to reject the sense of the passage as it would commonly be understood, and also as stated by the “expositions of the ancient fathers,” and replaces it with a jumbled term that is not reflective of eiher “Go after him.” How is that edifying?

He then proceeds to say Peter was not “appointed the pillar of the Church till after Christ’s resurrection.” You try and introduce that idea on this forum, and see what happens! What does this do to “upon his rock I will build the Church”?

The NAB at least gives a framework for understanding how a post resurrection appointment finds its way into the pre-resurrection story of Jesus. It is a more coherent position than Haydock’s contradictory one.

Treating the text of the gospels as a precise retelling of facts denies the meaning of the Gospel that he evangelists wanted to share. Did Jesus say “You are an obstacle to me” as Matthew states, or was as Mark described the encounter? That is an unresolvable question. But we can gain insight by asking why did Matthew include that phrase while Mark does not? It becomes obvious that Jesus is comparing Peter to Satan, and resolves the question Haycock fudged about “get behind me.”

If you want to wrangle over historical questions of whether Matthew or Mark got it exactly right, you are going to miss out on the Gospel message they were proclaiming. Knowing the details of events is less important than understanding the significance of them for Ss Matthew and Mark.

 

[Telstar]

I have the exact opposite reaction. Haydock decides to reject the sense of the passage as it would commonly be understood, and also as stated by the “expositions of the ancient fathers,” and replaces it with a jumbled term that is not reflective of eiher “Go after him.” How is that edifying?

The main purpose for “commentaries” made by those who have studied the scriptures more deeply, is to shed light on those passages that are not “commonly understood”, like this one. Most people, who might not be as familiar with Scripture, could certainly be confused and mistake the meaning of this passage, by applying their own sense of modern language to what it appears to be saying, without considering the rest of the passage, or the idiosyncrasies of the style and language that was used by the writers.

They might also fail to understand the intimate relationship between Jesus and Peter (in this particular case), and how they might typically interact with each other. They were not strangers who were at odds, but they had become best friends who spoke to each other as such, because they understood each other so well. They were actually more like real brothers.

In the DR it says: “[23] Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.”

IMHO, this line could be translated into more ‘modern language’ as, “Get behind me (or, “get in line”), my contrary friend (sometimes the term “Satan” just means “adversary”, period). You’re embarrassing me, because you don’t like doing things the way God wants them to be done, but you want them to be done your way.”

Then, Jesus follows it up with this: “[24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”

I believe that in these two lines Jesus also made a prediction regarding Peter’s fate. I think the, “Get behind me”, part of the previous line, and the, “take up his cross, and follow me”, in the next, was Jesus’ way of foretelling that Peter would indeed follow Him, and die the same kind of shameful death on a similar cross. Peter held the cross in such absolute contempt that he just couldn’t imagine why Jesus would ever have to die that way. He was beside himself just thinking about it. That’s why he argued with Jesus about it. He had no idea that he would also go, willingly, to die on a similar cross.

But, that’s JMHO.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

There is nothing wrong with the NABRE. If there were it would not be an approved translation appearing on the usccb and Vatican websites. It would not be the version approved for liturgical use in the US.

Every translation and every commentary was it’s pluses and minuses because different scholars and theologians make different translation and interpretation decisions based on their objectives.

For bible study one is wise to cross-reference more than one translation and/or commentary in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of the text. This is true for any critical reading exercise be it sacred or secular.

When trying to understand any given scripture I frequently reference NABRE, rsv2ce, Haydock, net and kjv.