Bad NAB footnote on Mark 3:16

[japhy]

Here’s Mark 3:14-19 from the NAB:

(14) He appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) that they might be with him and he might send them forth to preach (15) and to have authority to drive out demons: (16) (he appointed the twelve Simon, whom he named Peter; (17) James, son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James, whom he named Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder; (18) Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus; Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, (19) and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.

Here’s part of the footnote for verse 16: “Mark indicates that Simon’s name was changed on this occasion.” There’s no reason to make that assumption. There’s no such footnote on John 1:42 (where Jesus says to Simon that he “will be called Cephas” (NAB) or “shall be called Cephas” (RSV-2CE)), which can be seen as a prophecy to be fulfilled in Matthew 16:18. Matthew 16:18 implies more strongly than Mark 3:16 that Simon was given the name “Peter” because of the confession he made. I admit it does not demand that interpretation, but it is the traditional one; Simon is not called “Peter” in dialog until that point.

But I am curious why the NAB commentators felt inclined to say that Mark 3:16 indicates that Jesus had already named Simon “Peter” at that point, when the commentators make no such claim about Mark 3:19 – that is, they don’t say that Mark is indicating that Judas had already betrayed Jesus as that point.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Maybe they actuall got it right! St. Augustine seems to support it, he says

AUG. But let no one suppose that Simon now received his name and was called Peter, for thus he would make Mark contrary to John, who relates that it had been long before said to him, You shall be called Cephas. But Mark gives this account by way of recapitulation; for as he wished to give the names of the twelve Apostles, and was obliged to call him Peter, his object was to intimate briefly, that he was not called this originally, but that the Lord gave him that name.

NAB occasionally will get something correct, a broken clock is right twice a day!

 

[japhy]

Maybe they actuall got it right! St. Augustine seems to support it…

Hmm, Augustine does seem rather resolute in that. In the Catena Aurea on Matthew 16, Jerome argues one way, Augustine the other:
JEROME: As much as to say, You have said to me, You are Christ the Son of the living God, therefore I say to you, not in a mere speech, and that goes not on into operation; but I say to you, and for Me to speak is to make it so, that you are Peter. For as from Christ proceeded that light to the Apostles, whereby they were called the light of the world, and those other names which were imposed upon them by the Lord, so upon Simon who believed in Christ the Rock, He bestowed the name of Peter (Rock.)

AUG: But let none suppose that Peter received that name here; he received it at no other time than where John relates that it was said to him, you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter.

And on Mark 3, Augustine says:
AUG: But let no one suppose that Simon now received his name and was called Peter, for thus he would make Mark contrary to John, who relates that it had been long before said to him, You shall be called Cephas. But Mark gives this account by way of recapitulation; for as he wished to give the names of the twelve Apostles, and was obliged to call him Peter, his object was to intimate briefly, that he was not called this originally, but that the Lord gave him that name.

On John 1, Augustine continues his argument, while Alcuin suggests otherwise:
AUG: The account here of the two disciples on the Jordan, who follow Christ (before he had gone into Galilee) in obedience to John’s testimony; viz. of Andrew bringing his brother Simon to Jesus, who gave him, on this occasion, the name of Peter; disagrees considerably with the account of the other Evangelists, viz. that our Lord found these two, Simon and Andrew, fishing in Galilee, and then bid them follow Him: unless we understand that they did not regularly join our Lord when they saw Him on the Jordan; but only discovered who He was, and full of wonder, then returned to their occupations. Nor must we think that Peter first received his name on the occasion mentioned in Matthew, when our Lord says, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church; but rather when our Lord says, You shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

ALCUIN: Or perhaps He does not actually give him the name now, but only fixes beforehand what He afterwards gave him when He said, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church. And while about to change his name, Christ wishes to show that even that which his parents had given him, was not without a meaning. For Simon signifies obedience, Joanna grace, Jona a dove: as if the meaning was; You are an obedient son of grace, or of the dove, i.e. the Holy Spirit; for you have received of the Holy Spirit the humility, to desire, at Andrew’s call, to see Me. The elder disdained not to follow the younger; for where there is meritorious faith, there is no order of seniority.

Still, the footnote is misleading.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Rarely if ever the NAB footnotes have ever given me satisfactory help, I guess that goes for just about all liberal theology, you just can’t trust it, that is if you are one who seeks the truth of the Catholic Faith.