Bible Footnotes

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanetMCA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JanetMCA

Guest
As a returning Catholic, I am beginning to study the Gospels for the first time. I am using a couple of different bibles: Ignacious Catholic Study Bible and the New American Bible. In my NAB there are footnotes that refer to Q (i.e., footnote of Matthew 22:1-14 says “This parable is from Q.”) Can you please explain to me what Q is? I looked through the section on How To Read Your Bible and didn’t find an explanation there.
 
JanetMCA said:
As a returning Catholic, I am beginning to study the Gospels for the first time. I am using a couple of different bibles: Ignacious Catholic Study Bible and the New American Bible. In my NAB there are footnotes that refer to Q (i.e., footnote of Matthew 22:1-14 says “This parable is from Q.”) Can you please explain to me what Q is? I looked through the section on How To Read Your Bible and didn’t find an explanation there.
Click to expand...
Some NAB version bibles have commentary and footnotes by Father Raymond Brown. This priest holds to some rather controversial views regarding scripture that appear in places to disagree with authentic Catholic teachings.

One of these ideas that Father Brown favors is the idea of a “Q” source for all the Gospels. That is that the Gospels are nothing more than just plagiarized versions of one document. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of “Q” but it has caught on in some circles. It is popular because it explains how the Gospel accounts written over many years and very different geographical locations, can be so similar without having to rely on the power of God to inspire the writers. Proponents of the “Q” idea also tend to be those who reject the belief that the Bible is inerrant and that many of the accounts, such as the Nativity narratives or the story of the Exodus are nothing more than fiction. These are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Personally, I would find another version of the NAB that does not use commentary by Father Brown. It can lead you astray as it has lead others, including some members here on this forum.
 
rpp said:
Some NAB version bibles have commentary and footnotes by Father Raymond Brown. This priest holds to some rather controversial views regarding scripture that appear in places to disagree with authentic Catholic teachings.
QUOTE]

I don’t see this priest’s name anywhere in this version. I have the Saint Joseph Edition. Can you recommend a more authentic version or another bible that I can study from that will hold true to the teachings of the church?
Click to expand...
 
I don’t see this priest’s name anywhere in this version. I have the Saint Joseph Edition. Can you recommend a more authentic version or another bible that I can study from that will hold true to the teachings of the church?
 
The New Catholic Answer Bible is an excellent source. It uses the NAB translations, but is so well cross-referenced and has so many comments and articles on authentic Catholic teachings that it really is an excellent source.

Amazon.com sells it for $19.77. (This is not an endorsement of that company.) The Catholic Company also sell it.

Byu the way, I do not believe this Bible is associated with “Catholic Answers” radio program or evangelical organization which also hosts this forum, www.catholic.com.
 
The reference to ‘Q’ also occurs in the footnotes on the USCCB site (for Matthew 21). There is little support for this hypothesis that a no longer extant Source (Q for the German word for source, Quelle) was used by the evangelists. It is irresponsible and misleading for footnotes to speak about Q as if it were a matter of fact.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The reference to ‘Q’ also occurs in the footnotes on the USCCB site (for Matthew 21). There is little support for this hypothesis that a no longer extant Source (Q for the German word for source, Quelle) was used by the evangelists. It is irresponsible and misleading for footnotes to speak about Q as if it were a matter of fact.
Click to expand...
Much more succinct than what I said, but quite correct. 👍 Thank you! 🙂
 
The line of reasoning is that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their Gospels, since their similar passages can also be found in Mark, and supposedly Mark was written before Matthew and Luke.
Matthew and Luke also used “Q” as another source, since they also have those passages in common, but they are not found in Mark.
“Q” is suppose to be a source which we don’t have today, but was available to the writers of the New Testament.
 
JanetMCA said:
I don’t see this priest’s name anywhere in this version. I have the Saint Joseph Edition. Can you recommend a more authentic version or another bible that I can study from that will hold true to the teachings of the church?
Click to expand...
Probably the most unabashedly Catholic footnotes/commentary of any bible is the Haydock Douay-Rheims version. It was published in 1859 (so it avoids many contemporary issues mentioned in previous posts) and the commentary is from scripture scholars of the time as well as the Church Fathers.

You can find various photographic reprints, but they are pricey (about $90 when I got mine a few years ago) - or you could get lucky and find an original on e-bay (for several hundred dollars). Either way, it is a good source to read in conjunction with more modern commentaries.

There is also an internet site (haydock1859.tripod.com/) that provides the commentary, but without the bible text. It’s a bit awkward to use for devotional reading/study, but is certainly helpful if you read a certain footnote and want to look up a different perspective for clarification.
 
JanetMCA said:
I don’t see this priest’s name anywhere in this version. I have the Saint Joseph Edition. Can you recommend a more authentic version or another bible that I can study from that will hold true to the teachings of the church?
Click to expand...
The series isn’t finished yet, but the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible series by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch is fantastic for the completely faithful commentary and footnotes. They’ve done most of the New Testament, but they are published as booklets that cost about $10 each, so it gets expensive to buy them. Also excellent is the Navarre Bible. Both of these are based on the RSV-CE translation and have extensive footnotes. The Navarre Bible’s footnotes usually take up more than half of the page. The Navarre Bible also includes the Latin of the New Vulgate.
 
I’m skeptical that any extensive commentary on Scripture by Scott Hahn would be fittingly described as ‘completely faithful’.
 
rpp said:
Some NAB version bibles have commentary and footnotes by Father Raymond Brown. This priest holds to some rather controversial views regarding scripture that appear in places to disagree with authentic Catholic teachings.

One of these ideas that Father Brown favors is the idea of a “Q” source for all the Gospels. That is that the Gospels are nothing more than just plagiarized versions of one document. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of “Q” but it has caught on in some circles. It is popular because it explains how the Gospel accounts written over many years and very different geographical locations, can be so similar without having to rely on the power of God to inspire the writers. Proponents of the “Q” idea also tend to be those who reject the belief that the Bible is inerrant and that many of the accounts, such as the Nativity narratives or the story of the Exodus are nothing more than fiction. These are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Personally, I would find another version of the NAB that does not use commentary by Father Brown. It can lead you astray as it has lead others, including some members here on this forum.
Click to expand...
Amen to what you said about Fr. Raymond Brown. I did some research on him and found out he definitely had some heretical ideas. Another poster mentioned the “Catholic Answer Bible”, which I have, and the notes are done by Dave Armstrong, who is a convert to the Catholic faith, an apologist and orthodox Catholic.
 
Ron_Conte said:
I’m skeptical that any extensive commentary on Scripture by Scott Hahn would be fittingly described as ‘completely faithful’.
Click to expand...
Really? What’s your problem with Scott Hahn? He recognized by the church as one of the foremost apologists and theological scholars out there…
 
Ron_Conte said:
I’m skeptical that any extensive commentary on Scripture by Scott Hahn would be fittingly described as ‘completely faithful’.
Click to expand...
**To make a statement like this, that Dr. Scott Hahn is publishing commentaries on Scripture that are not faithful to the teachings of the Church, you must certainly have some examples from his writings. Please provide some examples of what Scott Hahn has written that are unfaithful to the teachings of the Church.

Oh, what’s that? Deafening silence?

I guess that shows just how much validity we should attach to your “skepticism” (sic)**
 
Veritas41 said:
Amen to what you said about Fr. Raymond Brown. I did some research on him and found out he definitely had some heretical ideas. Another poster mentioned the “Catholic Answer Bible”, which I have, and the notes are done by Dave Armstrong, who is a convert to the Catholic faith, an apologist and orthodox Catholic.
Click to expand...
It is quite a stretch to believe you have found that one of the most significant Catholic scripture scholars - a man twice appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commision by two different popes - published heretical ideas. He made have had some in his secret inner thoughts but his public writings, most all of which were covered by the imprimatur and nihil obstat have NOT been condemned. I’m sure you can find those who don’t like his writings but that is irrelevant.

The concept of “Q” does not go against a single doctrine of the Church and may certainly be held as a personal belief. I agree it should not be presented as dogmatic church teaching but anyone seriously studying the scriptures should at least be aware of it.
 
I was wondering when a member of the Raymond Brown cult would make an appearance. I cannot see his post as he is on my ignore list, but he is probably spouting something about how great Raymond Brown is and some posts he held before being asked to step down and other similar nonsense.

But then, the member of the Raymond Brown cult, like their leader, do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture, which is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
 
i also am a little skeptical of scott hahn. glad to know i am not alone.
 
i would love to state my feelings about scott hahn, but that would be going off topic and then someone would notify the moderator and we would get a warning. so i won’t respond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top