Biblical Commentary in the NAB

[codefro]

I apologize in advance if anybody has posted something about this before.

I recently went through the Rite of Welcome to the Roman Catholic Church. I was previously an evangelical protestant, then joined and was confirmed in the Anglican Catholic Church of America, and now here I am. Needless to say I have read various translations and commentaries on scripture. I recently got a NAB Catholic bible which has some Catholic commentaries around the scriptures. When I read some of the introductions I notice how much of the introductions paint the Old Testament books to be very historically fuzzy. Now, I know that it is important to take the morals out of the books before thinking about them historically. On the other hand, I have always been convicted of the truth of the historicity of the Old Testament. Maybe not Adam and Eve, and the flood (science is out on this one, and the beginning narratives do not appear to even claim to be written as scientific or historical narritives) but very early in Genesis am I convinced that there is truth being told in these stories.

Anyways, regarding the OT as a whole, I notice much of the commentaries come off as liberal and I am often warned not to take each book too seriously historically, and that there are many historical problems present with the OT. Maybe I am judging that statement too quickly, but maybe not. What do you guys think about that? Are these particular scholars simply hard skeptics? Does the Catholic Church as a whole lean towards this scholasticism, or does the magisterum beg to differ? Again, I am just beginning to come into the Church, so I like to hear people’s thoughts on such topics.

Thanks ahead.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I have a couple thioughts.

One is, that former Protestants from sola scriptura backgrounds, tend to see the Bible as " A BOOK.

It is not. All of those writings over all of those centuries a were part of a great collection of writings important to, and some sacred to the Hebrew people for a few millennial. They are all wonderful books.

But they aren’t one long narrative. As for history, well, any historian will tell you how much error there is because we just weren’t there.

Here’s the important thing, though, I think. If you focus too much on whether something is a fact, what you miss is the Holy Spirit whispering to you as you read. Maybe try a little less Bible for a while and use that time saying a couple more Rosaries or feeding a few more hungry people.

Jesus didn’t leave His Church a book, He left us a Gospel.

 

[codefro]

No matter what background I have, why should I avoid scripture? I can pray the rosary and read scripture. If I go to mass everyday, I hear scripture everyday. That doesn’t make much sense. Also, sola scriptura has nothing to do with what I am asking. I have a degree in biblical studies so I know the take of scripture (liberal and conservative). My question exists in the magisterial take on scripture considering I am new to the church.

 

[Contarini]

Are these particular scholars simply hard skeptics?

The scholarship reflected in the NAB is probably left of center in the Catholic context overall, but I wouldn’t call them “hard skeptics.”

Hard skeptics would be people who think the entire Torah is essentially a work of fiction produced by Hellenistic Jews, and that pretty much nothing recorded in the OT as happening before the time of Ahab (and not that much recorded as happening before the exile) actually happened.

Does the Catholic Church as a whole lean towards this scholasticism

I understand what you mean, and in the 12th century the term would have been appropriate for academics viewed by other Catholics as overly rationalistic, but today “scholasticism” tends to refer to a very traditional form of Catholic theology, so you might want to use a different term.

or does the magisterum beg to differ?

From my observation, I’d say neither. The magisterium clearly allows and promotes the historical study of Scripture, but magisterial statements tend to point scholars toward a fairly conservative use of such methods. Pope Benedict himself probably would seem like a “liberal” to many conservative Protestants in his use of the Bible, but he’s definitely on the conservative side of modern scholarship. However, many scholars who are regarded by lay Catholics as dangerous liberals (like Fr. Raymond Brown) have been honored by the Vatican. And, of course, the NAB with notes has been published by the USCCB with at least tacit Vatican approval, with one major exception: the Vatican required revisions of the Psalms for liturgical use because of what it regarded as unacceptable inclusive language. Now that fact in itself indicates that the Vatican did not have the same kinds of problems with these “liberal” comments.

Many conservative lay Catholics seem to have set up their own standards of orthodoxy, without regard for their bishops and based on their own tendentious interpretations of what the Vatican says (or in this case, doesn’t say).

Edwin

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Personally, I think the ultra-conservative people you find on CAF are too critical most of the time. Personally, I find the commentary helpful most of the time (and I’m pretty conservative when it comes to theology IMO), except this one footnote I’m having difficulty with - in the New testament:

According to Luke the virginal conception of Jesus takes place through the holy Spirit, the power of God, and **therefore **Jesus has a unique relationship to Yahweh: he is the Son of God.

Since Jesus was begotten by God the Father before all ages, this is kind of confusing me.

 

[codefro]

Many conservative lay Catholics seem to have set up their own standards of orthodoxy, without regard for their bishops and based on their own tendentious interpretations of what the Vatican says (or in this case, doesn’t say).

Thanks Edwin. That actually does shed some good light on what I was inquiring about. Regarding your statement above (conservative Catholic standards of orthodoxy), would you say that is wrong for conservative Catholics to do this?

 

[Contarini]

Thanks Edwin. That actually does shed some good light on what I was inquiring about. Regarding your statement above (conservative Catholic standards of orthodoxy), would you say that is wrong for conservative Catholics to do this?

Yes, in the sense that they claim that these really are standards of orthodoxy and not just their own opinions.

I am drawn to Catholicism in part because I don’t want to have to create my own orthodoxy, as one effectively has to do in Anglicanism.

Catholicism is extremely diverse theologically, and this deeply bothers many folks on this forum.

Granted, there’s a lot of silliness, and a good bit of genuine heresy, in that diversity. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t become Catholic back in 1999–my Episcopal parish at the time was in many ways more orthodox than the Catholic parish I was considering joining, or so it appeared to me. (My perspective on this has shifted, both because my own views have become relatively more liberal and because the rector and many of the people of that parish later left the Episcopal Church–that parish turned out to have been a very unique blend of elements that is probably no longer to be found anywhere in Anglicanism, at least in the U.S. And the Church oughtn’t to be that ephemeral!)

It seems to me that the great glory of Catholicism is that you can be confident that whatever heresy is, it won’t win. So it doesn’t seem to me that Catholics need to be so nervous about heresy. I do understand their concerns about catechesis and the damage to souls that has been caused by the shallow, reactive liberalism of much post-Vatican-II American Catholicism. But I worry that conservative American Catholics are imitating conservative Protestants (partly because the latter seem more successful in evangelization and catechesis), and that this is going to make things very difficult for anyone in the Catholic Church who wants to take advantage of the security offered by Catholicism in order to probe difficult questions and suggest controversial lines of doctrinal development.

Evangelical Protestantism polices boundaries through unofficial (in that they aren’t “churches” or denominations) organizations and networks that create a stifling climate of conformity by shouting down or ignoring people who get too close to the edge. Catholics don’t need this approach–they have the Magisterium. And yet we see an organization like Catholic answers functioning just like its conservative Protestant counterparts, setting up its own definitions of what a “serious Catholic” looks like.

Edwin

 

[codefro]

That makes a lot of sense, and I agree with your take on orthodoxy being protected in the Catholic Church. Although, I sometimes wonder if that is a cop-out for people to not take some ownership of their own personal faith. Now forget Protestant ideals for a second. Wasn’t Vatican II meant to establish and implement some of these ideas, for people to take ownership and actively participate in their faith? (BTW that doesn’t encompass all of what Vatican II seeks to achieve, but one small portion of it.) So wouldn’t that include coming to some general opinions about the scriptures, conservative or liberal, so long as they do not contradict the official stance on RC theology and ecclesiology? I would say Bishops have differing stances on a topic, so why not Catholics in general (again as long as theo and ecc. are not being contradicted)? How is it that major thinking laymen can become theologians if they cannot have freedom to think about the topics. It seems like they do, but if they contradict and advocate the contradiction, then they risk losing their full communion with the Church. That is the limit of the freedom, but the limited freedom is still there, right?

 

[Contarini]

That makes a lot of sense, and I agree with your take on orthodoxy being protected in the Catholic Church. Although, I sometimes wonder if that is a cop-out for people to not take some ownership of their own personal faith. Now forget Protestant ideals for a second. Wasn’t Vatican II meant to establish and implement some of these ideas, for people to take ownership and actively participate in their faith? (BTW that doesn’t encompass all of what Vatican II seeks to achieve, but one small portion of it.) So wouldn’t that include coming to some general opinions about the scriptures, conservative or liberal, so long as they do not contradict the official stance on RC theology and ecclesiology? I would say Bishops have differing stances on a topic, so why not Catholics in general (again as long as theo and ecc. are not being contradicted)? How is it that major thinking laymen can become theologians if they cannot have freedom to think about the topics. It seems like they do, but if they contradict and advocate the contradiction, then they risk losing their full communion with the Church. That is the limit of the freedom, but the limited freedom is still there, right?

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at. I am in no way suggesting that individual people shouldn’t have theological opinions. I’m arguing for more freedom (than the folks on this forum generally support), not less. I’m saying that the beauty of an authoritative Magisterium is that it leaves a lot of room for diversity and debate. But many conservative Catholics want to shut down this debate.

I understand why they want to do this, but I think it’s a mistake.

To clarify: I’m not criticizing statements like “I think what you are saying is unorthodox.” I’m criticizing statements like “you are obviously under a sentence of latae sententiae excommunication, and if you had any integrity you wouldn’t go on calling yourself a Catholic, so I don’t have to pay any attention to what you say even if you are a priest or a bishop or hold some other official position in the Church.”

However, I recognize that I shouldn’t keep carping from the outside. The problem is that I find it hard actually to convert, but I care about what goes on in Catholicism a lot more than I can bring myself to care about what goes on in Anglicanism (outside the limits of my parish/diocese).

Edwin

 

[rocketrob]

I recently got a NAB Catholic bible which has some Catholic commentaries around the scriptures. When I read some of the introductions I notice how much of the introductions paint the Old Testament books to be very historically fuzzy…

Anyways, regarding the OT as a whole, I notice much of the commentaries come off as liberal …Does the Catholic Church as a whole lean towards this scholasticism, or does the magisterum beg to differ?
Thanks ahead.

It is a fair observation to note that much of the commentary in the NAB is based on relatively recent “historical critical methods.” This method tends to be disconnected from the truth that God revealed Himself to us, and communicated part of what He wanted to reveal through Sacred Scripture…that the point of Scripture is to communicate to us what we need to know with respect to God’s plan of salvation for us. As a result, many faithful Catholics (and not just overtly ‘conservative’ Catholics) have issues with some of the commentary appearing throughout the NAB.

To learn more about how the Catholic Church as a whole (ie, the Magisterium) views biblical study, here are a few resources:

**Catholic Answers Article
**catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504fea1.asp

**Historical Encyclicals (see the Encyclicals section at this link)
**veritasbible.com/resources/articles

**Catholic Catechism (see section on Sacred Scripture
**old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml#art3

Basically, the Catholic Church cautions against scholastic methods that deny (or are independent of) the pre-supposition that Sacred Scriptures are Divinely inspired and/or “teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” (CCC 107)

rocketrob

 

[codefro]

Thanks Rocketrob, that is very helpful.

Edwin- May I ask why it is so hard to convert? I was somewhat in the same boat as you being an Anglican before I went through the Rite of Welcome to the RCC.

 

[Julia_Mae]

No matter what background I have, why should I avoid scripture? I can pray the rosary and read scripture. If I go to mass everyday, I hear scripture everyday. That doesn’t make much sense. Also, sola scriptura has nothing to do with what I am asking. I have a degree in biblical studies so I know the take of scripture (liberal and conservative). My question exists in the magisterial take on scripture considering I am new to the church.

Yes, that was my point. You are new to the Church. So new you still don’t capitalize it. Which is not meant as criticism, just a note on newness. I was making a suggestion to help you in your Catholic formation. You are certainly free to ignore it. It seems to me that if you let go of Scripture for a while, at least as individual study, and develop more of a spiritual life and a devotion to the Sacrament, it would be of great benefit to you. I still believe that, but then, I am not a person of infallible knowledge.

Peace be with you.

 

[codefro]

Thank you for clarifying Julia. That actually helps. Thanks.

 

[rocketrob]

codefro,
If you haven’t tried it already, you might want to look into the practice of Lectio Divina rather than giving up reading of Scripture for a time. This is the practice of prayerfully reading Scripture in the context of a conversation with God as opposed to mere academic study. A new thread was recently started on Lectio Divina here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=592295

You might want to check it out.

rocketrob

 

[Contarini]

Thanks Rocketrob, that is very helpful.

Edwin- May I ask why it is so hard to convert? I was somewhat in the same boat as you being an Anglican before I went through the Rite of Welcome to the RCC.

Well, it’s a long story.

First of all, I’m a very indecisive person.

Secondly (though this is related), I see the nuances of everything, both by personality and by training as a church historian. As my advisor said to me, “It’s hard for historians to convert to anything, because we know where the bodies are buried.” (I think this is an important corrective to Newman’s often misused statement about becoming deep in history.) I grew up in a form of Christianity where things were seen in black-and-white terms, and while I initially found that aspect of conservative Catholicism appealing, the appeal waned very quickly as I realized that I was in danger of converting to a more sophisticated version of the kind of religion I was fleeing.

Thirdly, I do not want to turn my back on the truth and goodness found in my Protestant heritage. Catholics claim that this isn’t necessary, but in practice it seems to be. For instance, it’s hard for me to see ceasing to receive communion in my Episcopal parish as other than a rejection of the grace I have received in the Episcopal Church over the past thirteen years.

Fourthly, I have strong family ties which make it difficult. My wife would not be happy–in the past my parents were the main obstacle, but they are more accommodating today (not more so than my wife–it’s just that belonging to a different church from your wife is obviously more disruptive than belonging to a different church from your parents).

Fifthly and least worthily, I would most likely lose my job if I became Catholic.

I could list more, but these are some of the main factors.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, that was my point. You are new to the Church. So new you still don’t capitalize it. Which is not meant as criticism, just a note on newness. I was making a suggestion to help you in your Catholic formation. You are certainly free to ignore it. It seems to me that if you let go of Scripture for a while, at least as individual study, and develop more of a spiritual life and a devotion to the Sacrament, it would be of great benefit to you. I still believe that, but then, I am not a person of infallible knowledge.

Peace be with you.

So much for all that talk about how Protestants can bring with them the good things of their respective traditions. . . .

I think that this is one of the most bizarre and outrageous things I’ve ever seen said on this forum.

Also, I suspect that you and other Catholics here know precious little about how Anglicans use Scripture, anyway.

Edwin

 

[mccorm45]

So much for all that talk about how Protestants can bring with them the good things of their respective traditions. . . .

I think that this is one of the most bizarre and outrageous things I’ve ever seen said on this forum.

Also, I suspect that you and other Catholics here know precious little about how Anglicans use Scripture, anyway.

Edwin

That comment you quoted from was nonsense. Scripture is the foundation for all theology and the spiritual life. Surely Pope Benedict would desire that all Catholics commit to the daily reading of the Bible. Recently, he even recommended a way to do so while on vacation: “This seems to be a good thing to do on the holidays: take a book of the Bible, so you have some relaxation and, at the same time, enter into the great expanse of the Word of God and deepen our contact with the Eternal. (Papal Audience on Aug 3, 2011).” And I say Amen to that!

Keep reading, praying, and studying your Bible.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ask St. Jerome and he will tell you–ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.

There are many things that you can do to grow in the spiritual life but certainly the study of scripture is one of them.

I would also recommend fasting, almsgiving, receiving the Eucharist, Confession, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, prayer and asking the saints–and especially the Blessed Mother to pray for us.

The bible IS Catholic! Read it to become a better Catholic!

 

[CalCatholic]

Ask St. Jerome and he will tell you–ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.

The bible IS Catholic! Read it to become a better Catholic!

Amen to that! I just attended a 4 day RCIA training seminar, and they stressed building your RCIA program around the scriptures (the Sunday Lectionary) and adding doctrine and other subjects as you go. So the Catholic Church is emphasizing scripture in the formation of all new prospective Catholic Christians .

 

[buffalo]

You could try this one:

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary