Commentaries

[PeaceInChrist]

would you share some of the footnotes that you find to be erroneous and or made up.

Thank you,
Mark

Sometimes he’ll say things that are nowhere espoused in catholic tradition. I have an example from the Old Testament, but it’s the same guy:

He points out that Noah’s son (Ham) uncovers his mothers nakedness. He then points to Leviticus, which uses the idiom “uncover nakedness” as a term for sexual immorality, and uses it in this case as literally having sex with Noah’s wife, his own mom. While the idiom is similar, the context in the Noah story points to a literal uncovering of nakedness, not sexual misconduct (otherwise how could his brothers walk backwards and cover his nakedness again? Could they un-sex their mom???). This theory wasn’t seen anywhere until the late 19th century, and by a Protestant, at that. Nowhere do the Fathers or anyone mention it.

There are other little snippets in the New Testament that sounded iffy, such as his treatment of Jesus as neutral in the woman caught in adultery (I had never heard that before, but hey, it could be in tradition somewhere).

Tim reads the bible and a lot of commentaries. I’m sure if he had his back he could point out some perceived errors.

 

[Micosil]

I already wrote in this thread that I have long since given the Bible away. What am I supposed to do? Should I run up to Barnes & Noble and buy one so that I can look up errors?

I seem to recall one that said “Jesus sat down at the right hand of God” was an indication that he had finished his work and so sat, as if he needed to rest. It completely ignored the fact that sitting was a rabbinic teaching posture and that judges, governors and leaders sat on the judgment seat. Honestly, I can’t remember if this was the NAB, Haydock or Ignatius and we would argue whether this is an error or a difference of interpretation. I find it arbitrary at best.

I said nothing about Scott Hahn. Anyone familiar with his work knows that he is an orthodox theologian but he did not write all of the commentary and having his name associated with the particular product does not guarantee that 100% of the contents are 100% accurate.

That is just an example of why I don’t like commentaries in general. They tend to pin the reader into one interpretation while the Holy Spirit may have something entirely different, very specific and quite useful to say to the individual reader. A good Lectio Divina practice is worth ten thousand commentaries.

-Tim-

3:1 right hand of God: Where Christ is enthroned in heaven and where believers are seated with him through the grace of Baptism (Eph 2:6). This must be the focus of our thoughts as we struggle to lift our minds above the concerns of the world (Rom 8:5-6) (CCC 664, 1003).

The commentary you saw is probably from NAB or Haydock, because that is not what the Ignatius Bible says.

As far as Scott Hahn goes, it seems Curtis Mitch is the other person involved.

Curtis Mitch, Research Fellow and Trustee of The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, is a highly respected teacher of Scripture. He holds an advanced degree in the Theology and Christian Ministry and, along with Dr. Scott Hahn, is the Annotator of the acclaimed Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament, and is currently engaged in work on the Old Testament books, as well.

Mitch also co-authored The Gospel of Matthew, the first in the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series with Dr. Ted Sri, and has contributed essays on biblical theology for the popular Catholic For a Reason book series issued by Emmaus Road Publishers. Along with numerous conference appearances, he has been a guest lecturer in theology for Franciscan University of Steubenville, The Institute of Applied Biblical Studies and The Institute for Evangelization. He and his wife Stacy live near Steubenville, Ohio, with their nine children.

Seems like a legit scholar to me. Of course, Hahn and Mitch are not the Magisterium, nor the Pope, and do not have the charism of infallibility when proclaiming doctrines related to faith and morals, but with that logic, you couldn’t read anything not directly promulgated by an ecumenical council or the Pope without second guessing it.

 

[Micosil]

Sometimes he’ll say things that are nowhere espoused in catholic tradition. I have an example from the Old Testament, but it’s the same guy:

He points out that Noah’s son (Ham) uncovers his mothers nakedness. He then points to Leviticus, which uses the idiom “uncover nakedness” as a term for sexual immorality, and uses it in this case as literally having sex with Noah’s wife, his own mom. While the idiom is similar, the context in the Noah story points to a literal uncovering of nakedness, not sexual misconduct (otherwise how could his brothers walk backwards and cover his nakedness again? Could they un-sex their mom???). This theory wasn’t seen anywhere until the late 19th century, and by a Protestant, at that. Nowhere do the Fathers or anyone mention it.

Where is that? I want to see it for myself.

There are other little snippets in the New Testament that sounded iffy, such as his treatment of Jesus as neutral in the woman caught in adultery (I had never heard that before, but hey, it could be in tradition somewhere).

Tim reads the bible and a lot of commentaries. I’m sure if he had his back he could point out some perceived errors.

This is what some of the commentary has to say on that part of John:

8:7 Let him who is without sin: Many popular interpretations of this verse are unworkable because they lead Jesus straight into the trap set by the Pharisees in 8:4-5. (1) Some argue that Jesus is overturning the death penalty for adultery prescribed in the Torah. This could not have been so because the Pharisees would have immediately discredited him for contradicting Moses. In fact, Jesus is not addressing the status or legality of the death penalty at all; he is simply dodging the Pharisees’ trap. (2) Others argue that Jesus permits the adulteress to walk free because no witnesses are present to testify against her. This could not have been so, first, because it wrongly implies that Jesus would have been caught off guard if the witnesses who caught the adulteress in the act did come forward and, second, because it wrongly implies that Jesus would then have authorized the stoning. (3) Others argue that Jesus brings the examination to a halt because the woman’s partner is absent and so the process of incrimination cannot proceed. This could not have been so, first, because of a clear precedent in the OT where Susanna is falsely condemned for adultery without first establishing who and where her partner was (Dan 13:34-41) and, second, because it wrongly implies that Jesus would have authorized the stoning if the woman’s partner had eventually been found. Against these views, it must be stressed that Jesus eludes the trap entirely—he neither authorizes the stoning (incriminating himself) nor contradicts Moses (compromising his teaching). The genius of his response is that it turns the tables on the Pharisees and forces them into their own trap. Although the Pharisees probably considered themselves sinless (like Saul, Phil 3:5-6), and thus qualified to administer the stoning, they realize that executing the adulteress will bring Rome’s reprisal on them instead of Jesus, who is not truly authorizing the stoning because he does not truly think the Pharisees are without sin (9:40-41). On the other hand, by restraining themselves and walking away, the Pharisees are made to look like sinners and compromisers in the eyes of the crowd.

…]

8:11 do not sin again: Jesus neither condemns the woman nor condones her sins. He rather forgives her past and challenges her to live a life of purity in the future (see also 5:14).

I don’t see the interpretation of 8:11 as “neutral”; just because he neither condemns her nor condones her sinful ways, does not mean Jesus is neutral in the whole scenario. Neutral seems to imply that he is “OK” with the woman’s sin, or atleast not critical of them; but he is critical of them, for he clearly tells her not to sin further: the commentary clearly states that Jesus does not condone the sins of the woman, so I am not sure how that is acting “neutrally”. At the same time, Jesus both refused to condemn the woman and also requested her to give up her sinful ways, and also shamed the Pharisees into realizing that they certainly did not have the moral high ground. It is genius, and it is precisely the interpretation the commentary seems to support.

 

[TimothyH]

Sometimes he’ll say things that are nowhere espoused in catholic tradition. I have an example from the Old Testament, but it’s the same guy:

He points out that Noah’s son (Ham) uncovers his mothers nakedness. He then points to Leviticus, which uses the idiom “uncover nakedness” as a term for sexual immorality, and uses it in this case as literally having sex with Noah’s wife, his own mom. While the idiom is similar, the context in the Noah story points to a literal uncovering of nakedness, not sexual misconduct (otherwise how could his brothers walk backwards and cover his nakedness again? Could they un-sex their mom???). This theory wasn’t seen anywhere until the late 19th century, and by a Protestant, at that. Nowhere do the Fathers or anyone mention it.

There are other little snippets in the New Testament that sounded iffy, such as his treatment of Jesus as neutral in the woman caught in adultery (I had never heard that before, but hey, it could be in tradition somewhere).

Tim reads the bible and a lot of commentaries. I’m sure if he had his back he could point out some perceived errors.

This is not “iffy” exegesis.

The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:11)

Ham uncovering his father’s nakedness means that Ham had sex with Noah’s wife. In this case it was also Ham’s mother, incest.

The point is that God had just wiped out everyone except Noah and his family because the entire world was evil. God had just saved mankind and mankind went back to their old behaviors right away.

Just because the early Fathers don’t mention this specifically doesn’t mean that it is not orthodox exegesis.

-Tim-

 

[ScriptStudent]

This is not “iffy” exegesis.

The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:11)

Ham uncovering his father’s nakedness means that Ham had sex with Noah’s wife. In this case it was also Ham’s mother, incest.

Just because the early Fathers don’t mention this specifically doesn’t mean that it is not orthodox exegesis.

-Tim-

Agreed, which also explains why Noah curses Canaan after Ham’s action (Gen 9:25). Coming from that line of descendants is not a good thing for the biblical author.

 

[ScriptStudent]

Honestly, I can’t remember if this was the NAB, Haydock or Ignatius and we would argue whether this is an error or a difference of interpretation. I find it arbitrary at best.

…

That is just an example of why I don’t like commentaries in general. They tend to pin the reader into one interpretation while the Holy Spirit may have something entirely different, very specific and quite useful to say to the individual reader.

-Tim-

Arbitrary at best? I certainly hope not. Interpretations and biblical scholarship should be focused on reason and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This obviously does not prevent people from disagreeing, but if you are finding nothing but arbitrary views, how deep are you actually going?

The ability to read well and reason well involves being able to sift through a book’s content while critically determining what is accurate/reasonable and what is not. This will also help prevent one from being pinned into one interpretation. I love Lectio Divina, but commentaries, when read with a proper skill level, can also be very valuable.

 

[DCNBILL]

Has anyone mentioned or tried this series? verbumdomini.us/

I have a couple of them and find them very assessable and engaging for bible study.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I already wrote in this thread that I have long since given the Bible away. What am I supposed to do? Should I run up to Barnes & Noble and buy one so that I can look up errors?

I seem to recall one that said “Jesus sat down at the right hand of God” was an indication that he had finished his work and so sat, as if he needed to rest. It completely ignored the fact that sitting was a rabbinic teaching posture and that judges, governors and leaders sat on the judgment seat. Honestly, I can’t remember if this was the NAB, Haydock or Ignatius and we would argue whether this is an error or a difference of interpretation. I find it arbitrary at best.

That is just an example of why I don’t like commentaries in general. They tend to pin the reader into one interpretation while the Holy Spirit may have something entirely different, very specific and quite useful to say to the individual reader. A good Lectio Divina practice is worth ten thousand commentaries.

-Tim-

Tim,

This is what I find troubling–you posted earlier that a specific commentary contained “many outright errors, stuff which just seems like some guy made it up.” I understand that you gave yours away and so can’t offer specific examples, but now above you say “Honestly, I can’t remember if this was the NAB, Haydock, or Ignatius.” It also turns out that you don’t like commentaries in general. That might have been helpful to know up front–maybe everyone else on the forums does. No one commentary can say everything–that’s why I like to look at as many as I can get my hands on–they each bring something different to the table. They can be helpful in trying to get an understanding of the time period and the culture, what words meant then and the trouble in translating some of the words (this is why I find it helpful to look at several different Bible translations also), how the hearers of Jesus message would have understood what he was saying, etc. So while there isn’t one perfect commentary out there they can be useful.

I don’t see why one can’t both use commentaries in there study and Lectio Divina (which I think of more as meditation and prayer)–in their seeking understanding of the scripture and it’s application to our everyday life. I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive–both seem necessary to me. I would not be dismissive of either, but see the value in both.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[PeaceInChrist]

This is not “iffy” exegesis.

The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:11)

Ham uncovering his father’s nakedness means that Ham had sex with Noah’s wife. In this case it was also Ham’s mother, incest.

The point is that God had just wiped out everyone except Noah and his family because the entire world was evil. God had just saved mankind and mankind went back to their old behaviors right away.

Just because the early Fathers don’t mention this specifically doesn’t mean that it is not orthodox exegesis.

-Tim-

Not only does it not fit the context of the story, but it isn’t mentioned anywhere in Christianity at large until modern times. Ancient commentaries in general held that he either looked upon him naked (which was serious and humiliating at that time), or sodomized him.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

There’s a whole section on it. Feel free to back up your exegesis with something other that ‘it isn’t spotty.’

 

[Micosil]

Not only does it not fit the context of the story, but it isn’t mentioned anywhere in Christianity at large until modern times. Ancient commentaries in general held that he either looked upon him naked (which was serious and humiliating at that time), or sodomized him.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

There’s a whole section on it. Feel free to back up your exegesis with something other that ‘it isn’t spotty.’

The only other place outside of CAF that I see where this is actually debated against Hahn’s position is some thread on the fisheaters forum, and quite frankly, I had to stop reading that thread, there was an insane amount of slander against Hahn; claims that he’s “protestantized the Catholic Church” among other canards. This astonishes me, as it is my understanding that the theologians at Steubenville have obtained episcopal approval and have taken an oath of loyalty to Church teachings.

Someone even quoted a person who also opposes Hahn’s position, a person by the name of Robert Sungenis… I did some research on him, and he’s some geocentrist who has been known to make anti-Semitic remarks. :banghead: Clearly not the best person to cite.

 

[ScriptStudent]

Not only does it not fit the context of the story, but it isn’t mentioned anywhere in Christianity at large until modern times. Ancient commentaries in general held that he either looked upon him naked (which was serious and humiliating at that time), or sodomized him.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

There’s a whole section on it. Feel free to back up your exegesis with something other that ‘it isn’t spotty.’

And your exegesis boils down to what exactly? Essentially I hear you arguing, “It is not mentioned in ancient commentaries nor does it fit the context of the story.”

To address your first point about the absence from ancient writings, assuming that is accurate, so what? That may be an interesting point, but exegetically it is not much of an issue.

In regards to the context, if “seeing/uncovering a father’s nakedness” is a cultural euphemism to sleeping with his wife, which Leviticus 20 tells us is the case, then the idiomatic expression would be a cultural context. This does not definitively imply that this is the meaning (or only meaning) of the text, but the exegesis is sound.

 

[TimothyH]

Tim,

This is what I find troubling–you posted earlier that a specific commentary contained “many outright errors, stuff which just seems like some guy made it up.” I understand that you gave yours away and so can’t offer specific examples, but now above you say “Honestly, I can’t remember if this was the NAB, Haydock, or Ignatius.” It also turns out that you don’t like commentaries in general. That might have been helpful to know up front–maybe everyone else on the forums does. No one commentary can say everything–that’s why I like to look at as many as I can get my hands on–they each bring something different to the table. They can be helpful in trying to get an understanding of the time period and the culture, what words meant then and the trouble in translating some of the words (this is why I find it helpful to look at several different Bible translations also), how the hearers of Jesus message would have understood what he was saying, etc. So while there isn’t one perfect commentary out there they can be useful.

I don’t see why one can’t both use commentaries in there study and Lectio Divina (which I think of more as meditation and prayer)–in their seeking understanding of the scripture and it’s application to our everyday life. I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive–both seem necessary to me. I would not be dismissive of either, but see the value in both.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I was just offering my opinion on the inferiority of the Ignatius product in general and am sorry that my opinion has troubled you.