C
CatholicCnvt
Guest
I had forgotten that I purchased A Catholic Introduction to the Bible The Old Testament by John Bergsma and Brant Pitre
- Status
C
CatholicCnvt
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
B
bobperk
Guest
More NAB footnote “gems” litter Sts. Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives, where the holy evangelists are accused of inserting “legendary” details, where St. Luke’s grasp of history is dismissed out of hand in favor of Josephus, and the Magnificat was just inserted by St. Luke because it sounded good, not because our Blessed Mother actually said it.I’ll stick to the one example from the citation I gave. Did Jesus predict his suffering and death? The notes say “nope; those predictions don’t proceed from Jesus – I mean, maybe he knew that His mission was dangerous, but that’s about it”.
If that’s not “unorthodox” or “contrary to Catholic belief”, I don’t know what is…
B
bobperk
Guest
The vast majority of bishops that approved this translation aren’t biblical scholars, and went through seminary at a time when secular, skeptical historical-criticism of the Bible was all the rage. So you can’t really blame them, but to dismiss all other traditional and orthodox footnotes just because the NAB’s are newer doesn’t mean they’re correct.
My dream is that the index of forbidden books is reinstated, and the NAB footnotes would be the first thing condemned. NAB: “Not Actually the Bible.”
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
If one but compares and contrasts the overall translation, but particularly the intros and foot notes of the 1941-1969 Confraternity bible with those of the NAB, it scarcely seems that they are from the same Church. The Confraternity is plain, confident, faith-inspiring, 100% Catholic.
Very sadly, the NAB was composed in the age of ecumenism gone wild. It is considerably easier to defend Catholic doctrine from the KJV than from the NAB. A shame, really.
Even if approved.
Very sadly, the NAB was composed in the age of ecumenism gone wild. It is considerably easier to defend Catholic doctrine from the KJV than from the NAB. A shame, really.
Even if approved.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Your recommendation was a good one afaik, and a welcome contribution. No complaints from me about that.
My remarks about your attitude toward the bishops were not intended to “marginalize” you. I welcome your open honesty. Do you think I mischaracterized what you said? Are you supportive of the US bishops? Even in their “wild ecumenism”?
A new thread to defend the NABRE is unnecessary since this has been turned into one to attack it. It is the same topic.
O
otjm
Guest
I think if you will re-read my post, you will note that I made no mention of Abraham.
And I did not say, and do not say, that there was no Noah, or that he is an amalgam of others.
My comments rather are directed to those who try to cram down the story surrounding Noah, to come up with an historical dating through generations mentioned. We fall all too easily into taking the Scripture for time-dating. The story surrounding Noah is fairly detailed (including his relatives) and it is all too easy to get caught up in the details as if they were an historical rendering as we understand history; the purpose of the story is to convey the relationship between God and man (which is another way of saying it conveys the covenant relationship). It is akin to forcing someone to say there was an actual tree - one with roots, trunk, cambium layer, bark, and photosynthetic leaves in the Garden - from which Eve plucked a fruit identified as Good and Evil. Going down that path misses the point.
The story of Noah may be exactly as it is written; or it may have been embellished over time; the genealogy given may have been accurate and complete or it may have been given with multi generation skipping. That doesn’t matter. What matters is that we have God interacting with mankind and the story we are given is about Noah; and the details are a quick means of getting sidetracked.
It is also remarkable that there are multiple flood stories in various middle Eastern tribes which parallel in significant parts with the Scripture story. That would certainly not decrease the evidence of Noah. And before writing was invented, oral tradition appears to have been treated with great care. Additionally, there are flood stories in China, North and South America, Norse and Hindu traditions to name some. And from both geology and paleontology there is ample evidence of wide spread large area floods at different times.
I am not denying any existence of Noah the Patriarch; simply pointing out that presuming a written record of him was created not long after his existence is not in the category of slim.
And the rest of it I leave to the Holy Spirit.
And thank you for the link to the Register article. I don’t think he and I are in dispute.
To make it plain: I accept that we have one set of original parents; that there was original sin (by them); that God made a series of covenants with man including the covenant we refer to in the story of Noah and that of Abraham. What I am trying to say is that we need to understand the older stories as they are intended, and that we can get into the weeds by trying to view them in 20th and 21st century understandings of history; we are likely to start to stray down rabbit holes - eg. the world is not flat with an inverted bowl over it. I neither believe nor disbelieve who Noah’s sons were, nor his ancestors as noted in Scripture. I am not going to get caught up in trying to back-track history through that genealogy.
And I did not say, and do not say, that there was no Noah, or that he is an amalgam of others.
My comments rather are directed to those who try to cram down the story surrounding Noah, to come up with an historical dating through generations mentioned. We fall all too easily into taking the Scripture for time-dating. The story surrounding Noah is fairly detailed (including his relatives) and it is all too easy to get caught up in the details as if they were an historical rendering as we understand history; the purpose of the story is to convey the relationship between God and man (which is another way of saying it conveys the covenant relationship). It is akin to forcing someone to say there was an actual tree - one with roots, trunk, cambium layer, bark, and photosynthetic leaves in the Garden - from which Eve plucked a fruit identified as Good and Evil. Going down that path misses the point.
The story of Noah may be exactly as it is written; or it may have been embellished over time; the genealogy given may have been accurate and complete or it may have been given with multi generation skipping. That doesn’t matter. What matters is that we have God interacting with mankind and the story we are given is about Noah; and the details are a quick means of getting sidetracked.
It is also remarkable that there are multiple flood stories in various middle Eastern tribes which parallel in significant parts with the Scripture story. That would certainly not decrease the evidence of Noah. And before writing was invented, oral tradition appears to have been treated with great care. Additionally, there are flood stories in China, North and South America, Norse and Hindu traditions to name some. And from both geology and paleontology there is ample evidence of wide spread large area floods at different times.
I am not denying any existence of Noah the Patriarch; simply pointing out that presuming a written record of him was created not long after his existence is not in the category of slim.
And the rest of it I leave to the Holy Spirit.
And thank you for the link to the Register article. I don’t think he and I are in dispute.
To make it plain: I accept that we have one set of original parents; that there was original sin (by them); that God made a series of covenants with man including the covenant we refer to in the story of Noah and that of Abraham. What I am trying to say is that we need to understand the older stories as they are intended, and that we can get into the weeds by trying to view them in 20th and 21st century understandings of history; we are likely to start to stray down rabbit holes - eg. the world is not flat with an inverted bowl over it. I neither believe nor disbelieve who Noah’s sons were, nor his ancestors as noted in Scripture. I am not going to get caught up in trying to back-track history through that genealogy.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
From the Catechism:
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
[112] 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture” . Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
[113] 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church” . According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
[114] 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith .82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
[116] The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117] The spiritual sense . Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
[112] 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture” . Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
[113] 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church” . According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
[114] 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith .82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
[116] The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117] The spiritual sense . Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense . We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense . The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge , “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
[119] "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
Tis_Bearself
Patron
So, do you think the geneaology of Jesus in the Gospels (Luke specifically) is made up? It contains Noah and his son etc.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Let’s see - nowhere have I said anything about things being “made up”, so I do not see where your question is coming from. Do I think that the genealogies (as there is more than one) are “made up”? No. Do I believe that either, or the both together, cover every last individual going backwards? To anyone asking that question, I would answer “Why do you ask?”. The issue is not critical either in the positive or the negative, to my faith. If someone were to prove that the genealogical narrative(s) were accurate as we look at genealogy today, I would say “Cool!”. and if someone were to show that there were skips over individuals, my answer would be “Okay” as it would be irrelevant - not proving or disproving anything. do I think they were of “whole cloth”? No, genealogy was important to the Jews not only at the time of Christ but before as well; that does not equate with our concept in the 21st century of genealogy.
I also, since you may drag out the next question, do not get into any issue, for example, of the succession of bishops; it is my understanding that bishops can trace back through prior bishops back to the Apostles, and that some of the lines “get a bit hazy” somewhere prior to maybe 600 AD. That does not impact my faith in the succession of bishops - I believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church. Which is another way of saying, if a bishop were to trace back the lineage and come to a lack of written information at some point in the early history of the Church, I would not even blink an eye - that would be God’s problem, not mine, and I am assured that God is capable of managing the issue. All of which is saying that my faith is not based on wading into the weeds to prove every issue; I follow the Magisterium. And as I noted, I don’t see my position as in contradiction to what the Church says, either about bishops or about Noah or about Christ’s genealogy.
I also, since you may drag out the next question, do not get into any issue, for example, of the succession of bishops; it is my understanding that bishops can trace back through prior bishops back to the Apostles, and that some of the lines “get a bit hazy” somewhere prior to maybe 600 AD. That does not impact my faith in the succession of bishops - I believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church. Which is another way of saying, if a bishop were to trace back the lineage and come to a lack of written information at some point in the early history of the Church, I would not even blink an eye - that would be God’s problem, not mine, and I am assured that God is capable of managing the issue. All of which is saying that my faith is not based on wading into the weeds to prove every issue; I follow the Magisterium. And as I noted, I don’t see my position as in contradiction to what the Church says, either about bishops or about Noah or about Christ’s genealogy.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Not sure why you wrote about all sorts of things I didn’t ask about. You specifically said you didn’t believe or disbelieve in Noah’s sons or his geneaology. I was just curious if this extended into the Gospels in your mind. I’m always curious as to how people think who make these very long speeches about how they believe this or don’t believe that and are neutral about the other thing in the OT. When the OT is in the NT I just wonder if it affects their thinking or do they think the evangelists didn’t get stuff totally correct either and then where does it end…
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Good article that covered all the main points.
I think (I have attend RCIA classes as an observer, so I am speaking from direct observation) that a LOT of converts to Catholicism are looking for an authority to tell them exactly what is right and what is wrong, what to believe, what to think, etc. If so, they have come to the wrong place. Anyone who has read Church documents (catechism, Vatican II documents, encyclicals, etc.) knows that it’s extremely rare for the Church to come to an official decision on something. Usually these documents are ambiguous, intentionally so. There are limits, as the article points out. But the permissible range of interpretation is very broad indeed.
In the case of the Bible, you can go from one extreme, the St. Jerome Commentary (historical-critical) to the Navarre commentary (Opus Dei). And there are many in between. Each is approved by the Church, although they disagree on many, many points.
Likewise you can have a literal belief in Genesis, and I can take almost all of it symbolically. But we would both be giving Catholic interpretations.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Excellent book. I own it also. Read the introduction carefully–it should answer (all?) your questions. And see how the authors point out the ambiguity in various Church statements.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
You’re aware that there are two conflicting genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament, right? The number of ancestors is symbolic. It’s to show that Jesus was foretold in the OT. It’s not supposed to be an actual family tree. And if you think it is, then you’ve got to spend a lot of effort and time to try and reconcile the two different versions.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Yes, I’m aware. I’m asking the specific person I was discussing with what he thinks. I didn’t say what I thought and am not going to because I am not looking to have a debate on this. My reason for asking is to understand thought processes of the person I was discussing with.
While it’s interesting somewhat what you think, and this is a discussion thread so anyone can give their thoughts, my question was directed towards the person I was discussing with. Not really taking a poll here of what everybody thinks of the geneaologies, can’t say as I care and the Church doesn’t require a particular view.
While it’s interesting somewhat what you think, and this is a discussion thread so anyone can give their thoughts, my question was directed towards the person I was discussing with. Not really taking a poll here of what everybody thinks of the geneaologies, can’t say as I care and the Church doesn’t require a particular view.
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
Great question. Finding where this mystical line is crossed in the narrative of Genesis is akin to the futile effort to find the mythical point at which life in the womb becomes a “person” (which is only necessitated by unwillingness to accept the obvious, i.e. he or she is a person from the beginning/conception).
The only reasonable, straightforward approach, and the one taken by virtually all Church theologians for the first 1800 years of the Church**, is a literal interpretation from Genesis 1:1 forward.
Of course, the literal interpretation does not exclude a figurative meaning, as is obvious from St. Paul’s figurative interpretation in Galatians of the historic account of Sarah and Hagar.
**BTW, the overwhelming majority of literal interpreters of Genesis 1-11 during the first 1800 years of Church history includes St. Augustine–although he had an unusual literal interpretation based on faulty Latin manuscripts (in contrast with the normative six literal day creation interpretation of other Church Fathers). This has provided endless fodder in our post-Darwinian era for misconstruing his beliefs. Please see the excellent Kolbe Center Article on this (btw, I’m a Protestant, but I’m also a fan of solid analysis wherever it’s found):
St. Augustine’s literal interpretation of Genesis (e.g. his literal interpretation of creatures reproducing only after their kinds, of the genealogies/life-spans, of the global flood, of the tower of Babel, etc.) did not exclude his belief that rich figurative meanings may be found in the historic narrative of the first few chapters of Genesis, as well as in all the historic narratives of Scripture.
Young Earth Creationist, St. Augustine (City of God , Book 12)
Have a great 4th of July.
Last edited:
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
I believe both genealogies are true, yet remain a divine mystery for us to contemplate. But, they are not made up, fictional family trees just to connect Jesus to Old Testament prophecies.
To make an analogy (not with the intention to derail this post), a great number of Catholics accept a secular view of evolution. But they will maintain that while we do not know everything there is to know about the subject yet, further study will allow us to understand the full mystery of life. However, with great vigor and faith in evolution, they will maintain that the idea is true. Would that as it were that the same Catholics would have similar reverence for Sacred Scripture as they do for evolution. Sadly, it is common these days for a Catholic to accept a materialistic view of evolution, and defend it at all costs, yet the Holy Bible can be questioned and degraded with reckless abandon.
To make an analogy (not with the intention to derail this post), a great number of Catholics accept a secular view of evolution. But they will maintain that while we do not know everything there is to know about the subject yet, further study will allow us to understand the full mystery of life. However, with great vigor and faith in evolution, they will maintain that the idea is true. Would that as it were that the same Catholics would have similar reverence for Sacred Scripture as they do for evolution. Sadly, it is common these days for a Catholic to accept a materialistic view of evolution, and defend it at all costs, yet the Holy Bible can be questioned and degraded with reckless abandon.
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Pius XII addressed that problem. Secular science is not the source of all truth. But there are some who want Christians to believe it is. Distorting our true identity.
- Status