K
Khalid
Guest
He calls himself Son of God. Listen to him.
- Status
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Oops! It wasn’t the Benedictines… 
A brain f**t on my part.
Can’t seem to recall the name of the OP… but they should know!
A brain f**t on my part.Can’t seem to recall the name of the OP… but they should know!
K
Khalid
Guest
It would be the Dominicans, right? Traditionally, the rosary was given to St Dominic by the Blessed Virgin Mother of God.
T
thistle
Guest
Although the D-R Bible with the Haydock Commentary is the one I mostly use, as I said I have others (apart from the NAB). Perhaps you could let me know if they are any good.
Christian Community Bible: Catholic Pastoral Edition
The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha
Christian Community Bible: Catholic Pastoral Edition
The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha
K
Khalid
Guest
The Christian Community Bible (the Filipino one, right?) has a pretty good text, but some of the notes can be iffy. They’re not bad in the same sense as the NAB notes - skepticism - but in some ways are syncretic or seem to be heterodox and have a tendency to liberation theology in some passages (cf the CCB’s notes on Jas 5), but they’re not completely dismissive of tradition, Catholicism, Christianity, God, etc. like the NAB ones are.
The Oxford Annotated Bibles are the best in existence for historical-critical study of the Bible. I myself own two - the RSV 3d Expanded Edition and the NRSV 4th Edition. The text of the REB isn’t that great (same problems as I’ve been discussing in dismissive or even Jewish handling of the OT, questionable “faddish” renderings, etc.), but it does have a much higher literary quality than the NAB and some good renderings - it’s the descendant of the NEB, and is a bit more literal with some of the more idiosyncratic renderings removed (such as Genesis 1:1-2, which the NAB lifted from the NEB). The notes alone should make up for any deficiencies in the text, but I wouldn’t use it as a reading Bible, but for study. The NOAB series are “Bible classes in a book”, and, as I mentioned, are the go-to source for technical and historical, instead of exegetical or interpretive/Scriptural, reference and study of the Bible.
The NOAB series used to be more balanced and representative of a centrist view while the inimitable Bruce Metzger was still at the helm, and have taken a decided turn for the liberal and speculative since Michael Coogan has taken over. In a way, they’re better now, as the number of notes and essays has likely quadrupled, and much greater background information is given, but the notes, as mentioned, are more speculative, and sometimes must be taken critically themselves, and aren’t as representative as they once were: they have a quite leftist-minimalist slant now, but are still excellent.
I have no problem with historical-critical study (thank God, too, or I would have lost my faith after reading the NAB), and hold views on it in general in alignment with those of the Holy Father, if not even slightly left of his position, and have and use the NOAB, the New Jerome Commentary, Farmer’s Commentary, the Rahlf’s LXX (with recourse to the Gottingen when I can find it) and Nestle-Aland text with critical apparati, and various other critical tools. The NAB is not a good devotional Bible, but it’s not a good historical-critical Bible either, and it’s targeted at the wrong market: laymen instead of seminarians and scholars. It tries to master two trades and fails at both. It also has the problem of presenting its speculative conjecture as fact, which isn’t found in “serious” critical editions, which always speak in no stronger terms than “consensus” - again, targeted at the simple believer, and always taking the most hostile position possible towards tradition and faith. Not to mention the text itself, in the NAB, is atrocious from a purely literary standpoint. They won’t ever be using it to teach atheist university students “the Bible as literature”, as the KJV is used.
The modern NOABs have some of the problem of trying to cram too much in to one book, and, as a result, the writing quality has suffered a bit, and the build, formatting, and binding quality have suffered immensely (I’ve not heard of or seen an NOAB 4th ed. NRSV without chunks of pages falling out within two weeks).
So, the CCB seems to be good for reading and devotion, with mostly helpful and faithful annotation, and the NOAB is excellent for reference and study, the introduction to the learning of the “scholarly arts” of the Bible, which are necessary to learn if one wishes to be an apologist or an evangelist to the irreligious and infidels (and are quite valuable and oft illuminating in their own right, when presented and approached properly on their own ground).
The Oxford Annotated Bibles are the best in existence for historical-critical study of the Bible. I myself own two - the RSV 3d Expanded Edition and the NRSV 4th Edition. The text of the REB isn’t that great (same problems as I’ve been discussing in dismissive or even Jewish handling of the OT, questionable “faddish” renderings, etc.), but it does have a much higher literary quality than the NAB and some good renderings - it’s the descendant of the NEB, and is a bit more literal with some of the more idiosyncratic renderings removed (such as Genesis 1:1-2, which the NAB lifted from the NEB). The notes alone should make up for any deficiencies in the text, but I wouldn’t use it as a reading Bible, but for study. The NOAB series are “Bible classes in a book”, and, as I mentioned, are the go-to source for technical and historical, instead of exegetical or interpretive/Scriptural, reference and study of the Bible.
The NOAB series used to be more balanced and representative of a centrist view while the inimitable Bruce Metzger was still at the helm, and have taken a decided turn for the liberal and speculative since Michael Coogan has taken over. In a way, they’re better now, as the number of notes and essays has likely quadrupled, and much greater background information is given, but the notes, as mentioned, are more speculative, and sometimes must be taken critically themselves, and aren’t as representative as they once were: they have a quite leftist-minimalist slant now, but are still excellent.
I have no problem with historical-critical study (thank God, too, or I would have lost my faith after reading the NAB), and hold views on it in general in alignment with those of the Holy Father, if not even slightly left of his position, and have and use the NOAB, the New Jerome Commentary, Farmer’s Commentary, the Rahlf’s LXX (with recourse to the Gottingen when I can find it) and Nestle-Aland text with critical apparati, and various other critical tools. The NAB is not a good devotional Bible, but it’s not a good historical-critical Bible either, and it’s targeted at the wrong market: laymen instead of seminarians and scholars. It tries to master two trades and fails at both. It also has the problem of presenting its speculative conjecture as fact, which isn’t found in “serious” critical editions, which always speak in no stronger terms than “consensus” - again, targeted at the simple believer, and always taking the most hostile position possible towards tradition and faith. Not to mention the text itself, in the NAB, is atrocious from a purely literary standpoint. They won’t ever be using it to teach atheist university students “the Bible as literature”, as the KJV is used.
The modern NOABs have some of the problem of trying to cram too much in to one book, and, as a result, the writing quality has suffered a bit, and the build, formatting, and binding quality have suffered immensely (I’ve not heard of or seen an NOAB 4th ed. NRSV without chunks of pages falling out within two weeks).
So, the CCB seems to be good for reading and devotion, with mostly helpful and faithful annotation, and the NOAB is excellent for reference and study, the introduction to the learning of the “scholarly arts” of the Bible, which are necessary to learn if one wishes to be an apologist or an evangelist to the irreligious and infidels (and are quite valuable and oft illuminating in their own right, when presented and approached properly on their own ground).
K
Khalid
Guest
Actually, I just read the notes and translation on Genesis 1-5 in the CCB, and they’re pretty bad and skeptical, although not nearly as bad as the NAB, they’re not nearly as scholarly either. The annotator likewise accuses the divine author of using pagan legends wholesale, of lying, of inventing stories, of questioning original sin and the fall of man, etc. - just in the first five chapters. I don’t know if this is representative of the Bible as a whole, but it’s off to a bad start. The translation is decent but is definitely written at the ESL level for people who are learning English, with the occasional inkhorn term thrown in. Not that there’s anything wrong with an easy-to-read Bible. A Bible can use simple language and still be faithful, if not literal, and truthful, if not technically accurate.
Of the Bibles you have, the Haydock is vastly superior, by chasms of heaven and earth, to the other two. For an easier-to-read Bible, if that’s what you’re looking for, you might look in to the OSB, the Confraternity, the RSV-2CE, or the Knox (excellent overall Bibles listed in descending order of difficulty: the OSB and Confraternity are about the same in different ways, the RSV-2CE is easier, the Knox is much easier) or, for more money if you want commentary, the Navarre Bible (pretty good text with some problems, second-to-none commentary).
Of the Bibles you have, the Haydock is vastly superior, by chasms of heaven and earth, to the other two. For an easier-to-read Bible, if that’s what you’re looking for, you might look in to the OSB, the Confraternity, the RSV-2CE, or the Knox (excellent overall Bibles listed in descending order of difficulty: the OSB and Confraternity are about the same in different ways, the RSV-2CE is easier, the Knox is much easier) or, for more money if you want commentary, the Navarre Bible (pretty good text with some problems, second-to-none commentary).
J
johnbres2
Guest
Wow, incredible comments in here. Khalid, you the man! I should add that I of course prefer “full of grace” to “favored one”; but have grudgingly come to accept favored one. I always thought the KJB using “highly favored one” was a pretty good argument in favor of that rendering (based on the perhaps unjustified assumption that the KJB translators were sincerely trying to be accurate.
This morning I happened to look at the Ronald Knox NT for Luke 1:28, and his is perhaps best of all to my taste: “Hail, you who are full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women. … Then the angel said to her, Mary, do not be afraid; you have found favour in the sight of God.”
This avoids giving here the “name” “full of grace” but keeps the “find favor” phrase which is more normal to our ears than “found grace.”
Khalid, I am a little surprised you speak as highly of the NRSV as you do. It seems you are quite willing to overlook the gender changes. Perhaps, this is because those do not have the theological significance of the “full of grace” type argument.
Regarding the Christian Community Bible, it actually is very “Catholic” indeed in many ways. I have at least two copies of it, and they each have different notes, so clearly diffferent editions of it have different notes.
I am not giving up on the NABRE. I spent some time pondering the “mighty wind” phrase from Gen. 1 and while I certainly understand your point, there must be some reason the NAB team did not say “breath of God.” The notes say “lit. spirit or breath of God” yet they chose to say “mighty wind” in the text. I have searched but have not been able to find an explanation of this. The only idea I came up with while re-reading that sentence a few times is that the idea of God creating the earth had already been stated. God created the earth which was without form or shape, and a mighty wind was sweeping over the waters. God created the whole formless earth, so the wind, the abyss everything was put in motion by God, so it was not necessary to say the breath of God was over the waters. All the power was from God by his act of creation, so there would be a sort of redundancy by saying “breath of God” in there. In othe words, why would God say, “I am creating this any my breath is in there over the waters”? He would more likely say, “I am creating this, and there is an abyss and a mighty wind over the waters.” I don’t know the reason the NAB team picked this language, but would love to hear from anyone who knows why they did.
This morning I happened to look at the Ronald Knox NT for Luke 1:28, and his is perhaps best of all to my taste: “Hail, you who are full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women. … Then the angel said to her, Mary, do not be afraid; you have found favour in the sight of God.”
This avoids giving here the “name” “full of grace” but keeps the “find favor” phrase which is more normal to our ears than “found grace.”
Khalid, I am a little surprised you speak as highly of the NRSV as you do. It seems you are quite willing to overlook the gender changes. Perhaps, this is because those do not have the theological significance of the “full of grace” type argument.
Regarding the Christian Community Bible, it actually is very “Catholic” indeed in many ways. I have at least two copies of it, and they each have different notes, so clearly diffferent editions of it have different notes.
I am not giving up on the NABRE. I spent some time pondering the “mighty wind” phrase from Gen. 1 and while I certainly understand your point, there must be some reason the NAB team did not say “breath of God.” The notes say “lit. spirit or breath of God” yet they chose to say “mighty wind” in the text. I have searched but have not been able to find an explanation of this. The only idea I came up with while re-reading that sentence a few times is that the idea of God creating the earth had already been stated. God created the earth which was without form or shape, and a mighty wind was sweeping over the waters. God created the whole formless earth, so the wind, the abyss everything was put in motion by God, so it was not necessary to say the breath of God was over the waters. All the power was from God by his act of creation, so there would be a sort of redundancy by saying “breath of God” in there. In othe words, why would God say, “I am creating this any my breath is in there over the waters”? He would more likely say, “I am creating this, and there is an abyss and a mighty wind over the waters.” I don’t know the reason the NAB team picked this language, but would love to hear from anyone who knows why they did.
M
mccorm45
Guest
Johnbres2,
The whole issue of how to translate Gen.1:2 is always going to be debated. Ultimately, I would probably prefer the traditional rendering, but “wind of God” or “mighty wind” are both acceptable as well. One place where the translation of “mighty wind” can be seen as a good alternative can be in relation to Acts 2:2, which describes the story of Pentecost. There we read about coming from the sky “a noise like a strong driving wind” which matches well with the “mighty wind” of Genesis 1:2. Here, the typology of the Holy Spirit is quite clear. The NAB(RE) note is actually helpful as well, which states “Wind and Spirit are associated in Jn 3:8. The sound of a great rush of wind would herald a new action of God in the history of salvation.” That certainly can be related back to Genesis 1:2 with the first act of God: creation.
K
Khalid
Guest
Tim: theologically, and, more importantly, philologically, how is “mighty wind” acceptable in either the LXX or MT?
I can see “breath of God”, “spirit of God”, “wind of God”, even “divine wind” (as has become the trend since the NJPS Tanakh ), or even “spirit of heavenly beings”, "breath of gods", etc. on philological grounds, but “mighty wind” is completely unacceptable and incorrect, as is “God’s active force” from the NWT. The rendering has absolutely no support in the Hebrew, and absolutely no support in the LXX.
Contextually, it’s rather clear. Not to mention, theologically, the Trinitarian reference (which is why this verse is so hated by UnitArians) and scores more typological references are obliterated than the one slightly tendentious one gained.
“In the beginning when” is just as bad. It has no support. For obvious reasons, if “In the beginning when God created”, not a single argument for the Christian God remains intact, and even the ontological and moral arguments are neutered (and they’re not the “big guns” used in defense of theism at the scholarly level, either).
I can see “breath of God”, “spirit of God”, “wind of God”, even “divine wind” (as has become the trend since the NJPS Tanakh ), or even “spirit of heavenly beings”, "breath of gods", etc. on philological grounds, but “mighty wind” is completely unacceptable and incorrect, as is “God’s active force” from the NWT. The rendering has absolutely no support in the Hebrew, and absolutely no support in the LXX.
Contextually, it’s rather clear. Not to mention, theologically, the Trinitarian reference (which is why this verse is so hated by UnitArians) and scores more typological references are obliterated than the one slightly tendentious one gained.
“In the beginning when” is just as bad. It has no support. For obvious reasons, if “In the beginning when God created”, not a single argument for the Christian God remains intact, and even the ontological and moral arguments are neutered (and they’re not the “big guns” used in defense of theism at the scholarly level, either).
M
mccorm45
Guest
As I mentioned in my previous post, I agree that “spirit of God” or “wind” would probably be better. While I think “mighty wind” is the least desireable, I do not think it denies the Trinity, which Genesis 1:2 foreshadows only to be clearly revealed in the writings of the New Testament. The New Testament is necessary to make any of the Old Testament hints about Personhood of the Holy Spirit explicit.
In regards to Genesis 1:1, again I think the traditional rendering is best, but there are many good scholars on both sides of this issue who will disagree. I should point out that no matter what one thinks of how this should be translated, Catholic (and Orthodox) Bibles contain 2 Maccabees, which in chapter 7 verse 28 clearly attests to God creating out of nothing (ex nihilo).
I just don’t find it helpful condemning this or that approved Catholic translation. Pitting one against the other ends up being more of a distraction than anything else, there are issues with all of them. These are simply translations, not the original languages. It would be like me condemning the RSV or DR for not translating the Greek *ego eimi *in the Gospel of John as “I AM”, which it clearly means as oppose to “I am he”, and then suggest that those two translations are denying the divinity of Christ. (By the way the NAB does translate it as “I AM” on more occasions and is very clear as to why that is important in their notes relating to the divinity of our Lord.)
From all my reading, I am convinced that each translation has its strengths and weaknesses. It is always important to own multiple translations.
J
jamesrussell49
Guest
The translation on these two points could not be any more plain to even the most basic student of Hebrew.
“RuaCh Elohim”
Ruach = breath, wind, spirit, etc
Elohim = Mighty ones, God, gods, and simliar. However, absolutely not an adjective like “mighty”. The difference is as great as eating greens and having a green car.
There is absolutely no honest reason to translate Elohim as mighty (the adjective).
Likewise with:
Bereshit Bara Elohim et hasshamyim v’ et HaAretz
“et hasshamyim v’ et HaAretz” - “(the) heavens and (the) earth”
B’reshit = “in begining (head/origin)”
bara = “(he) created”
Elohim = “God” - this is the Subject/noun. The identity of the one doing the bara-ing. There is no reason to insert a “when”. It is not in the Hebrew, it is an extra addition, is not implied, and simply cannot be justified.
It’s a pretty simple translation. You have to be trying hard in order to mess it up. Be wary of what poses as “scholarship”. There is no divine guarantee that scholarship is free of error. Quite the opposite is often true. Usually, scholars are trying to prove something. Listen to the little boy when he is saying the emperor is naked!
M
mccorm45
Guest
Again, I agree with the traditional translation and the NAB’s being the least desirable of the three by far.
I would disagree with your thoughts on biblical scholarship. While there is always need for caution whenever reading anything by a biblical scholar or theologian, there is certainly no need to avoid or be afraid of it. Pope Benedict is a man of scholarship, as a matter of fact, probably one of the greatest biblical scholars that has ever held the chair of Peter. And he has described the main method of biblical scholarship, the historical method, as being an indespensible tool. Of course, and this is the key, the use of the historical method must be accompanied with the living Tradition of the Church.
I would disagree with your thoughts on biblical scholarship. While there is always need for caution whenever reading anything by a biblical scholar or theologian, there is certainly no need to avoid or be afraid of it. Pope Benedict is a man of scholarship, as a matter of fact, probably one of the greatest biblical scholars that has ever held the chair of Peter. And he has described the main method of biblical scholarship, the historical method, as being an indespensible tool. Of course, and this is the key, the use of the historical method must be accompanied with the living Tradition of the Church.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I had never studied that partical passage in the NAB; and just checked it on the USCCB website:
usccb.org/bible/john/3
uch: WOW.NA26 (no accents)
John 3:16 ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον
… the son, * the one-begotten, he-gave that all the/who believing in him …
Monogenes shows up in Luke 7:12; and both KJV/DRB translate it “Only Son”
So the vocabulary could be argued to be correct in the NAB for saying “only Son” in John 3:16 however, that passage in John is stated even stronger than it is in Hebrew 11:17; and Isaac is the prototype “only son” which prefigures Jesus.
For Abraham had two sons with his flesh; but only one of the two was strictly Abraham’s flesh for he was begotten of the wife, Sarah. (The two shall become one flesh; not the three or four…)
I think you are right about John 3:16 because it has a double “the” structure in Greek – it ought to be translated as strongly as possible.*
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Sure, there is no substitute for honest verification of what one is told by examining the primary sources…The translation on these two points could not be any more plain to even the most basic student of Hebrew.
“RuaCh Elohim”
Ruach = breath, wind, spirit, etc
Elohim = Mighty ones, God, gods, and simliar. However, absolutely not an adjective like “mighty”. The difference is as great as eating greens and having a green car.
There is absolutely no honest reason to translate Elohim as mighty (the adjective).
Likewise with:
Bereshit Bara Elohim et hasshamyim v’ et HaAretz
“et hasshamyim v’ et HaAretz” - “(the) heavens and (the) earth”
B’reshit = “in begining (head/origin)”
bara = “(he) created”
Elohim = “God” - this is the Subject/noun. The identity of the one doing the bara-ing. There is no reason to insert a “when”. It is not in the Hebrew, it is an extra addition, is not implied, and simply cannot be justified.
It’s a pretty simple translation. You have to be trying hard in order to mess it up. Be wary of what poses as “scholarship”. There is no divine guarantee that scholarship is free of error. Quite the opposite is often true. Usually, scholars are trying to prove something. Listen to the little boy when he is saying the emperor is naked!
The NAB translates Isaiah in a similar vein when it says “God hero” rather than “God the mighty” in Isaiah 9:6.
usccb.org/bible/isaiah/isaiah9.htm
When I look at Genesis 1:2, and consider the translation – however – I am more attracted to what follows the statement “mighty wind”/“breath of God” and it’s poor translation in the NAB, than I am disturbed about calling it “mighty wind”.
The passage in Genesis has a double “above” in the LXX following the breath/wind of God; much like God’s decree to Adam has two “deaths” in it.
When I meditate on the images of Genes 1:2, I see moist breath from a mouth – as in visible breath on a cold day – being spoken/formed:
Genes 1:2 η δε γη ην αορατος και ακατασκευαστος και σκοτος επ-ανω της αβυσσου και πνευμα θεου επ-ε-φερε-το επ-ανω του υδατος
Genes 1:2 And breath of-God carried/lifted-up upon the water.
When I do a quick search for parallels I immediately notice Genesis 18:2.
“τρεις ανδρες ειστηκεισαν επανω” Three males ??? upon/near/above ?!
And I see three men standing “on” Abraham; pressing him to serve them.
Going back to Genesis; A breath, or “word” of God is that which forms or shapes things; and that is the image I get from reading Genesis 1:2; The water itself is being handled and formed and made logical (logos).
I see a parallel to Genesis 18:2 but where Earth/Adam/Abraham is the thing formed rather than “water” and I am reminded of the four substances often thought of in biblical times: water, Earth, air and fire.
I also agree with the post in this thread mentioning the strong image based relationship between Pentecost’s tongues of fire and the act of creation in Genesis 1:2; (?? and 18:2 ??)
In Genesis 18:2-3, the same “favor” noticed in Luke 1:28 shows up:
Genes 18:3 And he said: Lord, if I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away from thy servant.
Genes 18:3 και ειπεν κυριε ει αρα ευρον** χαριν** εναντιον σου μη παρελθης τον παιδα σου
I can understand translating Genesis 1:2 as “mighty” in order to emphasize the “strong driving wind” found in Pentecost. These two things are associated logically – but not literally in the translation of the texts. So even studying a “bad” translation can yield some fruit and merits a closer look.
A
abucs
Guest
I agree 100% Khalid.
The comments section is so anti Catholic that it becomes a comedy.
In Luke the section where Mary is told ‘a sword will pierce your heart’ is linked in the comments section to where Jesus tells a woman that the ones that hear Jesus are more blessed (arguably) than his own mother. Presumably this put-down by Jesus is the sword that pierces Mary’s heart. The scholars here are simply having a dig at “pious” Marian devotion. There is no reasonable argument in connecting these two passages except to criticise traditional piety. I find the comments proceed in this fashion time after time and do proceed from a mindset which is both anti Catholic and materialistic. (The great mistake of our universities over the last 100 years).
The comments section is so anti Catholic and favours the anti Catholic manufactured reading of the last century so consistently and so ridiculously that i have no faith in the integrity of the actual translation of the wording by this group nor this group’s own scholarly integrity.
I think we all know there have been bad scholarly apples in the Catholic fold over the last fifty years. I assume a group of these types are the ones with the say in the NAB translations.
As a Catholic teacher i go out of my way to get rid of all NAB bibles before kids can take on the ridiculous manufactured anti Catholic mindset of last century.
M
mccorm45
Guest
I agree that the NAB notes should be reworked in a number of places, but to say they are anti-Catholic is a bit unfair. It is approved by the Catholic
Bishops Conference and is in their website as well as the Vatican’s. Too speculative and not sufficiently theological is how I would categorize it. And because the notes have these issues, the translation itself suffers, since most people complain about them.
I would like to mention that on the Luke 2:35 note in the NAB that before the part of the commentary you mentioned, it primarily refers ‘and you yourself a sword will pierce’ to verse 34 about how Jesus would be a ‘sign that will be contradicted’ by the people, which would certainly bring sorrow to Our Lady’s heart.
Bishops Conference and is in their website as well as the Vatican’s. Too speculative and not sufficiently theological is how I would categorize it. And because the notes have these issues, the translation itself suffers, since most people complain about them.
I would like to mention that on the Luke 2:35 note in the NAB that before the part of the commentary you mentioned, it primarily refers ‘and you yourself a sword will pierce’ to verse 34 about how Jesus would be a ‘sign that will be contradicted’ by the people, which would certainly bring sorrow to Our Lady’s heart.
A
abucs
Guest
Thanks McCorm.
I was looking at the 1987 NAB version where the notes under Luke 2:35 state :
Mary herself will not be untouched by the various reactions to the role of Jesus. Her blessedness as mother of the Lord will be challenged by her son who describes true blessedness as ‘hearing the word of God and observing it’.
I maintain this is anti-Catholic rubbish for the sake of having a dig. From looking at the updated version i still consider them anti-Catholic.
I’ve sat in enough Theology classes where liberal ‘Catholic’ proffesors use this rubbish for all it is worth.
I was looking at the 1987 NAB version where the notes under Luke 2:35 state :
Mary herself will not be untouched by the various reactions to the role of Jesus. Her blessedness as mother of the Lord will be challenged by her son who describes true blessedness as ‘hearing the word of God and observing it’.
I maintain this is anti-Catholic rubbish for the sake of having a dig. From looking at the updated version i still consider them anti-Catholic.
I’ve sat in enough Theology classes where liberal ‘Catholic’ proffesors use this rubbish for all it is worth.
K
Khalid
Guest
As if the Holy Theotokos didn’t hear the word (and Word) of God and observe it from the time she was still in the womb - even for Protestants, from the time of the Annunciation - before our Lord was born. She was the first believer.
P
PJM
Guest
Sadly many progressive “catholics” seem to be embaressed by this reality. “Chosen one” is sooooo much easier for some of our Protestant brethern to accept.
Graet question!
God Bless,
Pat
- Status