NAB commentaries, why no outrage?

[PureGrace]

I agree. Some of the notes in the NAB bother me, but there are also some very good ones.

Amor est vitae essentia

Katherine

 

[PureGrace]

Now that I think about it, can anyone recommend a good Catholic Bible for private study?

Thanks.

Katherine

 

[Comet_Catholic]

Those who are not offended by the NAB more than like are offended by the new pope. The commentators of the NAB obviously aer setting the table for pro-feminist and pro-gay viewpoints.

I don’t have to be a bible scholar to see that.

If you want to dissent, that it fine. But if its a Catholic bible, teach the faith.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Comet_Catholic:

Those who are not offended by the NAB more than like are offended by the new pope. The commentators of the NAB obviously aer setting the table for pro-feminist and pro-gay viewpoints.

I don’t have to be a bible scholar to see that.

If you want to dissent, that it fine. But if its a Catholic bible, teach the faith.

Wrong. I like the NAB and I am very excited about our new Pope. I am certainly orthodox. I do challenge you to find a place where the NAB contradicts Catholic doctrine or dogma.

 

[Comet_Catholic]

Here’s an example.
First of all, I don’t mean to insult our gay brethren out there, but we can all agree that to act upon legitimate gay feelings is considered a grave disorder. That being said, here is my example:

Turn the 1 Cor 6:9. The commentary limits condemnation of homosexuality to those who have sex with “boy prostitutes”. Then they apply this comment to Romans 1:28 ff.

There is no commentary on Rom 1:28 ff where it is quite plain that we are talking about women with women and men with men.

So now when you go to the liberal bible study, the instructor tells you that the bible does not teach against homosexuality. They show you the comment for 1 Cor 6:9 and spin it as a “social justice” teaching, that is, it is the abuse of power against the boy prostitutes. That may be OK for 1 Cor 6:9, but don’t try to apply it to Rom 1 as the Church Fathers are all in agreement on Romans.

It is a teaching of the Church that if the Church Fathers all agree, that historical-critical has to take a back seat. To not do so, is blatantly condemned by the Pontifical Biblical Commision.

We don’t need to make the bible more pleasing to worldly moderns.

 

[Comet_Catholic]

While we are debating, I do want to express my how encouraged that you are all reading the bible.
Your Brother
Comet

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Comet_Catholic:

Here’s an example.
First of all, I don’t mean to insult our gay brethren out there, but we can all agree that to act upon legitimate gay feelings is considered a grave disorder. That being said, here is my example:

Turn the 1 Cor 6:9. The commentary limits condemnation of homosexuality to those who have sex with “boy prostitutes”. Then they apply this comment to Romans 1:28 ff.

There is no commentary on Rom 1:28 ff where it is quite plain that we are talking about women with women and men with men.

So now when you go to the liberal bible study, the instructor tells you that the bible does not teach against homosexuality. They show you the comment for 1 Cor 6:9 and spin it as a “social justice” teaching, that is, it is the abuse of power against the boy prostitutes. That may be OK for 1 Cor 6:9, but don’t try to apply it to Rom 1 as the Church Fathers are all in agreement on Romans.

I think you are going beyond what the notes actually say. The notes to 1 Cor 6.9 direct us to “similar”–not identical–practices in Rom 1.26-26 and 1 Tim 1.10. I would argue that the admonitions in these passages are similar (indeed, very similar if we compare 1 Cor to 1 Tim).

The notes in no way contradict Church teaching on homosexuality–again, they are silent on it. The hypothetical situation you introduced with your liberal bible-study leader is a problem with the bible study leader who has not read his or her Catechism, not with the notes in the NAB.

By the way, as I read it Rom 1.26-27 is not clearly about women with women. Paul tells us that females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and that men likewise gave up relations with women in exchange for relations with each other. The “likewise” could mean imply that the women had relations with each other, or it could mean that the form of unnatural sex was the same (sodomy or oral sex). Thus, verse 26 may be talking about women having unnatural sex with men.

 

[Comet_Catholic]

If you look up Section 2357 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the teaching is based upon the following scriptures: Gen 19:1-29, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10, 1 Tim 1:10.

The Church most definately applies 1 Cor 6:10 and Rom 1:28 to homosexuality, not just “unnatural” acts.

I might read it one way, you may read it another way, modern bible scholarship may read it another way. But that is my point. The Church has a definate teaching and in this case, it is a matter of morality and is therefore infallible.

When you take a reasonable sampling of the commentaries, you will find that the commentaries are very heavy with historical-critical and liberation theology, and very light with Church Fathers and Church Teaching.

If it is a Catholic Study Bible, it should have balanced commentary that adheres to the guidelines of the booklet put out by the Pontifical Biblical Commision titled “Interpreting the Bible”. Yes, historical-critical is allowed, yet liberation theology is allowed, but not at the exclusion of Church Fathers and Church Tradition.

Comet

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Comet_Catholic:

If you look up Section 2357 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the teaching is based upon the following scriptures: Gen 19:1-29, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10, 1 Tim 1:10.

The Church most definately applies 1 Cor 6:10 and Rom 1:28 to homosexuality, not just “unnatural” acts.

Look at what I wrote–I said that the passage does not necessarily imply female homosexuality. However, it clearly discusses male homosexuality as a grave sin, and it is reasonable that Paul’s lesson should be extended to all forms of homosexuality (and indeed, all “unnatural acts”, including the use of birth control). Therefore, the notes in the NAB do not contradict CCC 2357, which you correctly cite.

Comet_Catholic:

I might read it one way, you may read it another way, modern bible scholarship may read it another way. But that is my point. The Church has a definate teaching and in this case, it is a matter of morality and is therefore infallible.

But the NAB does not go against infallible church teaching. The notes do not say that the church teaching on homosexuality is wrong, or that we should allow gay marriage, etc. It does not say that CCC 2357 is incorrect. And all the footnotes in CCC 2357 say is that these are the pasages the Church has interpreted to say homosexuality behavior is depraved. I see no contradiction between these two notes and these to interpretations.

Comet_Catholic:

When you take a reasonable sampling of the commentaries, you will find that the commentaries are very heavy with historical-critical and liberation theology, and very light with Church Fathers and Church Teaching.

Well, I don’t know about the Liberation Theology part, but you may be right that the NAB is heavy on historical-critical analysis and light on Church Fathers. But then, it is what it is. In my mind, this is like complaining about you ham sandwich at lunch, not because it’s a bad ham sandwich but because it’s not turkey. I like the NAB BECAUSE of the historical critical notes. If I want a different kind of commentary, I will look to another bible or to a different source. Not every Catholic bible needs to have the same sort of criticism or notes, or index or illustrations, for that matter.

Comet_Catholic:

If it is a Catholic Study Bible, it should have balanced commentary that adheres to the guidelines of the booklet put out by the Pontifical Biblical Commision titled “Interpreting the Bible”. Yes, historical-critical is allowed, yet liberation theology is allowed, but not at the exclusion of Church Fathers and Church Tradition.

Comet

Again, see my comment above. Yes, the translators and editors COULD have struck a different balance with the notes, but they did not. I am not convinced that the NAB contradicts the Church because it does not have the balance of notes that you expect. It just seems like some here want very line of notes to have some explicit reference to the Church doctrine, the Church Fathers, or EWTN.

 

[Comet_Catholic]

Example 2:

In the Saint Joseph Illustrated NAB, very popular seller. Turn to the beginnings of Acts and read the caption of the photo of the Mount of the Ascension. “There is little doubt that though he described the ascension in physical terms, Luke meant to emphasize our Lord’s exaltation”

Ok, so this is not a commentary, it is a caption of an illustration. When you take the body of the NAB commetary, it has the effect of undermining the inerrancy of Holy Scriptures.

If one wants to argue that it is healthy for our faith to be challenged with modern assertions, I can accept that. But I find it utterly inappropriate for those type of challenges to be made in the primary Catholic Study Bible of the only translation that is approved for liturgical use.

A lot of people on this forum seem to agree with that and that is encouraging.

Someone asked for a “good”, study bible. I can recommend the Navarre study bible. It has a good balance of church fathers and modern scholarship.

There have been some compelling disagreements, and the debate has been interesting. I still stand by my original assertion.

God Bless Everyone of You,
Your Brother in Christ,
Comet

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

I will defer to your knowledge on this one if I am wring, but are the problems you mention below matters of Doctrine? I mean, does the Church hold as Doctrine that Moses authored the Pentateuch, or is this a lower category of Church teaching?

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, no. 20f: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church

Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, no. 13: “The immunity of Scripture from error or deception is necessarily bound up with its Divine inspiration and supreme authority.”

I guess I just don’t see the problems that you do. Looking back over my NAB: 1] the introductory notes about the Pentateuch only says that Moses was not an author in the modern sense but that as law giver he played a crucial role in collecting various Jewish oral traditions, and that the Pentateuch was later added to and modified.

So what is this saying? That Moses **didn’t ** receive the Law from god - but patched it together from oral traditions. And then that even this was later “modified” (in other words falsified) by later hands.

I do not see how this is substantially different from what the old Catholic Encyclopedia says about Moses authorship

An encyclopedia article is very different to a supposedly official note in an official Catholic bible.

Regarding the Magnificat, all the NAB says (as I read it) is that it may have been an early Jewish-Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate to place at that point in his narrative–it is silent (well, to be honest, vague and inexplicit) about Marian authorship. Well, where would early Christians have gotten this hymn? Mary would seem to be a good answer.

So the NAB note says that Luke **LIED ** and that Mary didn’t speak the Magnificat. **The note suggests that Luke was making up the story as he went along!. ** Do you not see how massive an accusation this is? How destructive of belief?

If Luke was a liar about the Magnificat, can we believe him about the miracles - or anything else that he has written?

3] Does the Church claim the Gospels were written by the Evangelists?

The Church teaches that the Gospels are truth - without error or deception. If Luke is not written by Luke, then the gospel is a lie. If it has been added to, or items in it have been invented as the NAB notes suggest, then they are deceptive. That is contrary to church teaching.

This is where I differ fundamentally–I actually trust the laity, at least if they are properly catechized (which, admittedly is a problem). I don’t make the leap you do from “Mary did not write the Magnificat” to “the Bible is a fraud.”

You may not. but a lot of people will - and already have done. If they read in their own bible that they cannot trust the truth of anything they read in it, some people will believe the notes.

I do not see the notes in the NAB contradicting Church Doctrine or Dogma, but merely offering another explanation for how we arrive at the same point. I’m just not threatened by the NAB notes and do not fear their supposed deleterious effects.

As I say, you personally may be strong enough in Faith to understand that the notes represent the theories of weak men. But many who turn to the bible are not so learned or strong in belief. If they read in their bible that it cannot be trusted - totally contrary to church doctrine - many will lose trust.

Suppose you read a newspaper. It tells you the mayor is an embezzler. Some time later you find the paper made this up to further a political cause. When you read something else in that paper, will you trust it?

I do agree that more COULD be done to link bible passages with specific Catholic doctrines, but this could also be solved if the laity were encouraged to own and read the catechism, or by releasing another version of the bible with different notes. Not every Catholic bible (with imprimatur) need serve the same purposes or the same constituencies.

If it has an imprimatur it should not contradict catholic doctrine that the bible is inerrant and free from deception…

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

The Church teaches that the Gospels are truth - without error or deception. If Luke is not written by Luke, then the gospel is a lie. If it has been added to, or items in it have been invented as the NAB notes suggest, then they are deceptive. That is contrary to church teaching.

Your points are well taken, but I just don’t follow this logic. The four gospels are each kata X–according to X. That means, as I see it, there are four versions (or four traditions) that have been passed down. This is like if your grandfather told you a story, and you later wrote it down, it would still be the story according to your grandfather. Does this make your story a lie, or you a liar, or your grandfather a liar? And, the Church argues that these versions are divinely inspired, so GOD has made sure that what he wants transmitted has been transmitted, without error.

The Church, again as far as I undestand it, willingly accepts that Luke or whoever did not sit down one day in AD 33 write his gospel, but that there was a period of time when the stories were passed down orally until they were recorded–whether by the evangelist himself or one of his faithful literary descendants is unimportant.

The solution to the problem is not, in my mind, to have notes that emphaisize an almost fundamantalist approach to the composition of the Bible, but to emphasize God’s role in guaranteeing that the bible presents the truth no matter the mechanism He chose for its composition (and likewise, that the Church and the teaching authority of the magisterium, themselves divinely inspired) was one of the instruments by which various spurious writings were filtered out and God’s word was handed down to us.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion–best one I’ve had in weeks.

 

[SFH]

Absolutely. If you read French, try La Bible de Jerusalem. It is radically different from its English counterpart and vastly superior. The 2001 edition by CERF is arguably the best modern translation of the Bible in any language. It is very literal (e.g., “Adam connut (knew) Eve sa femme”) and very traditional (e.g., “comblee de grace” or “filled with grace”). The NAB falters on both of those fronts.

If you don’t read French, try the Confraternity Edition from 1963. It’s basically the NAB Old Testament except that some of the historical books are the Douay-Rheims version and the translation of Genesis is different (and much more Catholic than the translation of Genesis in the NAB). The NT is great even though it’s based on the Vulgate rather than the original Greek.

PureGrace:

Now that I think about it, can anyone recommend a good Catholic Bible for private study?

Thanks.

Katherine

 

[GWitherow]

BTW, the Mass is not using the NAB text as we have it in our NAB Bibles. The text used in our NAB Bibles has been criticized by the Vatican and thus our Mass readings are somewhat different. For example, compare a Mass reading of Psalm 23 with what you have in your NAB bible. It’s not the same.

The lectionary readings are a mixture of the Douay-Confraternity (I think all of the Psalms are read from this version) and the NAB. I even think our Mass readings include Mary being described as “full of grace”.

If you go to the Vatican web site you’ll see the NAB is online except for the Psalms. That’s because the Vatican believes the NAB butchered the Psalms in the name of gender inclusiveness, obscuring some of the messianic passages. That’s why our Mass readings from the Psalms come from the Confraternity version.

 

[GWitherow]

For a nice leather bound RSVCE Bible see Scepter Publishers website.

scepterpublishers.org/product/?FULL=157

They have these in burgundy and black, indexed and non-indexed.
Indexed go for 49.95
Non-indexed go for 45.95

You can also get a nice leather pocket size addition from Scepter (again, RSVCE) that while it has smaller print, the text has a different font and there are nice page breaks on the pages. There are 4 different colors. A nice travel bible.
scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=287

Otherwise you can go to Amazon.com and get an Ignatius Bible (RSVCE) that has exactly the same text and layout in hardcover (19.95 I think) or paperback (13.95 I think).

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

Thanks for the stimulating discussion–best one I’ve had in weeks.

Thanks too, but I’m not letting go of this yet!

Your points are well taken, but I just don’t follow this logic. The four gospels are each kata X–according to X. That means, as I see it, there are four versions (or four traditions) that have been passed down. This is like if your grandfather told you a story, and you later wrote it down, it would still be the story according to your grandfather. Does this make your story a lie, or you a liar, or your grandfather a liar?

As I understand it this is not what many of the NAB and English NJB notes are saying.

I would be quite happy if they said “Luke gained his information from eye-witness reports and oral traditions passed down from the earliest sources.”
What the NAB note in Chapter 1 says is this: It is largely, however, the composition of Luke who writes in imitation of Old Testament birth stories, combining historical and legendary details, literary ornamentation and interpretation of scripture, to answer in advance the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?”

The phrase “in imitation of Old Testament birth stories” is unfortunate. The word “imitation” could refer to the style, but it can equally be taken as referring to the content. The writers certainly know that the very word “stories” can hold an inference of **invented ** material. Why not use the word “accounts” instead?

Even worse, it says “combining historical and **legendary ** details, literary ornamentation…” A **legend ** is a fairy tale, with little if any basis in fact. This is telling readers that they cannot trust what is written as fact. The writings of Josephus are not called legends - but the gospel is.

And, the Church argues that these versions are divinely inspired, so GOD has made sure that what he wants transmitted has been transmitted, without error.

The Church says this, but the Imprimitur-laden NAB does not. The note-writers believe **some ** of the gospel is true, but we are left to wonder how much?

The Church, again as far as I undestand it, willingly accepts that Luke or whoever did not sit down one day in AD 33 write his gospel, but that there was a period of time when the stories were passed down orally until they were recorded–whether by the evangelist himself or one of his faithful literary descendants is unimportant.

I would agree that whether paul’s companion, Luke wrote the book or some other person is of lesser importance - since in this case the authorship is a tradional attribution. However when this affects the content, it becomes important.

From the NAB Introduction to Luke:
because details in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date

Again this is stating that the gospel is at very best a deception. The verses quoted are **prophecies ** by Jesus of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The NAB scholar has followed the liberal critical presumption that Jesus cannot have made a true prophecy, therefore the prophetic words were **fraudulently added **after the event! That is what this note is teaching. There is no getting away from it. And this sort of thing is being drip, drip dripped throughout the bible!

Looking again at the magnificat, the NAB note says the Magnificat (with the possible exception of v 48) may have been **a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate ** at this point in his story. Even if not composed by Luke, it fits in well with themes found elsewhere in Luke…
The **loose connection ** between the hymn and the context is further seen in the fact that a few Old Latin manuscripts identify the speaker of the hymn as Elizabeth, even though the overwhelming textual evidence makes Mary the speaker.

The idea that Mary actually **said ** these words, as recorded in scripture, is **not even contemplated ** by the note-writers! Either Luke made it up himself, or else inserted some later Christian hymn, he thought “appropriate”, lying that Mary had actually said it! The writer then goes to the additional effort of sowing even more doubt by adding that a few Latin (and therefore late) manuscripts contain the error that Elizabeth spoke the words!

Later the allegations are repeated with respect to Zechariah: Again like Mary’s canticle, it is largely composed of phrases taken from the Greek Old Testament and may have been a Jewish Christian hymn of praise that Luke **adapted ** to fit the present context **by inserting Luke 1:76-77 ** to give Zechariah’s reply to the question asked in Luke 1:66.

 

[Axion]

…continued.

The solution to the problem is not, in my mind, to have notes that emphaisize an almost fundamantalist approach to the composition of the Bible, but to emphasize God’s role in guaranteeing that the bible presents the truth no matter the mechanism He chose for its composition (and likewise, that the Church and the teaching authority of the magisterium, themselves divinely inspired) was one of the instruments by which various spurious writings were filtered out and God’s word was handed down to us.

But the church does take a “fundamentalist” attitude to bible content. It is ALL true and inerrant. The church doesn’t say the Bible is the ONLY source of truth, but it IS all true. You yourself say that God **guarantees ** that the Bible represents the truth. So do you not see that chipping away at this by saying “x is a legend”, “Jesus didn’t prophecy y”, “z was added later”, “the writer made-up this canticle for effect and put it in Mary’s mouth” etc. … is in direct opposition to this guarantee of truth?

I also feel we get far more out of the bible when we try to analyze what it teaches, rather than trying to pick holes in it and suggest this sentence came from “source Q”, or source “h”, or was invented or otherwise inserted by someone else.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

…continued.

But the church does take a “fundamentalist” attitude to bible content. It is ALL true and inerrant. The church doesn’t say the Bible is the ONLY source of truth, but it IS all true. You yourself say that God **guarantees ** that the Bible represents the truth. So do you not see that chipping away at this by saying “x is a legend”, “Jesus didn’t prophecy y”, “z was added later”, “the writer made-up this canticle for effect and put it in Mary’s mouth” etc. … is in direct opposition to this guarantee of truth?

Not really, at least as I understand fundamentalist–by fundamentalist I mean that 1] the Bible is LITERALLY true all the time, and 2] that the various books were “written” in a unified manner as a modern audience would understand it, or that God literally moved some humans’ hands along the parchment.

A legend can be “true” in a non-literal sense, in that it teaches a univeral truth or has a moralizing method. Likewise, maybe I’m wrong here, but I’ve always assumed that the parables Jesus told did not necessarily really happen (that is, did a specific farmer really drop some seeds on the rocky ground, some on the fertile soil, etc?), but these were didactic tools. The hard job is to figure out what passages of the bible are meant to be taken literally and what are meant to be understand as analogies, prophecies, etc. The church fathers understood this point all too well.

Axion:

I also feel we get far more out of the bible when we try to analyze what it teaches, rather than trying to pick holes in it and suggest this sentence came from “source Q”, or source “h”, or was invented or otherwise inserted by someone else.

I agree in general, but we need to consider how various parts of the bible came to be (and when, and under what circumstances) to better understand them and to better know what they teach.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

To take our discussion of the Luke further:

Axion:

What the NAB note in Chapter 1 says is this: It is largely, however, the composition of Luke who writes in imitation of Old Testament birth stories, combining historical and legendary details, literary ornamentation and interpretation of scripture, to answer in advance the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?”

The phrase “in imitation of Old Testament birth stories” is unfortunate. The word “imitation” could refer to the style, but it can equally be taken as referring to the content. The writers certainly know that the very word “stories” can hold an inference of **invented ** material. Why not use the word “accounts” instead?

Even worse, it says “combining historical and **legendary ** details, literary ornamentation…” A **legend ** is a fairy tale, with little if any basis in fact. This is telling readers that they cannot trust what is written as fact. The writings of Josephus are not called legends - but the gospel is.

I disagree with your definition of legend, but be that as it may. I just don’t see the problem here. Why is it a problem that Luke reported what he saw (or his scribe faithfully reported his account) using the language of imitation and literary ornamentation? Why does that make the account false? I could describe a baseball game I saw in terms of an ancient epic poem, imitating the style and language and emphaisizing certain aspects of the game, with saying anything untrue about the game.

Axion:

From the NAB Introduction to Luke:
because details in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date

Again this is stating that the gospel is at very best a deception. The verses quoted are **prophecies ** by Jesus of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The NAB scholar has followed the liberal critical presumption that Jesus cannot have made a true prophecy, therefore the prophetic words were **fraudulently added **after the event! That is what this note is teaching. There is no getting away from it. And this sort of thing is being drip, drip dripped throughout the bible!

Again, I see no problem. We know that Jesus did and said many things that were not recorded (John tells us this), and we know that the four gospels contain somewhat different versions of Jesus life–not contradictory, but different). As I read this intro, it suggests that some of the prophecies Jesus made about the temple destruction would have resonated particularly strongly with Luke if he witnessed the destruction, so we should date him to post AD 70. No contradiction–Jesus made these prophecies and Luke in particular remembered them (or found them of particular relevance) when he composed his gosple.

Axion:

Looking again at the magnificat, the NAB note says the Magnificat (with the possible exception of v 48) may have been **a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate ** at this point in his story. Even if not composed by Luke, it fits in well with themes found elsewhere in Luke…
The **loose connection ** between the hymn and the context is further seen in the fact that a few Old Latin manuscripts identify the speaker of the hymn as Elizabeth, even though the overwhelming textual evidence makes Mary the speaker.

The idea that Mary actually **said ** these words, as recorded in scripture, is **not even contemplated ** by the note-writers! Either Luke made it up himself, or else inserted some later Christian hymn, he thought “appropriate”, lying that Mary had actually said it! The writer then goes to the additional effort of sowing even more doubt by adding that a few Latin (and therefore late) manuscripts contain the error that Elizabeth spoke the words!

I am not sure I follow here. The last few words of the notes that you cite state explicitly that Mary was the speaker, in direct response to theories that Elizabeth is the speaker. But what of your more general critique, that because it may have been an early Christian hymn Luke is lying. Again, I just don’t get this extreme position. All it says is that the form of the Magnificat may be that of an early Christian hymn and that it fits the themes of Luke well. It does not surprise me that Luke as an author would choose material that fit his themes well. It does not deny that original author of the Magnificat may have been Mary (and on this point, I do not know if the church has an official doctrinal or dogmatic position) and that her words were passed down and taken over as a hymn by early Christian groups.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Comet_Catholic:

Those who are not offended by the NAB more than like are offended by the new pope. The commentators of the NAB obviously aer setting the table for pro-feminist and pro-gay viewpoints.I don’t have to be a bible scholar to see that.

If you want to dissent, that it fine. But if its a Catholic bible, teach the faith.

Why should that be ? ​

Actually, I was delighted by the choice of Cardinal Ratzinger for Pope.

Again: there is nothing unorthodox or sinful or tending to any doctrinal or moral error in the historical method.

And most of the objections to its being used in the Catholic Church:

that it tends to unsettle the faith of Catholics (particularly of those who see its effects in their Bibles, but don’t the details upon which the scholars base their conclusions)

that it is of non-Catholic origin

that it has been condemned by Popes

that it is untraditional

that it is rationalist

that it does not agree with the Fathers

that it has been used by heretics -

have been made against the use of the writings of Aristotle. So perhaps St. Thomas’ work using him, should be junked - and that of generations of theologians & Saints.

• They were condemned in 1215
• They had been used by Muslims
• They represented a way of thing very different in method from the monastic theology represented by the Victorine school and St. Bernard
• they were said to subject Divine mysteries to human reason
• Gregory IX condemned their use
• They represented a way of thinking noticeably different from that of Plato as known to Western Europe
• John Philoponus in the sixth century had relied on Aristotle - and come to conclusions about the Trinity which were considered unorthodox

If Aristotle can be profitable to Catholic theology - why not the historical-critical (and other) methods ?

To criticise it for the shortcomings (genuine or imagined) in its application or conclusions, is easy (it didn’t fall from heaven, but is as human as any theological method, such as Thomism) - but if the historical-critical method is not used (even though it has been warmly commended by Vatican documents, and is used in the Church): what do its Catholic detractors propose to put in its place ?

Having read the CAI criticisms of the NAB’s notes, I still don’t know the answer.

Another objection to the HCM (so to call it, for brevity’s sake):

It has destroyed people’s faith

This is very grievous - but it is not a fatal objection. Many things may destroy faith: Vatican II or its implementation (or both) has been said to do exactly that. That is not a reason for junking Vatican II: so why must it be fatal to using the HCM ?
One thing the critics of it seem not to do, is consider that this approach has helped others not to lose faith. Which suggests that the rightness of the HCM cannot be judged by results alone: the results are too mixed.

It would be nice if those Catholics who oppose it - which they are free to do: the HCM is not Divinely revealed or all-encompassing - could avoid making unfounded accusations.

All methods in theology are limited - not just the HCM. As the Subject of theology is not limited, but is God in all His fullness, the HCM and Aristotelian scholastic methods both fall short, because they are human. No Biblical approach is or can be final and all-sufficient: not that of the Fathers, not that of their monastic successors, not that of the Christian humanists, not that of the the 16th to 18th centuries; and not the HCM. All have helped the Church - none is the only way of reading and understanding the Bible; all have their limitations; all are conditioned by their times. IOW, no one perfect method of exegesis exists: the only perfect exegete, is Christ, who “has exegeted the Father”. ##