Nab footnotes

[fhansen]

I ran across these footnotes on Matthew 5:17&19 in the NAB:

**13 [17-20] This statement of Jesus’ position concerning the Mosaic law is composed of traditional material from Matthew’s sermon documentation (see the note on Matthew 5:1-7:29), other Q material (cf Matthew 18; Luke 16:17), and the evangelist’s own editorial touches. To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Matthew 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Matthew 5:21-48) show.

14 [19] Probably these commandments means those of the Mosaic law. But this is an interim ethic “until heaven and earth pass away.”**

But they seem to conflict with Catholic teaching from the CCC:

**2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29

2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue.**

Is this typical of the NAB or am I misunderstanding the footnotes?

 

[fhansen]

These are the verses referred to (footnote #13 actually refers to all of verses17-20):

**13 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 14
**

 

[tobinatorstark]

I ran across these footnotes on Matthew 5:17&19 in the NAB:

**13 [17-20] This statement of Jesus’ position concerning the Mosaic law is composed of traditional material from Matthew’s sermon documentation (see the note on Matthew 5:1-7:29), other Q material (cf Matthew 18; Luke 16:17), and the evangelist’s own editorial touches. To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Matthew 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Matthew 5:21-48) show.

14 [19] Probably these commandments means those of the Mosaic law. But this is an interim ethic “until heaven and earth pass away.”**

But they seem to conflict with Catholic teaching from the CCC:

**2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29

2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue.**

Is this typical of the NAB or am I misunderstanding the footnotes?

The footnotes for the NAB are horrible try this from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 17. Not to destroy the law, &c. It is true, by Christ’s coming, a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices, and circumcision, were to cease; but the moral precepts were to continue, and to be complied with, even with greater perfection. (Witham) — To fulfil. By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies, and perfecting all that was imperfect. (Challoner) — Our Saviour speaks in this manner, to prepare the minds of the Jews for his new instructions. For although they were not very solicitous about fulfilling the law, still they were extremely jealous of any change being made in the letter of the law; more particularly, if the proposed change exacted a more perfect morality. Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways: 1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behoveth us to fulfil all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin? 2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law. 3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xvi.)

Ver. 18. Amen. That is, assuredly, of a truth. This Hebrew word Amen, is here retained by the example and authority of all the four evangelists, who have retained it. It is used by our Lord as a strong asseveration, and affirmation of the truth. (Challoner) — Not one jot (or not one jota), nor one tittle, i.e. not the least letter, nor stroke of a letter; that is, not the least moral precept. Besides every type and figure of the former law, now by my coming shall be fulfilled. (Witham) — Amen, is retained in the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Armenian languages, as well as in all vulgar idioms. It is a term of asseveration, and equivalent to an oath; and in many places, to make the asseveration still stronger, it is repeated. St. Luke very accurately translates it into nai. St. Paul and St. John unite them nai and amen. (Haydock)

Ver. 19. He shall be called; i.e. (by a frequent Hebrew idiom) he shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven; that is, according to St. Augustine he shall not be there at all; for none but the great in sanctity and virtue shall find admittance into heaven. (Witham) — Do not then imitate the Scribes and Pharisees, who content themselves with instructing other in the precepts of the law, without practising them themselves, or if they observe the letter, neglect the spirit of the law, performing what it ordains, not to please God, but to satisfy their vanity. (Calmet)

 

[tobinatorstark]

not to mention that the NAB footnotes are contradictory to Catholic teaching

 

[Nita]

I have the 1970 St. Joseph’s Edition of the NAB. The footnotes in this edition differ from yours. eg
5, 17-20 Jesus’ teaching does not reject the old law and the prophets; instead, it illumines the meaning God intended the Old Testament ultimately to have (17). …
I’m not trying to promote this edition as being better because I know there have been times when I found the footnotes upsetting.

I don’t know about others, but when commentary on Scripture starts bringing in "J’, “P”, “Q” sources, the hair on the back of my neck starts to rise.
(Biggest difficulty for me is that Pope John Paul II occasionally did it and I think he was wonderful - he’s been St. Pope John Paul the Great in my heart for a long time.)

 

[patrick457]

That, I think, is the weakness of the present edition of the NAB: over-reliance on the JEPD and the Two-Source Hypotheses and oft-questionable footnotes. Which is a shame, since the present edition is less “thought-for-thought” (aka ‘dynamic equivalence’) than the original 1970 edition.

Meanwhile, the 1970 edition’s weakness lies on its often-dynamic translation and some ‘unconventional’ renderings (good in a few places, but bad in others), IMHO. Even so, the prefaces and the footnotes - while already showing some of the problems the present edition does - is in a less controversial and questionable form than they are today.