NAB Footnotes

[RepentorPerish]

I posted this topic on another part of the forum, but I admit i acted alittle emotional in my post and should be a little more wiser in my words and how I express things .

So…

Is anyone else perplexed by the footnotes found in the Nab.

They bring Doubt on Jesus Being God, and the Describe the virgin birth as mere legend.

Has anyone else Noticed this? Has anyone else spoke out?? if not why not?

just seeking answers thank you

Michael From San Diego

 

[puzzleannie]

well I have been using the NAB for study and instruction for over 20 years and I have no doubts about the Virgin birth, or any other Catholic doctrine for that matter. These footnotes state the conclusions of a group of bible scholars. The footnotes in any other translation do the same. The notes are as good as the scholarship, and that varies. The bible is inerrant, the notes are not. Get over it.

 

[RepentorPerish]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[richardeekw]

I posted this topic on another part of the forum, but I admit i acted alittle emotional in my post and should be a little more wiser in my words and how I express things .

So…

Is anyone else perplexed by the footnotes found in the Nab.

They bring Doubt on Jesus Being God, and the Describe the virgin birth as mere legend.

Has anyone else Noticed this? Has anyone else spoke out?? if not why not?

just seeking answers thank you

Michael From San Diego

Which NAB Edition & Publication please.
Which specific footnotes make you assume

They bring Doubt on Jesus Being God, and the Describe the virgin birth as mere legend.

Thank you.

 

[John_Hiner]

I posted this topic on another part of the forum, but I admit i acted alittle emotional in my post and should be a little more wiser in my words and how I express things .

So…

Is anyone else perplexed by the footnotes found in the Nab.

They bring Doubt on Jesus Being God, and the Describe the virgin birth as mere legend.

Has anyone else Noticed this? Has anyone else spoke out?? if not why not?

just seeking answers thank you

Michael From San Diego

Dear Michael:

Welcome to the boards.

You might enjoy reading “The Authors of the Gospels.” It explains the problem, and gives some hope.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[awalt]

Wow that’s a long document that I don’t have time to read right now. I still am skeptical that there is anything in the NAB footnotes that state

They bring Doubt on Jesus Being God, and the Describe the virgin birth as mere legend.

Why can’t you cite the verse the footnotes go to, if you have found it?

As for that article, I can add that historical-critical method of Bible study by scholars is not all bad and not all good. Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul both have been very visible in their support for ongoing scholarship like this, ***IF it is not inconsistent with Church teaching. ***

There is nothing in Church teaching that is inconsistent with the theory that Mark’s gospel was first. I have been taught the theories in a Deacon prep class, and it’s a very logical assertion. I can tell you, that theory in and of itself is NOT attached to a “therefore, Jesus was not divine”. That is a heretical conclusion that some have taken.

What you have to understand is many scholars are looking at the Bible through different critical analysis, some of it is good work, some is bad. As I said before, while our current Pope has been very supportive of this effort, he has also rebuked those that state “therefore Jesus as a historical figure conflicts with Scripture” or “Jesus is a man and not divine” - in fact his upcoming book will address just this.

The NAB states that Mark’s Gospel was likely written first, as do other reputable sources, including scholars that have sat on the Pontifical Biblical Council and were appointed by JP II. I repeat, this is NOT the same as saying therefore Jesus was not divine, and I have not seen that ANYWHERE in the NAB footnotes - you should cite a reference in the NAB if you think it’s there.

There are people who are against any ongoing scholarship on the Bible, and the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is inerrant - it is inerrant in matters that were intended by the sacred authors. That’s a big difference, and confusing the two is what is leading to Bible fundamentalism within our own Church.

For those interested in reading more about Bible Fundamentalism in our own Church (and those that believe the Church teaches the Bible is inerrant in every facet), I recommend **Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know **by Father Ronald Witherup. Fr. Witherup is a respected teacher, speaker, and scholar in the Catholic faith. Most notably he is the US Superior of the Sulpecians Order and he regularly speaks and works with the USCCB and some of the recognized top Bishops and Cardinals in the country. This is an excellent book and a relatively quick read.

 

[Cari]

I personally, have also found some of the footnotes in the NAB-CE troubling. Specifically, the footnotes I’m thinking of don’t cast doubt on Jesus as God, but rather “debunk” common “proof texts” for Catholic doctrine. 1 Corinthians 3:14-15, which is part of my Catholic Answers Topic Tabs, is used commonly to support the doctrine of Purgatory. It reads:
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

The footnote in the NAB reads, “The text of v 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this”. No other comment, not, see verses x,y,or z for support of Purgatory, not an explanation WHY it “does not envisage this”. Just a shutdown, pure and simple.

On another note, I dislike the NAB for other reasons, dealing with translations. For example, in the angelic greeting during the Annunciation, it reads “Hail, favored daughter!”, and not “Hail, full of Grace!” since this verse is often cited during discussions with non-Catholics about the biblical nature of the Rosary, it irks me to have a Catholic bible that doesn’t help.

But to get back to the point, I’ve felt the same frustrations with NAB footnotes.
Cheers,
Cari

 

[John_Hiner]

Wow that’s a long document that I don’t have time to read right now. . .

There is nothing in Church teaching that is inconsistent with the theory that Mark’s gospel was first. I have been taught the theories in a Deacon prep class, and it’s a very logical assertion. I can tell you, that theory in and of itself is NOT attached to a “therefore, Jesus was not divine”. That is a heretical conclusion that some have taken.

Dear awalt:

I am afraid that you are mistaken. It is sad that you have been “taught” these theories in a diaconal prep class and that you do not have time to read a short book. This seems to explain the train wreck of Catholic doctrine being propagated by many of the American Catholic clergy. Two phrases come to mind, “a little learning is a dangerous thing,” (attributed to Alexander Pope) and “omne malum a clero (“all evil comes from the clergy,” attributed to St. Alphonsus Ligouri).

Though the arguments flowing to and from Markan priority do not force the direct conclusion “therefore, Jesus was not divine.” They are “inconsistent” with the endurance and precision of that truth. The issue is not an attack on the divinity of Christ. It is an attack on the authority and historical validity of the Church. They seek to move the locus of the truth of the Faith out of the historical and factual realm and into the “hearts and minds” of the believers.

It is clear what effect this has had. Though Jesus can be said to be divine “in some sense,” Christ is chased from the world. Both the ancient world, where the accounts of His life and sayings are removed from the category of “reliable history and fact” into a murky world of un-named liars who were so morally primitive that falsifying authorship was not noticed to be a form of fraud.

And what of Christ Jesus’ Mystical Body present and active in the world today? It is a mere fabrication based on falsified documents and discredited historical traditions. It can be “believed” as a willful private act, but it cannot be proved from history or objective facts.

Thus Jesus is cast out. He becomes a “probably” historical figure whose words and actions are unknown to men of good judgment who look to history or the writings of the Fathers. The Church becomes a concert of people who have made a willful choice to hold a common set of ideas as normative, but not a realistic response to historical facts and the true nature of the universe as a whole.

Open your ears. This is why members of the clergy are accepting the substitution of “a faith community” for the Church. The direct and intended result of this “Markan priority” theory is the reduction of the instituted Church of Christ, the very Mystical Body of Christ active in the world, to a confluence of like minded people – comparable in structure and nature to an auto club or “the fans” of a particular football team.

The Protestant theories had implications. The original Protestant heretics denied the implications even though they were clearly outlined for them by members of the Church. It has taken hundreds of years, but the implications have worked out. Similarly, this secular attack on the authority of the Church has implications. The proponents of the theories deny the implications. However, in the course of the last five decades, while these theories have been recklessly and mistakenly taught, their implications have been working themselves out. Among these are the reduction of Jesus (divine or not) to an opinion and a fable, and the banishment of His Church from the “serious” considerations of day-to-day life, politics, and academia.

Please! Seriously study this error and oppose it. Try to have it removed from any serious acceptance in any academic or clerical-training setting. It should only be studied with an eye to its thorough understanding for the purpose of refuting and combating it.

This is a serious threat eating at the roots of truth. Consider: it is an indirect attack on Jesus, because it is a direct attack on the Church and its authority. Yet, the Church is the “. . . the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.) When the Church’s authority falls as a fact of the historical order, how long can Truth stand?

Spiritus Sapientiae tecum.

John Hiner

 

[awalt]

John,

I posted the references that this teaching is based on - two Popes, Pontifical Biblical Council, the USCCB teaching arm. I have met Fr. Wintherup, both he and his book are a wealth of information on this issue as just one source. I am not discrediting your opinion, but I find it flabbergasting that people reject what our Church says in lieu of what appears to be their own opinion. They don’t ever respond to why they don’t believe our current Church leadership.

To me, that seems just like what the Protestant factions do, they reject ideas from our Church leadership they don’t agree with and say that teaching is wrong. And this is a much greater problem that goes through the Church today. I can’t imagine you replying that “I am sorry the Church is teaching you wrong, I am right”. By whose authority?

If I am off base, I apologize. But no offense intended, I will side with John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, the Pontifical Biblical Council, and the USCCB any day. I would only change my mind if you show something that contradicts or corrects what they have said, and from an authoritative source not just some guy with a web site or a related quote from 100 years ago (I am sure our current Popes have discerned that information as well, so I choose to believe them not an old quote). Show me where any Bishop or higher in today’s world rejects these points I have made.

If you are saying our Church leadership for the last 20 years has taken the Church off-base, so be it - I again think that is a similar path the Protestants walked and is a dangerous one.

I am hopeful that Pope Benedict’s book in May will show that historical-critical scholarship is good if consistent with Church teaching - that may bring people back to the fold that don’t think there is anything new to learn from the Bible. Our current Pope has been VERY clear on this topic, and it may helpfully bring the Catholic fundamentalists back into the fold.

Peace and God bless.

 

[John_Hiner]

I will side with John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, the Pontifical Biblical Council, and the USCCB

Dear await:

I am sorry if I missed something in your previous posts. I agree that every Pope since Leo XIII (and many before) have recognized and endorsed the good of the study of Scripture using scientific and historical methods.

However, I did not see any citations in your post to demonstrate what you claimed were the views of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. If you have some specific statements that lead you to this view of their endorsement of Markan priority as a valid conclusion, please provide them to me so that I can read them in context. My understanding of John Paul II’s statements in “Fides et Ratio” are that they implicitly oppose the Markan priority theory, on the grounds that it is based on “textual criticism” but is unbalanced by appropriate historical studies. As Mr. Barton indicates, the Markan priority argument is based on rejection of most historical sources as unreliable, because they contradict the textual-critical theory. See, “The Authors of the Scriptures.” In “Fides et Ratio,” John Paul II wrote:

Moreover, one should not underestimate the danger inherent in seeking to derive the truth of Sacred Scripture from the use of one method alone, ignoring the need for a more comprehensive exegesis . . . Sec. 55.

However, I do believe that you have misunderstood or been mislead about the meaning of these Papal statements and of the teachings of the Church.

The credibility of your appeals to “authority” are undermined because of your method of introducing them: “For those interested in reading more about Bible Fundamentalism in our own Church (and those that believe the Church teaches the Bible is inerrant in every facet), I recommend Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Father Ronald Witherup.”

This seems to telegraph at least facial opposition to the following Magisterial statements:

Dei Verbum:

1. . . Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, **faithfully and without error **that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. . .
2. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

Leo XIII

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 co-exist 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 . . . Providentissimus Deus, 19.

So, I do have some skepticism about Fr. Wintherup’s proper representation of the Church’s teaching. However, this is based on your representation of his position. It may be that you have misrepresented his position. (Another consideration that gives me some pause in accepting your form of recommending Fr. Wintherup is the situation of Fr. Jon Sabrino, a respected teacher, speaker, and scholar in the Catholic faith – nevertheless two of his books were recently censored as inaccurately expressing the Church’s teachings.)

This is not a dispute between “fundamentalism” and “scientific fact.” The Church is opposed to both fundamentalism (or “fideism” as it is called) and “bad science.” This is why I recommend Mr. Barton’s book. He clearly lays out the arguments and history that the Markan priority theory is imbalanced, placing undue reliance on a particular interpretation of textual evidence, and failing to use the other methods of research that would correct its errors.

If on reconsideration you still urge me to buy and read Fr. Wintherup’s book, I will do so. However, this is only attractive to me, if we can discuss its postulates and premises in detail, so as to further this discussion.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[RNRobert]

Just curious,

what do you think of the theory (espoused in the NAB footnotes) about the Synoptic Gospels coming from a common source, named ‘Q’ (from the German word for source, 'quelle)?

 

[awalt]

(Part I)
Hi John,

Some comments on your reply and some references, I am guessing we might have to agree to disagree:

1. In Fides et Ratio, JP II never even mentions the Gospel of Mark or its authorship. If there is some “implicit” condemnation
   of Markan priority theory, it is a very obscure one and there surely is no precedent that JP II was ever that subtle in
   condemnation.
2. In your quote of DV 11, like many you bold the part “faithfully and without error” and nothing else, presuming that the next
   word is “all that we read”. When in fact, what follows is a qualifier that says “that truth which God wanted to put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”, which certainly does not mean “everything we read”.

The only reference I can easily cite that backs this up is a document that I got off the Internet and have a copy of, but you
may need to hunt for; it is called “Gift of Scripture”, a teaching document of the Bishops Conferences of England, Wales and
Scotland. It was published in 2005, about 60 pages, on the 40th anniversary of Dei Verbum, to explain it.

On this issue, it has two interesting comments, but I hope in the interest of the subject you can pick up a copy and read it:

-The books thus declared canonical and inspired by the Spirit of God contain ‘the truth which God wished to be set down in
the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation’ (Dei Verbum 11). It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican
Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not
expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.

- A basic insight in understanding the gift of Scripture is that God’s word is expressed in human language (Dei Verbum 11).
This realization presents a challenge. How are we to give proper acknowledgment both to the divine reality of the word of God
in Scripture and to its human dimensions? Not to recognize the divine reality of Scripture would be to fail to venerate it as
the inspired word of God. Not to recognize the human features of Scripture would lead us into fundamentalism, which brings a reluctance to ask deeper questions about the text.

1. Not sure why you cited DV 19 - I certainly am not disputing that the Gospels assert what Jesus Christ did and taught?
2. You quote one small part of Providentissimus Deus, in fact Pope Leo XIII established the Pontifical Bible Commission in
   1902, in part to actually further historical criticism. There is a good article on its history here
   (catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4679)). You will see the same themes - it’s good, but must be carefully scrutinized, etc. It also cites Pius XII in Divino Afflante saying he “gave a clear endorsement of the methods of historical
   criticism, the legitimacy of which the Church, up until this time, had been reluctant to accept.”
3. One of the easier Cardinal Ratzinger papers to find on the Internet is “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”, which
   was presented by the Pontifical Bible Commission in 1994 (Ratzinger wrote the Preface, as his role in presenting the PBC’s paper and works to Pope JP II). Ray Brown was on the PBC, appointed by JP II as well as a prior Pope and I am sure you can find on Google that he and Ratzinger conferred regularly together - he was very well respected by the Vatican. Ray Brown was editor of the Jerome Biblical Commentary, which if you have it you will see it says that the majority of scholars today believe Mark’s gospel was written first. You can find Ratzinger’s preface here (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HT) as well as the paper; in short, he too says that historical-criticism has come a long way, is valuable, but can be dangerous. Same message.

 

[awalt]

(Part II)

1. The NAB states that we can only discuss authorship in terms of greater or less probability, but “the one now favored by the majority of scholars” is that Matthew and Luke used Mark and “Q”. It is interesting to me that people who do not believe this, then attack the NAB, without considering that the USCCB approved this version of the Bible for our Churches; do they really think the bishops in total are totally ignorant on what it says? Really?
2. I am not sure what your concern is on Fr. Witherup’s book, I think it is excellent and I have had the pleasure of lunch with
   him and attending two of his seminars - there is no doubt in my mind he knows what he is talking about and is very much in
   touch with our Church leaders. To imply there would be some imminent censorship of him as an argument to refute his ideas is an unfounded insult of his works. If you want to learn with an open mind, read his book.
3. I can tell you with 100% certainty the Church teaching today believes that Mark’s Gospel is the “most likely scenario” (there is not 100% certainty), but of course that in no way implies any undermining of traditional Church teaching; and any
   scholars that believe the two are linked are wrong and not supported by the Church. Our Cardinal is a very orthodox one
   (Cardinal William Keeler), you can look him up and see he was a very close confidant to JP II and our current Pope. Have you talked to your bishop/cardinal? You should discuss with the authorities in your diocese, or at a nearby seminary; someone in authority.
4. Another good reference is “Dictionary of the Bible” by Fr. John McKenzie, it gets excellent reviews and has both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. He states that the most accepted theory is that Mark was written between 60-70, Luke after 70 before 90, and Matthew later than that. I note that this book was first written in the 1960’s, so it’s not a new piece of scholarship.

So I have cited: Our Cardinal/Archdiocese/seminary teaching, head of Solpicians/USCCB appointed lecturer, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, Pope JP II, Ray Brown, Jerome Biblical Commentary, the Bible in our pews, a respected Bible Dictionary with an Imprimatur, the Bishops of Great Britain, and role of Popes since Leo XIII in establishing and supporting biblical scholarship of this type as long as it’s not inconsistent with Church teaching. I would again be curious, if you still disagree, what current references do you have supporting your thoughts, vs. just criticizing mine?

It seems to me our difference in opinion, and correct me if I don’t see it right on your side, is that you believe any historical-critical analysis is wrong, because it leads to conflicts with the teaching of the Church. You also seem to believe that primary authorship by Mark implies that Church teachings of Jesus become suspect. And, Mark’s Gospel was not written first. If I have that wrong I apologize.

I have tried to show here, and I believe, the Church leaders clearly teach that historical-critical analysis is good, they established a commission of scholars that has been in existence for over 100 years in part to further the scholarship, but like any group of independent scholars there will be good and bad conclusions drawn, and these same leaders are clear that any scholarship that concludes that Church teaching is wrong is, well, wrong . And, the prevalent theory today supported by the Church (but not Church teaching that must be believed of course) is that Mark’s gospel was written first.

Peace and God bless,

 

[John_Hiner]

Dear awalt:

Peace.

I am loath to “agree to disagree.” That always seems like a form of despair, and a lack of faith in reason and our brothers. It is an equivalent to letting “him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” And that is a sever judgment, which should only be made after a concerted effort to come to a mutual resolution. (See, Matthew 18:15-17.)

Your interpretation of Dei Verbum Art. 11 is troubling and ultimately untenable. You suggest, as have others, that the phrase “for the sake of salvation” should be read as a “hedge” or a limitation on the statements of inerrancy made in the article. I suggest that this is not the meaning of the phrase, and that there is an appropriate understanding of the text that gives a much better interpretation.

First, it is clear that the phrase is not a reservation that is intended to admit error into Scripture, because of the inclusion by the Council Fathers of footnote no 4 to Article 11. Footnote 4 says: “4. Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” Nov. 18, 1893: Denzinger 1952 (3293); EB 125.” This reference inserts into the very center of Dei Verbum art. 11 the entire text of Providentissimus Deus, including:

**But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. **For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. 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 co-exist 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 . . .

Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. . .

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. (art. 20)

If one is reading art. 11 with a docile ear, seeking to discern the meaning of the Fathers, the inclusion of this footnote seems intended specifically to dissuade any notion that any limitation on inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture was implied.

One may ask then why is the phrase “for the sake of salvation” included. I suggest that this phrase is an aid to modern readers who might find the text of Scripture to be sparse in detail and alien in style. The phrase is a sort of restatement of the idea expressed by St John at the end of his Gospel:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21:25 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

In this sense the phrase refers to the completeness of the Scripture. Modern tastes or habits might ask why so much of Jesus’ life and the other events in salvation history are left unmentioned in Scripture. One may even suspect that some added detail or the account of additional events might change one’s understanding of the Gospel. By the phrase “for the sake of salvation” the Council Fathers (and the Holy Spirit through them) assure us that the Scriptures are sufficient to serve God’s intention in writing them.

Read in this way, the contents of Dei Verbum are seen to be harmonious in their parts and consistent with previous Councils and the teachings of Pope Leo XIII on the question of Scriptural inerrancy.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[awalt]

John, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because from my perspective you are going back to 1893, plus adding your own theories, and ignoring all the more recent papal and church leadership references/literature I put in my reply last.

Peace.

 

[John_Hiner]

Dear awalt:

You are being somewhat impatient. I did not think it would make sense to try to reply to all of your points in a single response. Please give me some time.

Your impression is correct. I do not accept the “teaching document,” “Gift of Scripture,” as a helpful statement of Catholic teachings in these matters. At the very least the document gives the wrong overall impression and has to be read very circumspectly to avoid falling into error.

For example, consider your quote: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.” It is possible to understand this as warning the reader against expecting the detail and evidence to which modern readers have grown accustomed. For example, in a modern historical text, one would expect documentary citation and an account of the chain of evidence. However, the genealogies of Matthew and Luke do not give any such “documentation” to substantiate the reported facts. This would be expected in secular or historical writing now, and is not properly to be expected of the Scripture. In this sense, the first sentence of the quoted text must be read with an emphasis on “total” and the second sentence must read “scientific accuracy” and “historical precision” as references to academic standards for texts intended to persuade modern readers of given facts.

Though the quoted text can be interpreted in this fashion by a wary reader, it seems unlikely that a casual reader would be lead to a proper understanding of the Church’s teachings in this matter, and therefore it seems that the authors of the document – who are un-named in the version that I reviewed – do not, in fact, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in all its parts.

There are also other difficulties with this document. There is an interesting, though somewhat aggressive, critique of this document available. See, A Critical Review of the Document ‘The Gift of Scripture’. This document does have some examples of writings by Pope John Paul II that are at odds with the claims made in the “teaching document.”

This brings up a general sticking place in our exploration of this question. You seem to limit the material you will consider to the last few (20? 40?) years, and to exclude documents before that time. Your recent post even suggests that an encyclical which is invoked by the Second Vatican council and included as a reference in the text of Dei Verbum is not thereby “republished” and “re-endorsed” by the authority of the Council, but rather remains “too old” for your standards. By this logic, the Second Vatican Council’s inclusion of Providentissimus Deus, and its affirmation that,

This Sacred Council . . . proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. (Lumen Gentium, art 51.),

and again,

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact . . .” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, art 55.),

along with other such invocations and references, have no effect or meaning.

Further your posts so far suggest that you are willing to over-rule “older” magisterial teachings in favor of non-magisterial writings which are of more recent publication. Even the implied private approval of a Cardinal, group of Bishops, or of a recent Pope is accepted as superceding the formal encyclicals of Popes and published statements and canons of Ecumenical Councils, even though the more recent statements are neither definitive nor stated as teachings of the Church.

This procedure seems to me to be unjustified. In deed, since the Second Vatican Council closed over 40 years ago, this logic may reject even the teachings of that council.

Please consider who would be rejected by this mode of proceeding: besides Mr. Dennis Barton and me, it rejects all members of the Church, Doctors, Saints, Popes, and other pastors from Adam until 1967, it also rejects all current members of the Church Militant who understand these “earlier” teachings to be integral to the Faith.

This view narrows the Church of Christ to a recent invention, un-tethered from the Apostolic Tradition. It is a tragic disintegration, and there is no need for it.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[RepentorPerish]

John has anyone told you your my hero?? Haha.

Thank you John For the expression of Christ that lives within you.

Michael of San Diego

 

[awalt]

Come on John.

The article you cite that criticizes a Teaching Document written by the Bishops of our Church is written by a lay person, Ronald Conte, with absolutely no credentials doing work for the Church or any Church-related organization - he is a guy with a web site! Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

This is just an example of choosing anyone whose position supports their own, whether they are credentialed or not. Do you really value the opinion of Ronald Conte over Ratzinger, John Paul II, Benedict, McKenzie, Witherup, Brown, and others? I still say you should try and speak with some of your ***authorities ***in your diocese or local seminary, it’s easy to have an opinion in a forum.

You also imply that these same Popes and people they appoint and associate with have discounted Church history and separated from Apostolic tradition, which is a very serious charge indeed and one I think is highly unlikely given the track record of these same individuals. That’s an opinion not based on fact.

You see why I say we can’t agree - I stated points our current leadership have made, you asked for references. I offer references, you discount what they say with your own opinions and offer up Ronald Conte, a lay person with a web site. So you won’t change your mind, and I certainly won’t - I choose to follow Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II, who have been very clear on the matter.

PS - this is my last post on this thread. I don’t have anything new to say that I didn’t spell out in detail above, and I don’t want this to degenerate into an argument. Peace and God bless.

 

[Cranch]

Which NAB Edition & Publication please.
Which specific footnotes make you assume

They bring Doubt on Jesus Being God, and the Describe the virgin birth as mere legend.

Thank you.

RE: doubt concerning Jesus’ divinity (quotations taken from the online NAB of the USCCB)

Matthew 10:22:

You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end 10 will be saved.

Footnote:

10 [22] To the end: the original meaning was probably “until the parousia.” But it is not likely that Matthew expected no missionary disciples to suffer death before then, since he envisages the martyrdom of other Christians (Matthew 10:21). For him, the end is probably that of the individual’s life (see Matthew 10:28).

Is Jesus the author of the “original meaning”? He is speaking, so it’s fair to assume so. These note writers think He means “until the second coming”. So Jesus “probably” meant He would return in glory before the deaths of his apostles? That didn’t happen, so Jesus was……wrong? Can God be wrong? Or is Jesus less than divine? Luckily Matthew is smart enough to “probably” have a different take. Matthew is pretty special; after all, elsewhere these note writers credit him with composing half the sermon on the mount! (footnote 3 here)

 

[John_Hiner]

Dear awalt:

I am coming to more “current” stuff. Please continue to be patient.

John Paul II clearly accepted as historical facts the details of the infant narratives in both Matthew and Luke when he wrote, “Redemptoris Custos,” in 1989. This is hardly consistent with the theories of “later development” which are associated with Markan priority theories.

However, the greatest indication that John Paul II did not accept or teach the Markan priority theory is its absence from and incompatibility with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, issued in 1992 and corrected in 1997. The Catechism was criticized by scriptural scholars for this, as is reflected in Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments in 1992:

Particularly strong attacks were directed against the use of Scripture in the Catechism: as previously noted, (it was said) that this work did not take into account a whole century of exegetical work; for example, how could it be so naive as to use passages from the Gospel of John to speak of the historical figure of Jesus; it would be shaped by a literalistic faith which could be called fundamentalist, etc. With regard to the specific task of the Catechism, accurate reflection has to take place on the way in which this book should make use of historical-critical exegesis.

Relative to a work which must present the faith - not hypotheses - and which for a significantly long time must be “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine” (as the Pope states in the Apostolic Constitution, n. 3), we must keep in mind how rapidly exegetical hypotheses change and, to be honest, how great is the dissent, even among scholars, regarding many theses. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Ten years since its publication (11 October 1992).)

Clearly the Markan priority theories were among those which the authors of the Catechism, and by implication Pope John Paul II, specifically declined to teach as Catholic doctrine. (I would like to acknowledge my debt to Mr. Dennis Barton for pointing me to these facts. I again urge everyone to read his book, “The Authors of the Gospels.”)

You mentioned in an earlier post the issuance of “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 15 April 1993. This is an interesting document. It too warns of the need to temper textual analysis with historical and other approaches:

No scientific method for the study of the Bible is fully adequate to comprehend the biblical texts in all their richness. For all its overall validity, the historical-critical method cannot claim to be totally sufficient in this respect. . . (Sec. B.)

However, it is not at all clear that the then Cardinal Ratzinger agreed with all that was said in this document. As you note, he wrote the introduction, however, in that introduction he took pains to point out:

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office. (Emphasis added.)

He does however confirm that the Second Vatican Council retained the teachings of Pope Leo XIII as well as the other magisterial teachings from 1900 through the time of the Council:

First, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” of Nov. 18, 1893, plotted out some markers on the exegetical map. . . Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” of Sept. 30, 1943, was able to provide largely positive encouragement toward making the modern methods of understanding the Bible fruitful. The Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, “Dei Verbum,” of Nov. 18, 1965, adopted all of this. (Emphasis added.)

All of this shows that scriptural errancy and Markan priority theories have not been adopted by the Magisterium as teachings of the Church. I will give more on the current Pope’s views in my next post – We are nearing the end.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner