NAB Footnotes

[richardeekw]

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

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)

Thanks.

I personally do not see anything wrong with the footnotes of the NAB. It is my understanding that

• 1 Thessalonians (earlier letter of Paul that written Gospel of Matthew) …the people were waiting for the Parousia…it didn’t come and the disciples were getting old and many dying and the communities decided to put their belief into writing….
• Jesus in his humanity on earth points mankind to God.
• The early Church (People of God) on account of the Pascal Mystery believed in the Divinity of the Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith
• The Synoptic Gospels (Matt MK and Lk) are written more from an “anagogic approach”
• John;s Gospel (katagogic approach) – a gospel from “above”; is a highly developed Spiritual gospel (which almost missed its acceptance Canon of the Scriptures)

If one does not understand the

• development of the Written Tradition,
• objectives of the evangelists,
• their communities and
• the themes of the gospels
  There will be lots of problems…especially when taking
  (a) verse in isolation
  (b) out-of-context
  It is therefore important to ask "What else does Scripture say?:
  (This should be extended to the footnotes etc)

Here is a sure point to debate -
In the synoptics Jesus (e.g. the suffering servant of God – in Mark;s gospel) whereas in John’s gospel (Jesus is the great “I AM”)… Doesn’t it contradict the synoptics, where Jesus avoids the people proclaiming him king after performing healings/miracles?

Theologians & Scientiests are necessary and useful; but the final interpretation and teaching of Scripture mjut be the :Magisterium” (The Pope & his college of Bishops under the guidance of the Holy Spirit)

 

[John_Hiner]

Dear awalt:

To bring the matter up to date and a little beyond:

The current Pontiff’s view of the historical-critical method is complex, and suitably balanced. Here are comments he made in 1988 as Cardinal and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"…One must challenge the basic notion dependent upon a simplistic transferal of science’s evolutionary model to spiritual history. Spiritual processes do not follow the rule of zoological genealogies…One can easily see how questionable the criteria have been by using a few examples. Who would hold that Clement of Rome is more or complex than Paul? Is James any more advanced than the Epistle to the Romans? Is the Didache more encompassing than the Pastoral Epistles?

Take a look at later times: whole generations of Thomistic scholars have not been able to take in the greatness of his thought. Lutheran orthodoxy is far more medieval than was Luther himself. Even between great figures there is nothing to support this kind of developmental theory.

Gregory the Great, for example, wrote long after Augustine, and knew of him, but for Gregory, the bold Augustinian vision is translated into the simplicity of religious understanding. Another example: what standard could one use to determine whether Pascal should be classified as before or after Descartes? Which of their philosophies should be judged more developed? All judgements based on the theory of discontinuity in the tradition and on the assertion of an evolutionary priority of the “simple” over the “complex” can thus be immediately called into question as lacking foundation" (Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; emphasis added.)

This skepticism continues to be reflected in the following paragraphs from Pope Benedict’s *personal *meditations in his book “Jesus of Nazareth,” which is scheduled to be published in May 2007.

Progress in historical-critical research led to ever more subtle distinctions between the different strata of tradition. In the wake of this research, the figure of Jesus, on which faith leans, became ever more uncertain, it took on increasingly less defined features.

At the same time, reconstructions of this Jesus, who should be sought after the traditions of the evangelists and their sources, became ever more contradictory: from the revolutionary enemy of the Romans who opposed the established power and naturally failed, to the gentle moralist who allowed everything and inexplicably ended up by causing his own ruin.

Whoever reads a few of these reconstructions can see immediately that they are more photographs of the authors and their ideals than a real questioning of an image that has become confused. Meanwhile, mistrust was growing toward these images of Jesus, and the figure itself of Jesus was ever more removed from us.

All these attempts have left in their wake, as common denominator, the impression that we know very little about Jesus, and that only later faith in his divinity has formed his image. Meanwhile, this image has been penetrating profoundly in the common consciousness of Christianity. Such a situation is tragic for the faith, because it makes its authentic point of reference uncertain: intimate friendship with Jesus, from whom everything depends, is debated and runs the risk of becoming useless. …]

I have felt the need to give readers these indications of a methodological character so that they can determine the path of my interpretation of the figure of Jesus in the New Testament. With reference to my interpretation of Jesus, this means first of all that I trust the Gospels. Of course I take as a given all that the Council and modern exegesis say about the literary genres, the intention of their affirmations, on the communal context of the Gospels and its words in this living context. Accepting all this in the measure that was possible to me, I wished to present the Jesus of the Gospels as the true Jesus, as the “historical Jesus” in the true sense of the expression. (“A Historically Honest and Convincing Figure,” Zenit; emphasis added.)

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Zooey]

May your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist weigh in here?
About the most helpful thing that anyone has ever taught me about Bible reading was a Free Methodist pastor’s wife, who pointed out that “The text is inspired; the footnotes aren’t”.
For more than 40 years now, those words have guided me, & I now commend them to all in this thread.
Amazingly simple, but oh! So true!!

 

[John_Hiner]

Dear awalt:

I am finally reaching the end of my replies to your two-part post.

I did not direct you to the commentary criticizing the document “The Gift of Scripture,” in order for you to bow to the qualifications of its author. Rather, I recommended it because of the cogency of the arguments, which apply reasoning and facts to the “teaching document” which are substantially drawn from “Dei Verbum” and the documents that it endorses and adopts.

Here is another cogent criticism of that document, written by a Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D., “The Gift of Scripture: A Disappointing Document.” Again, I urge you to weigh the arguments on their merits.

All of this has gone to make clear that Markan priority theories and the notion that authentic Scripture contains errors are not parts of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Markan priority is a theory currently accepted by many exegetes, including some who wrote the footnotes to the New American Bible. However, one should not confuse a theory taught by some Catholic exegetes with a teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, the notion that authentic Scripture contains error is and always has been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium. “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.” Ibid.; see also Dei Verbum, art. 11, footnote 4 & 5; Leo XIII, “Providentissimus Deus”; Enchiridion Biblium 124.

It does seem that the Bishops of England, Wales, and Scotland have published a confused and confusing document which mis-represents the Church’s teachings on these matters. Fortunately, this document is not juridically relevant to American Catholics. Unfortunately, this is not the first time an erroneous document has been issued by an English-speaking conference of Bishops. Consider the “Winnipeg Statement,” issued by the Canadian Bishops, which seems to stand in direct contradiction of Pope Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae” and John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” teachings. (See, Tragedy at Winnipeg, The Canadian Catholic Bishop’s Statement on Humanae Vitae, by Msgr. Vincent Foy.)

I hope all of this has made it clear that I do not oppose the use of “scientific” methods of studying the Scriptures. It is clear that many such approaches, including a properly measured and balanced “historical-critical” method, are useful and fruitful in the study of the texts. However, these methods are not to be taken as sufficient, and the conclusions reached by any given exegete or group of exegetes using these methods are not to be taken as settled or as teachings of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium of the Church encourages and supports the continued study of the Scripture with these and all legitimate methods, but it has not yet spoken on the specific conclusions proffered by any particular theory (except to note generally that some have been rash and in error).

This restraint on the part of the Magisterium is directed toward allowing open and fruitful study. However, the Markan priority theory, and other proposals which suggest that the Gospels were not written by “Apostles and apostolic men” (See, Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 76) are not ultimately consistent with Catholic teaching and must be considered with great caution and only in a theoretical or provisional manner.

Continued . . .

 

[John_Hiner]

Continued . . .

I suggest that a balanced judgment of the arguments offered by the exegetes should reject the Markan priority theories on the ground of credibility. The theory outlined by Mr. Barton in “The Authors of the Gospels,” proposes a solution for the supposed “difficulties” with the synoptic Gospels which is more consistent with the scientific evidence, and which is consistent with the historical and archeological evidence as well.

Further, this Matthean priority theory is consistent with the consistent teachings of the Church since the time of the earliest Church historians and Fathers. It also paints a convincing picture of the early Church and its Magisterium and Pontiff that is amazingly consistent with the Holy See as it functions in modern times.

Again I urge everyone to read Mr. Barton’s summary of these arguments, to weigh them prudently. I do not urge reliance on Mr. Barton’s resume, but on the clarity and persuasiveness of his presentations. Please note, that the authors Dom Bernard Orchard, OSB, and Scott Hahn have both argue effectively for Matthean priority in the recent literature of Biblical exegesis. (See, e.g., Dom Bernard Orchard, “Dei Verbum and the Synoptic Gospels;” and Karl Keating, “Scott Hahn on the Politicized Bible.”) (Please note, Dom Bernard Orchard died on 28 November 2006. Requiescat in pace.)

These arguments suggest that the most prudent position to take is that all of the Gospels, with the exception of the last chapter of John, were written before the fall of the Temple in 70 AD. Matthew’s Gospel was written first, within a few years of the Resurrection, with many or all of the Apostles assisting in its composition. Luke’s Gospel was compiled by St. Luke, the assistant to St. Paul, in preparation for evangelization in the West. Luke used Matthew’s Gospel as well as other sources to compile a “Gentile” form of the Gospel. Mark’s Gospel is the verbatim transcript of a series of talks given by St. Peter, with the specific purpose of validating and promulgating St. Luke’s Gospel as a tool for evangelization. The first 20 Chapters of St. John’s Gospel were written by St. John (probably with St. Andrew’s assistance) specifically to provide details helpful in clarifying the other three Gospels, to refute growing heresies, and to provide an account of the spiritual teachings of Jesus. The final chapter of John was written by St. John the Apostle around 96 AD, in response to a crisis of authority at Rome and a suggestion that St. John himself be made Pope.

This view is consistent with the “scientific” and historical evidence. It firmly establishes all four Gospels as reliable and intentional eyewitness accounts, of all or most of the Apostles as well as others, of the actual events of Jesus’ life and ministry. It also firmly establishes the Church as founded by Christ and nurtured and propagated by St. Peter and the other Apostles in a reasonable and prudent way, given the conditions and technology of the times.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[John_Hiner]

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:

I am sorry. The date of these remarks by Cardinal Ratzinger was 2002. (1992 was the date of the issuance of the Catechism. The remarks were made to commemorate that event 10 years later.)

JRH

 

[RepentorPerish]

The Nab Footnotes are trash and they should be removed by the Church.

 

[lanceg]

Dear friends,

why even waste time with the skeptical notes of the NAB?

I am not a fundamentalist; I believe in historical critical methods in a qualified sense.

But the NAB notes undermine Catholic doctrine, in Matthew 1 for example:

“12 [25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.”

This is terrible, inexcusable for a Catholic Bible. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity if a dogma of the Church.

Don’t waste your time.

I use:

The Douay Rheims Bible
The RSV Catholic 2nd edition
the Confraternity Version

Choose good Catholic Bibles like these. We are ordering new bibles for our parish, and we are going with the RSV 2nd CE.

Best regards,

Lance

 

[lanceg]

The Nab Footnotes are trash and they should be removed by the Church.

I agree!

By way of contrast…

Here is the NAB footnote on Matthew 1:25: “The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.” Hardly a ringing endorsement of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, which is a dogma of the Church.

And here is the footnote from the Confraternity Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Catholic New Testament, 1943:

“‘Firstborn’ does not imply that Mary ever bore another child. Among the Jews this title belonged to an only child (if a son) to mark his rights and duties under the law. Thus the apostolic doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is in no way deniedby these words.”

Which one provides a more ardent defense of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Apparently, many Catholic scholars have been too influenced by the higher critical excesses of mainline liberal Protestant scholarship.

By the way, here is where one can by a complete copy of the Confraternity Bible: sinagtala.com/bibles_catechisms.htm

 

[lanceg]

Also, for those interested, here is Fr. Leo Haydock’s commentary on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:

From Haydock commentary 1859…

Ver. 18. The account of the birth of Jesus Christ follows his genealogy. From these words, “before they came together,” Helvidius and others have started objections, which have been answered long ago by St. Jerome, where he shews in many examples from Scripture, that the words before and until do not signify what happened afterwards; for that point is left indefinite, but only what was done before, or not done. Thus when it is said, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies they footstool, Psalm cix, by no means signifies, that after the subjection of his enemies, the Son of God is no longer to sit at the right hand of his Father. In common conversation, when we say that a man died before he reached his 30th year, we do not mean that he afterwards attained it. Or, should we say that Helvidius died before he did penance, we cannot mean that he afterwards did penance: the same conclusion should be deduced from the words, “before they came together,” the end being accomplished by the power of the operation of the Holy Ghost, without their going together. If we should advance, that such a man was cured before he went to a physician, the natural inference would be, that he did not go to a physician at all. Thus also in the language of Scripture, the word first-begotten does not mean after whom others were born, but before whom no one was born, where there were further issue or not. and the reason is, because the law required that a sacrifice should be offered for the first-born, and that he should be redeemed very soon after his birth; nor did it allow the parents to wait and see if any other son should be born. (Estius) — True and perfect marriage, and continual living in the same, without knowing each other. (St. Augustine, lib. ii. Consen. Evang. chap. i.) (Bristow)

Ver. 25. See note on ver. 18. — St. Jerome assures us, that St. Joseph always preserved his virginal chastity. It is “of faith” that nothing contrary thereto ever took place with his chaste spouse, the blessed Virgin Mary. St. Joseph was given her by heaven to be the protector of her chastity, to secure her from calumnies in the birth of the Son of God, to assist her in her flight into Egypt, &c. &c. We cannot sufficiently admire the modest reserve of both parties. Mary does not venture to explain to her troubled husband the mystery of her pregnancy; and Joseph is afraid of mentioning his uneasiness and doubts, for fear of troubling her delicate mind and wounding her exquisite feelings. So great modesty, reserve and silence, are sure to be approved by heaven; and God sends an angel to Joseph in his sleep, to dissipate his doubts, and to expound to him the mystery of the incarnation. (Haydock)