M
mmortal03
Guest
I had a really good poll started a few months ago on “Which Catholic Bible do you prefer” which allowed people to choose more than one, and the results were convincing, however, it has been lost in the crash.
- Status
M
mmortal03
Guest
Right, well, that would be because the USCCB were the ones who supported this inclusive language mess in the first place. Of course they are going to support it and put it up on their site.
However, if you look at the Vatican’s website, they have a blank space where a link should be to the Psalms, and that is because they don’t approve of the inclusive language revision of the Psalms, but The Catholic Biblical Association of America isn’t allowing them to use the older, non-inclusive version anymore. The only reason that they even put the rest of the NAB up there, I would guess, is because there isn’t a full version of the ARNAB texts that are being used in the lectionaries, and they don’t want to use the 1970 NAB because it is too paraphrastic. Also, they have no other modern translation that they could place online that in any way matches up with the readings of the Mass.
P
pnewton
Guest
What is interesting is that I really like the NAB and use it a lot. But then I recognize the demythologizng, nuancing, theological liberals for the danger that they are. They are not confined to the Catholic Church but have been a problem for all denominations, including fundamentalist. It is a cancer from the fools who consider themselves wise back in the sixties and seventies that are hard to eliminate from the system.
I had to deal with them in the Baptist college and seminary system, so it is not surprising to find them here. I think most coservative fundamentalist have more in common with orthodox catholics, than they do their own liberal element. The same holds true for us.
T
TOME
Guest
Ireneaus I I would like to respond to your post with a few points.
First, my questions were not meant to be a “Trap”. Rather, they were asked to obtain knowledge of Magisterial teachings I am unaware of concerning the footnotes of the NAB. You seem to imply that these footnotes contain heresy or are close to it, however, you offered no explanation, using actual Church teachings, to provide a foundation for you opinion. I only have to point to your first sentence to show how I could infer this is your belief, and my understanding of your position, which I take to be the footnote are either heritical or close to it, is further re enfored by your last sentence which seems to imply that the author (s) who wrote the footnote for MT 17:24 did so against the teaching of the Church’s Constitution on Divine Revelation and the historicity of the gospels.
Hopefully your request for an explanation on Matthew, as well as Paul’s letter, was not a rhetorical question because I would like to offer an explanation for both as a means to show how the footnotes do not border on heresey.
First, St Paul. If you read the Fathers of the Church, and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” 1 Cor 3:15 is used as a source text in regards to Purgatory so it is reasonable to question the Footnote’s assertion that Paul wasn’t writing about Purgatory as highly questionable. However questioning the footnote fails to take into account at least two major points.
First, the context of the letter and the placement of this verse in that context. If you read the letter it becomes apparent that Paul was writing about the importance, function and proper use of the charism of the “Ministeries” of the Church and how these ministeries effect everyone. This was not a treaties on heaven nor hell nor purgatory but about a real life situation of a real Church facing particular problems. Problems Paul was addressing (quickly some of the problems Paul was writing about were how the use or abuse of various ministeries in the Church of Corinth were a source of pride and division with in that Church rather than understood as a means of service to the Corinthin Church) .Therefore, it is reasonable to assume Paul was not writing about Purgatory per se.
Second reason for saying that Paul was not writing about Purgatory was that the concept or theology of Purgatory would begin to take shape until the end of the 3rd century and it seems Origin was the first source available to begin to write a theology of the Purgatory. During the Apostolic times we find that the eschatological understanding centered on the final judgement, which based on the writings of Paul and also found in the gospels, was expected to be imminent with a gradual realization that there may be a delay. But the stress was on the final judgement, not Purgatory. Ireneaus, did not write about Purgatory and his eschatology was also base on the Last Day and Final Judgement. Even his writings on Christ “Descending into Hell” did not deal with the theology of Purgatory but was on Christ’s, after His Passion and Death, descended into hell to proclaim the “Good News” the that Patriarchs and all who were true to the Covenant yet had died before Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice.
So it really wouldn’t be until the end of the 3rd Century and into the 4th century that the theology of Purgatory began to be developed. However, this in no way denies that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote something he, himself, didn’t fully understand and it would take the Church after many years of prayer and reflections to come to an awareness of this full meaning of the truth revealed in this verse.
That is the how and why (and I am sure there are other reasons as well) it is reasonable for the author of the footnote to state that Paul’s text does not envision this.
This also underscores why it is important to have an understanding of the history of doctrinal development of the Church so that we do not project a later understand of the Church and the development of a doctrine to an earlier time than was the case. Again, this is not to say the “Revelation” was not always present, just the Church’s fuller understanding took time to develope.
First, my questions were not meant to be a “Trap”. Rather, they were asked to obtain knowledge of Magisterial teachings I am unaware of concerning the footnotes of the NAB. You seem to imply that these footnotes contain heresy or are close to it, however, you offered no explanation, using actual Church teachings, to provide a foundation for you opinion. I only have to point to your first sentence to show how I could infer this is your belief, and my understanding of your position, which I take to be the footnote are either heritical or close to it, is further re enfored by your last sentence which seems to imply that the author (s) who wrote the footnote for MT 17:24 did so against the teaching of the Church’s Constitution on Divine Revelation and the historicity of the gospels.
Hopefully your request for an explanation on Matthew, as well as Paul’s letter, was not a rhetorical question because I would like to offer an explanation for both as a means to show how the footnotes do not border on heresey.
First, St Paul. If you read the Fathers of the Church, and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” 1 Cor 3:15 is used as a source text in regards to Purgatory so it is reasonable to question the Footnote’s assertion that Paul wasn’t writing about Purgatory as highly questionable. However questioning the footnote fails to take into account at least two major points.
First, the context of the letter and the placement of this verse in that context. If you read the letter it becomes apparent that Paul was writing about the importance, function and proper use of the charism of the “Ministeries” of the Church and how these ministeries effect everyone. This was not a treaties on heaven nor hell nor purgatory but about a real life situation of a real Church facing particular problems. Problems Paul was addressing (quickly some of the problems Paul was writing about were how the use or abuse of various ministeries in the Church of Corinth were a source of pride and division with in that Church rather than understood as a means of service to the Corinthin Church) .Therefore, it is reasonable to assume Paul was not writing about Purgatory per se.
Second reason for saying that Paul was not writing about Purgatory was that the concept or theology of Purgatory would begin to take shape until the end of the 3rd century and it seems Origin was the first source available to begin to write a theology of the Purgatory. During the Apostolic times we find that the eschatological understanding centered on the final judgement, which based on the writings of Paul and also found in the gospels, was expected to be imminent with a gradual realization that there may be a delay. But the stress was on the final judgement, not Purgatory. Ireneaus, did not write about Purgatory and his eschatology was also base on the Last Day and Final Judgement. Even his writings on Christ “Descending into Hell” did not deal with the theology of Purgatory but was on Christ’s, after His Passion and Death, descended into hell to proclaim the “Good News” the that Patriarchs and all who were true to the Covenant yet had died before Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice.
So it really wouldn’t be until the end of the 3rd Century and into the 4th century that the theology of Purgatory began to be developed. However, this in no way denies that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote something he, himself, didn’t fully understand and it would take the Church after many years of prayer and reflections to come to an awareness of this full meaning of the truth revealed in this verse.
That is the how and why (and I am sure there are other reasons as well) it is reasonable for the author of the footnote to state that Paul’s text does not envision this.
This also underscores why it is important to have an understanding of the history of doctrinal development of the Church so that we do not project a later understand of the Church and the development of a doctrine to an earlier time than was the case. Again, this is not to say the “Revelation” was not always present, just the Church’s fuller understanding took time to develope.
K
Kuriakos
Guest
The NAB is a pretty awful translation I prefer ESV, NRSV, or NASB
T
TOME
Guest
Concerning Matthew 17:24 the author(s) of this footnote begin with a premise that many here in this forum reject. Namely, Matthew was written around 70 AD or after and was not the first gospel to be written.
The Constitution on Divine Revelation teaches us that the gospel are “Faith Documents” developed from and for a Faith Community.
Now, if what the majority of Catholic Scripture Scholars today believe (and I said the majority as oppose to all) and that Matthew was written from a Church around or after 70 AD and the fall of the Temple, then the question on tax should be understandable. Paying the temple tax was no longer a question, there was no temple. However, paying the “Jupiter Capitolinus” tax was, just as it was for all jews, and this was a serious question the Church faced. In it inspired way, Matthew 17, then, addresses the question, “What would Jesus do?” Again this was a very serious question for Matthew’s Church because it was a question with life or death consequences.
So proceeding from the premise that Matthew was written after the destruction of the Temple, the question of the “nature” of the tax (Temple or Jupiter Capitolinus) does have an historical foundation and thus is in keeping with the teaching of Dei Verbum that the gospels are historical, but just not in the historical sense from a 21st century concept of history or literature for that matter.
I do not deny the many abuses that developed amoung Catholic scriptual scholarship in the last century, however, these abuses shouldn’t blind people to its benefits. I think Pope Benedict XVI’s work “Bible Interpretation in Crisis” (written as Cardinal Ratzinger) puts modern scriptural study into perspective as well as any document I have read.
The Constitution on Divine Revelation teaches us that the gospel are “Faith Documents” developed from and for a Faith Community.
Now, if what the majority of Catholic Scripture Scholars today believe (and I said the majority as oppose to all) and that Matthew was written from a Church around or after 70 AD and the fall of the Temple, then the question on tax should be understandable. Paying the temple tax was no longer a question, there was no temple. However, paying the “Jupiter Capitolinus” tax was, just as it was for all jews, and this was a serious question the Church faced. In it inspired way, Matthew 17, then, addresses the question, “What would Jesus do?” Again this was a very serious question for Matthew’s Church because it was a question with life or death consequences.
So proceeding from the premise that Matthew was written after the destruction of the Temple, the question of the “nature” of the tax (Temple or Jupiter Capitolinus) does have an historical foundation and thus is in keeping with the teaching of Dei Verbum that the gospels are historical, but just not in the historical sense from a 21st century concept of history or literature for that matter.
I do not deny the many abuses that developed amoung Catholic scriptual scholarship in the last century, however, these abuses shouldn’t blind people to its benefits. I think Pope Benedict XVI’s work “Bible Interpretation in Crisis” (written as Cardinal Ratzinger) puts modern scriptural study into perspective as well as any document I have read.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Look! Jesus paying tax to the Romans was a HISTORICAL event that reeally happened and it doesn’t matter WHEN Matthew was written–it HAPPENED!
Jesus rose from the dead–IT HAPPENED!
Any theologian who does not believe that such a thing HAPPENED isn’t a higher critic of scripture–he’s just an agent of Satan!
I don’t know if the people that wrote the footnotes to the NAB think like that or not–I’ll just say that if there are people out there that believe like that then they shouldn’t be believed!
Jesus rose from the dead–IT HAPPENED!
Any theologian who does not believe that such a thing HAPPENED isn’t a higher critic of scripture–he’s just an agent of Satan!
I don’t know if the people that wrote the footnotes to the NAB think like that or not–I’ll just say that if there are people out there that believe like that then they shouldn’t be believed!
P
pnewton
Guest
FYI - The dating of Matthew was one thing I remember from school. The scholars that I read who prefered the later date, did so mostly because of statements concerning the fall of the temple. In other words, there was an underlying doubt of the ability of Jesus to prophesy. Since Matthew refered to the destruction of the temple, this could not have been know until after 70 A.D., or so the reasoning goes.
Personally, since I believe that Jesus was divine, a worker of miracles and GOD, I found their reasoning ludicrously illogical. If you notice many of the underlying controversial footnotes, none of the strange conclusions come from historical evidence, but assumptions based on a faithless scholarship.
Personally, since I believe that Jesus was divine, a worker of miracles and GOD, I found their reasoning ludicrously illogical. If you notice many of the underlying controversial footnotes, none of the strange conclusions come from historical evidence, but assumptions based on a faithless scholarship.
T
TOME
Guest
pnewton. I think the point you made about the dating of Matthew due to the fall of the Temple is important because your comments illustrate how and why many scripture scholars date Matthew after 70 AD is misunderstood.
Part of the reasoning of this late date comes from what we know of what was happening to the Jewish community of the diaspora after the fall and how their situation reflects the situation of the Church at the same time. That is the Church in the area where Matthew is believed to have been developed. This calls for a study of many extra canonical/historical documents (the Talmud and the writings of Flavius Jospheus for example).
Also the is the internal evidence of the gospel itself that indicates a later date. One peice of evidence that is used is found at the very end of the gospel, namely the form of baptism as found in chapter 28. The words themselves point to a liturgical form which varies from other canonical writings and shows a development of a liturgical celebration of this sacrament of Baptism similar to later works such as the Didache which also seems to have come from the same area.
Going back to the Talmud, we know the crisis the jews of the diaspora faced after the fall and how the jewish faith faced this crisis with the rise in importance of the synagogue. From the Talmud we also know of the tention between the jews of the synagogues and those jews of the sect known as Christians.
And from these writings we can find evidence of this same tention being addressed in Matthew (there is the parallel of the rejection of Jesus by the leaders of the jewish faith in Jerusalem and the rejection of the leaders of the synagogues of Christ and the the followers of the Christian sect of Judaism).
This historical tention of judaism as practice by the diaspora and the Church is well documented as happening after the fall of the Temple especially amoung these two groups in the time and place scholars content Matthew was written. So I believe the footnotes reflect this rather than being an attempt to justify the demythologizing as from the scritpural studies of those such as Ruldolph Bultmann or the Jesus Seminar group.
Part of the reasoning of this late date comes from what we know of what was happening to the Jewish community of the diaspora after the fall and how their situation reflects the situation of the Church at the same time. That is the Church in the area where Matthew is believed to have been developed. This calls for a study of many extra canonical/historical documents (the Talmud and the writings of Flavius Jospheus for example).
Also the is the internal evidence of the gospel itself that indicates a later date. One peice of evidence that is used is found at the very end of the gospel, namely the form of baptism as found in chapter 28. The words themselves point to a liturgical form which varies from other canonical writings and shows a development of a liturgical celebration of this sacrament of Baptism similar to later works such as the Didache which also seems to have come from the same area.
Going back to the Talmud, we know the crisis the jews of the diaspora faced after the fall and how the jewish faith faced this crisis with the rise in importance of the synagogue. From the Talmud we also know of the tention between the jews of the synagogues and those jews of the sect known as Christians.
And from these writings we can find evidence of this same tention being addressed in Matthew (there is the parallel of the rejection of Jesus by the leaders of the jewish faith in Jerusalem and the rejection of the leaders of the synagogues of Christ and the the followers of the Christian sect of Judaism).
This historical tention of judaism as practice by the diaspora and the Church is well documented as happening after the fall of the Temple especially amoung these two groups in the time and place scholars content Matthew was written. So I believe the footnotes reflect this rather than being an attempt to justify the demythologizing as from the scritpural studies of those such as Ruldolph Bultmann or the Jesus Seminar group.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
The problem with this is the footnote does not refer to Paul’s intent of v. 15, but the potential meaning of the verse itself (or in this case, what it doesn’t mean) which as you correctly stated is independent of whether Paul fully understood this or not. And Paul is not giving a treatise on heaven or hell either, but they are both implied in the surrounding verses also. And again, the Church has referred to this verse when referring to the Church’s doctrine of purgatory. The issue of doctrinal development doesn’t excuse the authors of the NAB footnotes since they are writing on this side of the Council of Florence.
Concerning Matthew, the Church teaches that the Gospels record what Jesus actually said and did. What this footnote claims is that this event between Jesus and Peter did not actually occur. According to the NAB footnote, it apparently may have been a didactic story using real people – namely Jesus and Peter – to illustrate a teaching needed at that moment. This causes great problems considering that all of Jesus’ actions, words, or miracles could then be treated similarly; i.e., Jesus really didn’t heal a blind man… this is a later teaching attributed to Jesus to illustrate that those who trust in Him will have their eyes opened; Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead physically… this is later teaching to illustrate that Christ is really alive spiritually to all who believe in Him; Jesus didn’t really (fill in the blank)… rather, this is later teaching attributed to Jesus to illustrate that (fill in the blank).
In Christ,
Irenaeus
B
But_for_Grace
Guest
I personally haven’t picked up my NAB since I got my DR Haydock Bible, the Haydock has no issues that I know of with orthodoxy (most of the commentaries are drawn form the church fathers). Of course the Vulgate is the only version that is absolutely error free.
D
demerzel85
Guest
As has been dogmatically defined at TrentOf course the Vulgate is the only version that is absolutely error free.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Council of Trent did not declare the Vulgate to be error free. Also, there was no one prominent or preeminent edition of the Vulgate at the time of the Council of Trent. The Clementine Vulgate came later.As has been dogmatically defined at Trent
The judgment of Trent that the Vulgate is generally free from moral and doctrinal error is a judgment of the temporal authority of the Council, and so is not an infallible doctrine. One cannot dogmatically define a temporal decision.
examples of errors in the Vulgate:
{34:29} Cumque descenderet Moyses de monte Sinai, tenebat duas tabulas testimonii, et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies sua ex consortio sermonis Domini.
{34:29} And when Moses descended from Mount Sinai, he held the two tablets of the testimony, and he did not know that his face was radiant from the sharing of words with the Lord.
The Latin text clearly refers to horns on Moses. Scholars generally agree that this is an ancient misunderstanding (which they attribute to Saint Jerome) of the Hebrew word ‘qaran’ which can refer to horns or to rays of light. So Moses face was radiant. This error of the Vulgate is corrected in the Neo-Vulgate.
{17:12} Et dum ab intus minor est expectatio, maiorem computat in scientiam eius causæ, de qua tormentum præstat.
Some editions of the Vulate have the text as ‘in scientiam’ (in knowledge) but others have ‘inscientiam’ (ignorance). Both cannot be correct.
Ron Conte
B
bilop
Guest
Two questions, as I am relatively ignorant on Bible translation.
- Why would the translator of a Christian Bible ever translate the OT from the Masoretic (Sp?) Hebrew? AFAIK, the OT read by Jesus and the Apostles was the Septaguint, which is older than the Masoretic.
- Why isn’t there an official Catholic Bible? Wasn’t the Vulgate the official Bible for 1000+ years, and then literal translations like the Douay-Rheims? When/why did this change.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
- Why would the translator of a Christian Bible ever translate the OT from the Masoretic (Sp?) Hebrew? AFAIK, the OT read by Jesus and the Apostles was the Septaguint, which is older than the Masoretic.
- Why isn’t there an official Catholic Bible? Wasn’t the Vulgate the official Bible for 1000+ years, and then literal translations like the Douay-Rheims? When/why did this change.
The Church has wisely not chosen only one edition to be the one Catholic Bible; various editions and translations are approved.
The Clementine Vulgate was completed in 1598 and supplanted by the Neo Vulgate in recent decades. Before the Clementine there were many different editons of the Vulgate, which did not agree on the exact text.
The faithful benefit from having many different translations and editions of the Bible in many languages.
Ron Conte
D
demerzel85
Guest
With the condition that the are translated faithfully.
P
pnewton
Guest
TOME,
I know my initial expaination was rather simplistic and appreciate you expanding on it. However I will stick with Occam’s razor that that all things being equal, the simplist explaination is usually true. Namely, the formula for baptism in chapter 28 is there because that is what Jesus really said. Similarly, the facts of conversation with Peter and the other disciples reflect real conversations, not tension with other Jews following the diaspora.
I know my initial expaination was rather simplistic and appreciate you expanding on it. However I will stick with Occam’s razor that that all things being equal, the simplist explaination is usually true. Namely, the formula for baptism in chapter 28 is there because that is what Jesus really said. Similarly, the facts of conversation with Peter and the other disciples reflect real conversations, not tension with other Jews following the diaspora.
T
TOME
Guest
Pnewton, on its face value your approach seems very reasonable, however, the gospels themselves do not always cooperate with this approach.
For example, which saying of Jesus is the correct one, Jesus’ commission of his disciples as found in Matthew 28 with the formula for baptism we are familar with or is Mark’s (16:18 -18) where there are some differences and no baptismal formula? Or how about John and Luke/Acts where baptism is not mentioned at all prior to Christ Ascension.
Another example is Peter’s Confession. In Matthew 16 we know after Peter confesses Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God Jesus proclaims Peter to be the “Rock” and gives to Peter the “Keys of the Kingdom”. However, in Mark 8, when Peter makes his profession Jesus’ only response is to tell his disciples not to tell anyone. Which account is the correct one?
With these two incidents, plus others, the question becomes who is correct especially if one accepts that “Insipation” create inerrancy which means what is written is the historical fact and cannot be wrong. Which presentation, then, is the correct one?
For example, which saying of Jesus is the correct one, Jesus’ commission of his disciples as found in Matthew 28 with the formula for baptism we are familar with or is Mark’s (16:18 -18) where there are some differences and no baptismal formula? Or how about John and Luke/Acts where baptism is not mentioned at all prior to Christ Ascension.
Another example is Peter’s Confession. In Matthew 16 we know after Peter confesses Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God Jesus proclaims Peter to be the “Rock” and gives to Peter the “Keys of the Kingdom”. However, in Mark 8, when Peter makes his profession Jesus’ only response is to tell his disciples not to tell anyone. Which account is the correct one?
With these two incidents, plus others, the question becomes who is correct especially if one accepts that “Insipation” create inerrancy which means what is written is the historical fact and cannot be wrong. Which presentation, then, is the correct one?
P
pnewton
Guest
I think there is a better answer to the synoptic problems that assuming one gospel or another is a latter forgery (that is the English word for signing someone else’s name to something).
The far simplest answer can be attested to by anyone in law enforcement, namely that two separate witnesses always have disparancies in their accounts. Mark, being the younger, thought all the snakes and scorpions stuff was cool, so he remembered it more clearly and added it. Matthew, being of a more legalistic mindwet would focus more on the formula of baptism, therefore included that.
Since we know that Jesus did far more than is written and taught things that are not recorded, we must assume that four different abridges would abridge differently. The answer to your question “Which presentation, then, is the correct one?” is, of course, both.
The far simplest answer can be attested to by anyone in law enforcement, namely that two separate witnesses always have disparancies in their accounts. Mark, being the younger, thought all the snakes and scorpions stuff was cool, so he remembered it more clearly and added it. Matthew, being of a more legalistic mindwet would focus more on the formula of baptism, therefore included that.
Since we know that Jesus did far more than is written and taught things that are not recorded, we must assume that four different abridges would abridge differently. The answer to your question “Which presentation, then, is the correct one?” is, of course, both.
B
blackrobe
Guest
I’m a theology grad student and my teachers so far have used the RSV-CE for the text and the New Jerusalem and Navarre Bibles for notes and commentary. Go for the newest edition of the RSV-CE [Ignatius.]Is the Ignatius Bible a study Bible?
I have been reading the NAB study bible. But have been told to get the Ignatius Bible. I like notes and studies guides though.
I’m a geek, what can I say.
JSA
- Status