NJBC--a commentary on the commentary

[utunumsint]

So I’ve been reading the New Jerusalem Bible Commentary (NJBC) on and off for several years now, and it has finally dawned on me why the book seems so difficult to my faith. My realization has come because of my reading of the Pope’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and the Pope’s evaluation of the historical critical method. The NJBC provides a historical perspective on the Bible that treates the text from a purely human point of view: what did the text mean to the author, what did it mean to his audience, what were the possible inspirations and influences on the author and on the final form of the text, how many other hands reworked the text etc, etc, etc…

All of this is valuable information, but it leaves the divine aspect behind…the possibility that the divine mind had a hidden meaning unknown to the author who was his instrument. This means those who practice HC cannot read the Pentateuch, the historical writings, the wisdom literature, or the prophets in the light of Christ. And therefore, the NJBC cannot be of great help in making those connections necessary for a truly Christo-centric reading of these texts.

But the Church Fathers did read the entire Old Testament in the light of Christ. For them, every single word of the OT was about Christ. From the crossing of the Red sea to Gideon’s fleece. Granted, they fell into excesses, but it was still, all about Christ.

Anyway, to sum up my point, the NJBC is pure HC, and as HC it cannot be open to the possible divine reinterpretation of the texts of the OT in the light of Christ. Reading Jesus of Nazareth has opened my eyes to the possibility of being able to go beyond the results of HC withouth loosing contact with those results.

Any thoughts, or responses are welcome.
God bless,
Ut

 

[Manfred]

So I’ve been reading the New Jerusalem Bible Commentary (NJBC) on and off for several years now, and it has finally dawned on me why the book seems so difficult to my faith. My realization has come because of my reading of the Pope’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and the Pope’s evaluation of the historical critical method. The NJBC provides a historical perspective on the Bible that treates the text from a purely human point of view: what did the text mean to the author, what did it mean to his audience, what were the possible inspirations and influences on the author and on the final form of the text, how many other hands reworked the text etc, etc, etc…

All of this is valuable information, but it leaves the divine aspect behind…the possibility that the divine mind had a hidden meaning unknown to the author who was his instrument. This means those who practice HC cannot read the Pentateuch, the historical writings, the wisdom literature, or the prophets in the light of Christ. And therefore, the NJBC cannot be of great help in making those connections necessary for a truly Christo-centric reading of these texts.

But the Church Fathers did read the entire Old Testament in the light of Christ. For them, every single word of the OT was about Christ. From the crossing of the Red sea to Gideon’s fleece. Granted, they fell into excesses, but it was still, all about Christ.

Anyway, to sum up my point, the NJBC is pure HC, and as HC it cannot be open to the possible divine reinterpretation of the texts of the OT in the light of Christ. Reading Jesus of Nazareth has opened my eyes to the possibility of being able to go beyond the results of HC withouth loosing contact with those results.

Any thoughts, or responses are welcome.
God bless,
Ut

Just to be absolutely certain: to me the designation “NJBC” stands for the “New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, a modernist work of the first order. I believe Fr Raymond Brown was involved with this.

But, I must admit, what you’ve written also applies to a lot of the commentary in the (1985) New Jerusalem Bible.

 

[porthos11]

Just to be absolutely certain: to me the designation “NJBC” stands for the “New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, a modernist work of the first order. I believe Fr Raymond Brown was involved with this.

Fr. Brown “involved”?

He was on TOP of the darn thing! In fact, he gave himself a nihil obstat for his work!

 

[utunumsint]

Just to be absolutely certain: to me the designation “NJBC” stands for the “New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, a modernist work of the first order. I believe Fr Raymond Brown was involved with this.

But, I must admit, what you’ve written also applies to a lot of the commentary in the (1985) New Jerusalem Bible.

It was late. I was rambling. Thanks for the correction.

God bless
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Based on this:

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.”

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Is it fair to say that the NJBC never goes beyond the literal sense?

God bless,
Ut

 

[MH84]

Does anyone know if Fr. Fitzmyer was involved in writing the book? He seems to be “unclear” on a lot of what the Church teaches eg. perpetual virginity of Mary, whether Jesus knew He was God etc. He says a lot of these things but is able to fall back and agree with the Church. I don’t know, because Fr. Fitzmyer in “A Christological Catechism” seems to bring up a lot of doubts about the reality of the events that the Church believes happened.

I think basically he says while the teachings of the Church may not be found in the bible, he believes them anyway because the Church teaches them. Otherwise, why would he remain a priest?

 

[Todd_Winkels]

So I’ve been reading the New Jerusalem Bible Commentary (NJBC) on and off for several years now, and it has finally dawned on me why the book seems so difficult to my faith. My realization has come because of my reading of the Pope’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and the Pope’s evaluation of the historical critical method. The NJBC provides a historical perspective on the Bible that treates the text from a purely human point of view: what did the text mean to the author, what did it mean to his audience, what were the possible inspirations and influences on the author and on the final form of the text, how many other hands reworked the text etc, etc, etc…

All of this is valuable information, but it leaves the divine aspect behind…the possibility that the divine mind had a hidden meaning unknown to the author who was his instrument. This means those who practice HC cannot read the Pentateuch, the historical writings, the wisdom literature, or the prophets in the light of Christ. And therefore, the NJBC cannot be of great help in making those connections necessary for a truly Christo-centric reading of these texts.

But the Church Fathers did read the entire Old Testament in the light of Christ. For them, every single word of the OT was about Christ. From the crossing of the Red sea to Gideon’s fleece. Granted, they fell into excesses, but it was still, all about Christ.

Anyway, to sum up my point, the NJBC is pure HC, and as HC it cannot be open to the possible divine reinterpretation of the texts of the OT in the light of Christ. Reading Jesus of Nazareth has opened my eyes to the possibility of being able to go beyond the results of HC withouth loosing contact with those results.

Any thoughts, or responses are welcome.
God bless,
Ut

I have felt this about the NAB notes as well…although I enjoy that translation.

I agree with your thoughts, and the Pope’s book on Jesus was a revelation to me.

I have found the notes in the Haydock Deuay Rheims to be the best notes for me to use for Bible study.

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for all your responses. I find it ironic that this method that is so supported by the church cannot be used to support any Christian beliefs, since to do so would be imposing an anachronistic revision or reinterpretation of the text. Don’t get me wrong. I can see its value in the sense that we should use its results as a groundwork for our theology, but it most certainly cannot replace theology. And it should certainly not be critical of theological use of Old Testament texts in light of the Christ event.

For example, Peter clearly saw the crossing of the Red sea as a type of baptism. Now, historically speaking, this is not correct. By in light of Christ, this reinterpretation of the Red sea crossing is entirely acceptible.

Christ, and everything he taught and did, and everything his apostles and his church taught and teaches, should totally infuse our reading of the OT. We should not be ashamed of doing this, while at the same time acknowledging that this Christian reading could not have been the primary intent of the human authors of the OT. But we can and must attribute this Christological reading as the primary intent of God!

God bless,
Ut