C
CTBcin
Guest
The translation is okay. Just ignore the notes. If you really want notes and commentary, by the Didache Bible, RSV-CE.
- Status
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
Who was present at the Magnificant? Other than Mary, who would Luke most likely had talked to about the incident?
There is a canticle in Isaiah that is very similar.
Still, I believe it was written as it was guided by the Holy Spirit even though it may not be entirely historically accurate. It is recorded for posterity exactly the way it’s supposed to be.
po18guy
Well-known member
Elizabeth for one, Zechariah for another. Don’t forget that women who were barren but then granted the grace of childbearing often/always sang canticles to the Lord. i.e. Hannah and Sarah. The fact that those songs share themes signifies only that the mothers were expressing a universal aspect of their impending motherhood: joy.
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
Completely supposition on my part, but I can’t see Luke speaking with Elizabeth or Zechariah. My point is that it is highly unlikely he’s got any first hand reports for any of the events in his Gospel. i.e. it’s likely nothing went down the way he wrote it.
Doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. But it’s more like a screenplay of a docudrama than an actual live historical recording.
T
Tom7
Guest
Thank you for everyone’s very insightful comments and support. It has given me much to ponder.
With regards to Jesus using the Noah story/historical account: please forgive me if this sounds overly critical but the story of the prodigal son is not a fair comparison to the story/account of Noah. Jesus clearly tells the prodigal son story to teach a principle, but he uses the account of Noah to connect two time periods, one before the flood and the other before his return. They are not the same type of story. I thought that was fairly obvious. So my original point, which I don’t appear to have articulated well, that Jesus obviously saw Noah and the flood as an actual event in history so he could compare it to the future must show that Noah’s flood was historical? No? It sounds like if we don’t accept that then we, as Christians, are running into ever smaller holes to keep the faith.
This post was written with no tone of disrespect or intentional condescension. It doesn’t always come over well in written format.
With regards to Jesus using the Noah story/historical account: please forgive me if this sounds overly critical but the story of the prodigal son is not a fair comparison to the story/account of Noah. Jesus clearly tells the prodigal son story to teach a principle, but he uses the account of Noah to connect two time periods, one before the flood and the other before his return. They are not the same type of story. I thought that was fairly obvious. So my original point, which I don’t appear to have articulated well, that Jesus obviously saw Noah and the flood as an actual event in history so he could compare it to the future must show that Noah’s flood was historical? No? It sounds like if we don’t accept that then we, as Christians, are running into ever smaller holes to keep the faith.
This post was written with no tone of disrespect or intentional condescension. It doesn’t always come over well in written format.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Again, who cares? It’s a nice prayer. Does it matter who precisely wrote it, etc. etc.? No. Elizabeth and Zechariah aren’t sitting there taking shorthand.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Why do you think they are different types of story? Why would one be more “historical” than the other?
In the story of the flood, God creates the rainbow as a sign that he won’t do this again. Do you really think rainbows didn’t exist before a certain point in prehistory? Does it matter if God created a flood that devastated the whole world, or just parts of Mesopotamia, or a larger area of the Middle East? Is there any scientific evidence that all animals (we won’t even talk about plants…) came from a specific pair in “recent” prehistory (the last 50,000 years or so)? (In case you’re wondering, no.) Does it even matter if there was any type of flood at all? Does it matter if the Biblical flood is copied from a similar Sumerian legend? In fact, none of this matters. It’s a story about faith, how God values virtue, how God forgives, etc. Does not believing in the literal story somehow negate all that? Of course not.
As for “Jesus obviously saw Noah and the flood as an actual event in history…” No. That’s not obvious at all. Jesus may have ACTED at the time like it was an historical event–what was he supposed to do in 30 AD? Start talking about DNA, carbon-14, and how diatoms at the bottom of the ocean track rainfall? Hardly. He had to talk to people on their own terms in their own language. That doesn’t mean he lied, nor does it mean he didn’t know exactly what degree of truth was in the story. Communication is a two-way street. The sender has to send a message comprehensible to the receiver. If a physicist came along and explained quantum physics to me in a series of math equations, I would have absolutely no idea what he/she was talking about. That wouldn’t be communication because I didn’t receive the message. God/Jesus has to communicate on the level of his audience, otherwise it’s not communication. It doesn’t mean that the message (in the light of knowledge 2,000 years in the future) is not true (in a figurative sense). And it certainly doesn’t mean the message is irrelevant to us in 2019. That’s the beauty of ALL the Biblical stories: Their relevance doesn’t depend on being set in a certain time and place. They are universal stories that are always relevant.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Is this direct revelation from God, or private opinion?
Are you supposing to be more enlightened than the Gospel writer, Apostles, fathers of the Church, Popes and councils, Doctors of the Church, martyrs etc .etc. etc.?
Remember that these writings were tested in real time by those who lived this dramatic event. They were not fiction writers - neither were they historians or scientists.
I know you are incredulous, at least in this case - but what else do you not believe?
If you seek reasons for disbelief, you will find many. If you seek reasons to believe, there is but one.
And He rose from the dead on the day we celebrate today.
Are you supposing to be more enlightened than the Gospel writer, Apostles, fathers of the Church, Popes and councils, Doctors of the Church, martyrs etc .etc. etc.?
Remember that these writings were tested in real time by those who lived this dramatic event. They were not fiction writers - neither were they historians or scientists.
I know you are incredulous, at least in this case - but what else do you not believe?
If you seek reasons for disbelief, you will find many. If you seek reasons to believe, there is but one.
And He rose from the dead on the day we celebrate today.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Happy Easter…and if you really want to discuss contradictions in the New Testament, just read about the Resurrection in each Gospel. Detail after detail is different. Does it matter? In the words of Garry Wills, “Who cares?” It doesn’t matter a bit–because the point of the story is that Jesus rose from the dead. And all the Gospels agree on that central fact. Who arrived first at the tomb, who did or did not go into the tomb, who greeted them at the tomb, all that simply doesn’t matter. None of it is “that truth necessary for salvation.” The Resurrection? Yes–that’s “Truth necessary for salvation.”
Last edited:
A
angel12
Guest
Only “semi”?
po18guy
Well-known member
Like a “semi” truck and trailer.po18guy:
Only “semi”?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I think you’re still making too much of Jesus’ remark about Noah and the flood. He is warning his hearers about the danger that lies in store for those who do not obey God’s will, and to illustrate his point, he quotes an episode from the distant past that they are all fully familiar with. It makes no difference whether it’s strictly historical or not. If a friend of yours today wants to warn you to be on the lookout for trickery or deceit, and uses the expression “a Trojan horse,” would you draw the conclusion that he believes the Iliad is reporting history exactly as it happened?
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Exactly…
ralfyman
New member
My understanding is that the notes refer to translation and historical points, both of which are studied and discussed by Bible scholars.
What you are probably looking for are commentaries referring to Catechism. With that, you will probably have to use another translation if NABRE copyright holders require that the notes be included with every publication. An example is the Didache Bible, but it uses RSV-2CE. The newer translation, NRSV, like NABRE, incorporates scholarship from new discoveries about the OT.
As my background involved taking theology in Catholic schools, I prefer a Bible translation that has updated scholarship, commentaries that refer to at least Catechism (with historical and language notes a significant bonus), and has been revised so that it can be used for liturgy. That probably means a final revision of NABRE to be released a few years from now and then used for a new version of The Catholic Study Bible or a more affordable standalone edition, with an NRSV-2CE translation with commentaries from Catechism.
What you are probably looking for are commentaries referring to Catechism. With that, you will probably have to use another translation if NABRE copyright holders require that the notes be included with every publication. An example is the Didache Bible, but it uses RSV-2CE. The newer translation, NRSV, like NABRE, incorporates scholarship from new discoveries about the OT.
As my background involved taking theology in Catholic schools, I prefer a Bible translation that has updated scholarship, commentaries that refer to at least Catechism (with historical and language notes a significant bonus), and has been revised so that it can be used for liturgy. That probably means a final revision of NABRE to be released a few years from now and then used for a new version of The Catholic Study Bible or a more affordable standalone edition, with an NRSV-2CE translation with commentaries from Catechism.
T
Tom7
Guest
But you believe the resurrection is a historical event? How do you distinguish between story and historical event then? Science?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I quote from “A Catholic Introduction to the Bible, The Old Testament” by John Bergsma and Brant Pitre, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2018; 2 very Catholic Biblical Scholars of the first order both being PhD’s in Biblical Theology. P. 115:
So to answer your question from an authoritative Catholic document (the CCC) the Flood narrative is actual history. On the same page it describes the various schools of thought and their reasonings (which you are absolutely free to accept or reject,) regarding the flood narrative from a global catastrophe (the opinion of Jews and Christians from ancient times till very recently) to a simple myth, (fashionable right now.)
You would do well to obtain a copy which (IMHO) is a sort of precursor to the Ignatius Study Bible OT, and will not shake your Faith in the Bible, which the NABRE has done, but rather strengthen it!
Last edited:
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Ignatius Study Bible. So sad…
You missed the point perfectly!
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
If you actually read those sections of the Catechism, the only mention of “flood” is the quotation that you gave. The sections are about the covenant of God with Noah. “The flood” is mentioned only in passing: “After the flood…” with absolutely no comments about whether it is to be considered an historical event, a metaphor, a myth, or whatever.
In terms of the book you quote from, “A Catholic Introduction…”, the authors say that the “flood as a real part of salvation history.” Note–“salvation history,” NOT “history.” Then they give three views “that stand out” in their words:
- a global flood (“all the high mountains…were covered” with water)
- local flood (which you could identify with actual floods in Mesopotamia, which have archaeological and geological evidence)
- mythical flood (citing the literary parallels between the Biblical account and the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Enuma Elish)
And of course the authors of “A Catholic Introduction…” (despite their Phds…) don’t mention another obvious explanation. The Catechism says “…the realities and events about which it [Scripture] speaks can be signs.” And then it describes the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. Water, as we all know, it a symbol throughout the Bible. It seems to me (no PhD, but a bit of logic) that there is a parallelism: water as a punishment (flood) vs. water as salvation (baptism). This would be the anagogical sense.
The Resurrection as an historical event? Sure. That’s an article of faith.
How to distinguish? Well, first of all, other than debating in this forum, I don’t spend my days and nights worrying about whether such and such was historical or not because in my opinion that’s not the point of the Bible. The Bible’s messages are things like “Love your neighbor as yourself,” “Have faith in God,” “Lead a virtuous life,” etc. These messages are embedded in stories, but it seems to me that if you are pre-occupied with the details of the stories you begin to lose sight of the actual messages. And of course the truth of the messages has nothing to do with whether a particular story is actually historically accurate or not.
Last edited:
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
T
Tom7
Guest
Just the response I was seeking. Thank you kindly.
- Status