www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings New Jerome Biblical Commentary

It seems to me that there are some rather negative attitudes about the NJBC, (Not the old one). What's the deal with the NJBC? What's wrong with it? Is the theology and exegesis not truly reflective of Catholic teachings? Comments would be appreciated. Thank you!
Silouan, monk

I'm not sure what you mean. The NJBC was required text for Scripture courses during diaconal formation.

I think the negative criticism of the New JBC was its treatment of the historicity of the Infancy Narratives even though the Catholic Church published a document on this topic many years ago. Many of the points that the critics raised are also found in Fr. Raymond Brown�s massive study on the Infancy Narratives. Brown, Fitzmyer, Meier et al are looked upon as promoting the worst conclusion of modern biblical criticism: nothing really happened historically � it was just theology put to good story. Literalists and fundamentalists may have a problem here.

I would suggest that you read Brown�s commentary on the Infancy Narratives and the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission�s Instructions on �The Historical Truth of the Gospels� (1964). You will conclude too, along with Brown, Meier, Fitzmyer, and Rome that the Gospels were written down not to simply report for the sake of remembering, but were �preached.�

Joe Thur

Dear Cantor Joseph,

So you would recommend this to someone who is as naive and impressionable as me?

Alex

Dear MonkSilouan,

Well, there is the NJBC on one side and the Fathers on the other. I see very little connection between the two approaches (Modern and Patristic) to the "Breath of God." I personally don't have much time for the science of hyper-biblical criticism. I guess it depends, Father, what you are looking for.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian

Do you believe in the historicity of the Gospels? Or do you concur with Fr. Raymond Brown?

//Do you believe in the historicity of the Gospels? Or do you concur with Fr. Raymond Brown?//

Brad,

You didn�t fully understand what you quote. You also conclude that Brown doesn't believe in the historicity of the Gospels without qualifying what you or he means by history.

I stated that many (read: others) look upon their writings as challenging the historicity of the infancy narratives. If you would actually read their writings, you will see a very strong appreciation of historicity. John P. Meier, who I had the privilege of meeting at a Catholic Biblical Association meeting held at my school, wrote a three-volume work entitled, �A Marginal Jew," an excellent study into the historicity of Jesus.

Do you believe in the historicity of an ox and ass being present at the nativity manger scene? Nowhere in Matthew or Luke is an ox and ass mentioned. Yet, in most manger displays and icons they are always shown. The ox and ass is mentioned in Isaiah 1:3. Early traditions placed these two beasts in our traditional nativity scenes to make a theological statement: Brute animals, such as the ox and ass, knew who Jesus was, but not the Jews with all their Scriptures and scribes. Do you believe that the Magi appeared at the nativity scene at the same historical (read: chronological) time the shepherds did? How do you explain the fact that the Magi appeared at Mary and Joseph�s �house� in Bethlehem (Mt 2:11a)? Didn�t the visitation occur outside Bethlehem in a manger because there was no room for them at the inn? Herod orders the killing of all male children TWO years and younger (Mt 2:16) �according to the TIME that he had learned from the wise men.� This implies that the �baby� Jesus was actually a �toddler.� Can you please reconcile these �historical� events? Why did we keep depicting the visitation of the Magi together with the visitation of the shepherds? Who was not reading their Bible?

These problems have always been a problem to solve. The problem gets more troubling when we apply the same historical understanding that many fundamentalists apply to the six days of creation. We will forget that those heavenly bodies that �govern the day and night� weren�t created until later. So, what was governing the day before their creation? We will also ignore that man was created first in Genesis 2 and woman last, whereas both were created last (male and female) in Genesis 1.

The problem with fundamentalism and literalism is that history becomes absolute in itself. There is no room for theology. But we know that merely giving an account of events is not history unless we include interpretation. All history is interpretive. In Matthew�s Gospel, he provides at least five fulfillment quotes in Scripture. Matthew was trying to make a point, a theological point. Jesus was a real figure in time, who was/is also our Savior, and fulfilled what Jews long expected. The ox and ass are present at the nativity scene not because someone was referencing a Kodak moment.

We see another example in our traditional icon of Pentecost. Mary is sometimes present even though the book of Acts does not specifically state she was. Yet, it hangs on our iconostases. Why would we depict something that is not historically attested? Because in our tradition, Mary is the "heart" of the Church, hence her being in the middle as the Mediatrix.

We also sing stichera at Theophany how the waters of the Jordan "turned back." Nowhere does Matthew, Mark, Luke or John mention a "turning back" of the Jordan waters. Yet, we see what may be an intimate tie to the Crossing of the Red Sea (baptism of Israel?), the Crossing of the Jordan by Joshuah and Company (victory?), and other Crossing stories. In all accounts, a sense of the Divine is present. A massive change is taking place before our eyes. But did the turning back of the Jordan waters happen historically at the Theophany as we sing in our hymns? Or was there some liberty in using types to interpret a newer and different reality?

If the Church can take liberties in making theological statements surrounding historical events, why can't biblical authors? Was the purpose of the Gospels to teach history or to preach? Answering this honestly will aid in our appreciation of the bibical mind. Unfortunately, fundamentalism has made deep theological, which is based on history (and this separates us from pagan myths), preachings about God into nice cutesy Bible Stories.

Fr. Brown DOES believe in the historicity of the infancy, but one that includes a theological intent. He warns us of the temptation to misinterpret and conclude that there was nothing historical in those accounts.

Those who you should be worried about are people like Tommy Thompson, who believes that the entire Pre-history in Genesis (chapters 1-11) are post-Exilic stories. Abraham never existed. Others challenge whether the Exodus (and Moses) really existed. The former Episcopal bishop, John Shelby Spong, went so far with Michael Goulder�s Midrash Theory that he ended up believing that the Infancy Narratives were all Midrash.

Did you read the Pontifical Commission�s 1964 Instructions on �The Historical Truth of the Gospels�?

Let me quote some items from the Instruction:

�He will diligently employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which the historical method, taken in its widest sense, offers to him--a method which carefully investigates sources and defines their nature and value, and makes use of such helps as textual criticism, literary criticism, and the study of languages. The interpreter will heed the advice of Pius XII of happy memory, who enjoined him "prudently� to examine what contribution the manner of expression or the literary form used by the sacred writer makes to a true and genuine interpretation. And let him be convinced that this part of his task cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis."

Biblical scholarship has take a unique turn away from source criticism and diachronic analysis. Despite the whole industry built up around such a plethora of �theories,� much more gain has been made in considering the biblical texts in their final form. Pope Pius XII prophetically states that, �prudently� to examine what contribution the manner of EXPRESSION or the LITERARY FORM used by the sacred writer makes to a true and genuine interpretation.� Fr. Raymond Brown makes a similar statement in �The Birth of the Messiah� book that since Matthew and Luke supposedly wrote their Gospels separately, �� agreement between the two infancy narratives would suggest the existence of a common infancy tradition earlier than either evangelist�s work � a tradition that would have a claim to greater antiquity and thus would weigh on the plus side of the historical scale.� (p. 34) He then gives eleven areas where Matthew and Luke agree.

Where we have difficulty is where Matthew and Luke disagree in the Infancy Narratives. We, like many of those before us who wanted to �solve� such discrepancies, simply fuse both accounts together. We grow up with combo nativity scenes, where everything looks right to the naked eye, but is challenged to some degree when we ACTUALLY read both nativity accounts. The point often missed is the theological intent of each author (assuming that �man� was truly involved in the writing of Scripture). Instead of taking the path to make both accounts blend well �historically,� we ignore the greater riches found in their differences. Shall I call to mind how many threads on these forums have brought up the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception, and other litmus tests of true Catholicity? How can two traditions speak so differently about Mary or Jesus� relationship to the Father, but share within the same communion? Are we to say that Latin Catholics believe in one type of Trinity and Byzantine Catholics believe in another Trinity? Heavens no! There is only ONE God. Yet, some on the West side of the aisle mandate an �objective� Filioque, an �objective� Immaculate Conception, and an �objective� (read: chronological) moment of Transubstantiation. Can one still be �Catholic� if one doesn�t include the Filioque, celebrate the dogma/doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or consider the Institution Narrative consecratory by itself? So, why the analogy with East-West differences? Because we CAN live with different theologies in Christian traditions as well as accept Matthew�s theological take on the nativity event as well as Luke�s unique take on the nativity event. NEITHER of the evangelists deny that Jesus was born, nor does Brown et al deny that the events that both evangelists spend time �theologically interpreting� happened. The same goes for two contradictory Creation stories.

The Instruction continues:

�For in composing them the sacred writers employed the way of thinking and writing which was in vogue among their contemporaries. Finally, the exegete will use all the means available to probe more deeply into the nature of Gospel testimony, into the religious life of the early churches, And into the sense and the value of apostolic tradition.�

Brown admits that the Infancy Narratives are much richer and deeper than what we see (or do not see) at surface level. Our biggest mistake is to continue treating these accounts as cute children�s stories. These stories are very adult.

We can appreicate how Matthew and Luke "bridges" from the Jewish Scritpures.

There are many Matthean parallels with the Old Testament: a man named Joseph and dreams, going down to Egypt, killing of innocents, escape from egypt to save the people, and the star of the future. OT motifs in Luke are found in Zechariah and Elizabeth (Abrham and Sarah?), barreness, the canticles, Mary's Magnificat being an almost verbatim recital of Hannah's praise, presentation into temple (Eli?), Jesus becoming strong like Samuel, Bethlehem/City of David, and shepherds like David.

Brown, in his "Reading the Gospels with the Church" book, writes:

"... we celebrate - no cloyingly sentimental "Baby Jesus" language here. Rather, we find a clear emphasis on the messianic king of the House of David and God's unique Son."

Brown is even quoted several times in Gary R. Habermas' book, "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ." (ISBN: 0-89900-732-5). This valuable book is a wonderful primer and apologetic tool that debunks many contemporary theories challenging the historicity of Jesus Christ. I highly recommend it.

And must I warn you about all the hype in searching for the "historical" Jesus? Many in the past tried to prove that there was no Jesus. Period. I have in mind here the likes of R. Bultmann. Yet, we believe in the historical existence of generals, leaders, and emperors with only a few textual sources! Those arguments, which led to a dismal Victorian age of disbelief and a hightened sense of morals, eventually were challenged and were rejected.

For those who do believe that a Jesus existed, many only consider the 'human' character of Jesus at the expense of the miraculous and divine. Much biblical scholarship today is a purer and stronger type of Nestorianism run amuck.

Joe Thur

Dear J Thur,

Thank you for your response and your book recommendations. I have placed John P. Meier's 3 volume work and Gary Habermas's book in my Amazon.com Wish List for future purchase.

Would you please state for me your education on Christianity. If I remember correctly your have been to seminary right? But I do not recall anything other than that.

For me I just read as much as I can and use the Navarre Bible Commentaries, the Jerusalem Bible, various apologetic works, and Dr. Scott Hahn's works.

I have been thinking of buying the 2 volume Haydock Bible in red and gold. Do you recommend this?

[Linked Image]

- BradM

//Thank you for your response and your book recommendations. I have placed John P. Meier's 3 volume work and Gary Habermas's book in my Amazon.com Wish List for future purchase.//

They are an absolute joy to read. Habermas� book is exquisite. I got my copy at Half Price Books for only $6.95. The Meier trilogy may include additional volumes in the future.

//Would you please state for me your education on Christianity. If I remember correctly your have been to seminary right? But I do not recall anything other than that.//

I attended The Pontifical College Josephinum as a seminarian for the Eparchy of Parma. It was there that I first met the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown. It was his speech and our conversation afterward that lighted the fire to study Scripture.

//For me I just read as much as I can and use the Navarre Bible Commentaries, the Jerusalem Bible, various apologetic works, and Dr. Scott Hahn's works.//

I�ve been dabbling more in textual and literary criticism. Wellhausen, Noth and von Rad were interesting folks and offered new trajectories in biblical research, but greater advances are being made, I think, in treating the biblical texts as they were meant to be. One can only take so many hypotheses. Cantoring has introduced me to another approach to Scripture. My NT professor was once a stockbroker, but gave it up to get her doctorate in biblical studies after singing in a Latin Church choir for a number of years. Hymnography is an interesting resource for biblical studies. Many non-canonical texts found a home there after they were rejected. Hee, hee.

//I have been thinking of buying the 2 volume Haydock Bible in red and gold. Do you recommend this?//

I am sure the patristic commentary would be interesting and the heavy annotation a plus for study. However, its choice of the Douay-Rheims version, which is based on the Latin vulgate and not the original Greek texts, I would take into consideration. The obvious intent to prove the Protestants wrong (polemical) should also be noted, but that only continues the tradition of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Does this edition still contain a good number of Latinisms, those renderings of verse where Catholic dogma was interjected at the expense of actual manuscript evidence? I prefer New Testament texts that are based primarily on the Codex Vaticanus and have extensive notes depicting other manuscript traditions. My favorite series is by editor Reuben Swanson, �New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus.� But this is more of an apparatus that a commentary.

Your choice of Navarre and Haydock commentaries seem to be based on your favorite Bible version: the Latin Vulgate. I�m not faulting you there. Just an observation. Like in the Luther movie (he was my great ancestor on my maternal side), I prefer the Greek manuscripts. I also like the LXX or Septuagint, which is supposed to be used in our Byzantine Church, but instead we lease out the NAB with appropriate glosses.

Joe Thur

I own "The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English" by Lancelot C. Brenton (Editor) and was told that the "Septuaginta(103988)"
by A. Rahlfs (Editor) is good to have with it.

But the Greek alphabet might as well be Klingon to me, it is hard enough to learn a foreign language that uses the same alphabet much less one that uses an entirely different alphabet.

I chose the Navarre because it is conservative and the translation used is the RSV-CE and the Haydock because my Bible Study teacher at our local parish has bought it an recommends it. He is a former Protestant minister become Roman Catholic, like Scott Hahn and teaches a smiliar perspective.

I didn't really say to myself I want a translation based upon the Latin Vulgate but I did want a conservative translation without the gender inclusive language, and I like the verse in Luke "Hail, full of grace, ..." :)And these just turned out to be the DRV, RSV-CE, and the Confraternity-Douay versions.

Are these books you have read?

Prolegomena to the History of Israel
by Julius Wellhausen

Sketch of the History of Israel & Judah
by J. Wellhausen

The history of Israel
by Martin Noth

The chronicler's history
by Martin Noth

Leviticus: A Commentary
by Martin Noth

History of Israel Biblical History
by Martin Noth

The Deuteronomistic History
by Martin Noth

Numbers: A Commentary (Old Testament Library)
by Martin Noth

A History of Pentateuchal Traditions.
by Martin Noth

Exodus: A Commentary
by Martin Noth, J. S. Bowden (Translator)

Leviticus (Old Testament Library)
by Martin Noth

The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies
by Martin Noth

Genesis: A Commentary
by Gerhard Von Rad, Gerhard Von Rad

Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel's Traditions (Old Testament Library)
by Gerhard Von Rad, D. M. G. Stalker (Translator), Walter Brueggemann (Introduction)

The Message of the Prophets
by Gerhard Von Rad, David M. Stalker (Translator)

God at Work in Israel
by Gerhard Von Rad

Wisdom in Israel
by Gerhard Von Rad

- BradM

I would just like to point out that the Pontifical Biblical Comission is not an organ of the Magisterium, and has not been for decades.

It was either Pope John XXIII or Pope Paul VI who withdrew their official status.

LatinTrad

This is the reading list for my current class in Pentateuchal Traditions, which is currently on hold due to my unemployment situation. They contain several of the Wellhausen, Noth, and Von Rad texts you mention:

Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Wellhausen), Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (Rofe), Introduction to the Old Testament (Harrison), The Pentateuch (Blenkinsopp), A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Noth), Genesis: A Commentary (Von Rad), Introduction to the Old Testament (Fohrer), Genesis (Coats), The Old Testament (Weiser), The Old Testament (Eissfeldt), and The Problem of the Hexateuch (Von Rad).

I am familiar with the other texts, but have not read them in their entirety. Noth and Von Rad are considered milestones in OT studies due to their use of form criticism. That which I think is most valuable in their writings is their questions, not necessarily their answers or theories. I do like the issue of the Hexateuch. Greater discoveries are being made in the return to the text in its final form. Source theories are of little help trying to answer why the biblical author put everything in its final form. The structure and literary characteristics of each text speak a lot of why such and such may have been written. Doublets, inconsistencies, and contradictions are no longer a problem. And their existence doesn�t necessarily conclude different text sources. For instance, I find Genesis beautifully written. The parallels between the stories of Adam and Noah, which make up the Pre-History, are astounding when approached from this way. Such parallels and tightly knit story lines that often agree in choice of words, phrases and literary structures imply a greater unity of the Genesis text than before when source and form criticism ruled. This all confirms the old adage of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Do you have the latest edition of the Hebrew-English TANAKH from the Jewish Publication Society?

Joe Thur

LT,

Where do you get your information?

Here is the PBCs webpage at the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_index.htm

I think the Holy Father thinks different about their status. Here is his latest letter from April 2003:

- - - - - - -

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION

Tuesday, 29 April 2003

Your Eminence,
Dear Members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,

1. I greet you with great joy at this meeting that is taking place on the occasion of your annual working session in Rome, at which you methodically develop the research that each one of you has done. I thank Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who has interpreted your common sentiments.

Two things make this meeting particularly special: the centenary of your Commission and the theme on which you have been working in recent years.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission serves the cause of the Word of God in accordance with the objectives established for it by my Predecessors, Leo XIII and Paul VI. It has kept pace with the times, sharing the hardships and anxieties, concerned with identifying in the message of Revelation the response that God provides to the serious problems that trouble humanity down the ages.

2. One of these problems is the subject of your current research. You have summed it up in the title "The Bible and morality". A somewhat paradoxical situation is plain for all to see: contemporary people, disappointed by so many unsatisfactory answers to the fundamental questions of life, seem to be opening themselves to the voice that comes from Transcendence and is expressed in the biblical message. However, at the same time, they are growing more and more intolerant of requests for behaviour that corresponds with the values the Church has always presented as based on the Gospel. So we are faced with the most varied attempts to separate biblical Revelation from the more binding proposals of life.

In this situation, listening carefully to the Word of God can provide answers that are fully expressed in Christ's teaching.

Dear professors and scholars, I want to encourage you in your work which, I assure you, is particularly beneficial to the Church. I assure you of my prayers that your work may yield abundant fruit, and I accompany you with an Apostolic Blessing.

- - - - - - -

No sign of them being dumped here. Do you see things differently?

Joe

No, but I found their website and this list of Tanakh's, which do you recommend?

http://www.jewishpub.org/search.php?stype=title&terms=Tanakh&x=13&y=14

- Brad

I recommend the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh: Pocket Edition (ISBN: 0827607660). Price being the major factor, of course. But if you have a difficult time reading small print you can always pay out more cash.

Joe