Troubling Footnote in the New American Bible
The footnote in question is taken from Luke 24:26.
[26] That the Messiah should suffer . . . : Luke is the only New Testament writer to speak explicitly of a suffering Messiah (Luke 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). The idea of a suffering Messiah is not found in the Old Testament or in other Jewish literature prior to the New Testament period, although the idea is hinted at in Mark 8:31-33. See the notes on Matthew 26:63 and 26:67-68.
It seems to me that the commentator is flat-out denying the existence of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. After all, perhaps the most explicit foreshadowing of Christ’s sorrows is given in Isaiah 53 (if that passage doesn’t describe a suffering Messiah, I don’t know what does).
Moreover, even Jewish literature outside the Biblical canon discusses a suffering Messiah figure, contrary to the ignorance (or lies) our commentator is spouting. Take for instance, the Gabriel Stone.
So here’s my question…why are we bringing in skeptics (and stupid ones at that) to write commentaries that are printed in every single copy of the official Bible version of American Catholics?
I thought Pope John Paul II requested a New Evangelization, not a New Apostasy…
They’re there already. And no one’s had the gumption for Jesus’s approach to the moneychangers in the Temple.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:07 pmI suspect that the point of the footnote is that without NT revelation the idea of a suffering Messiah cannot be said to be contained in the OT in any discernible way; note the coupling of the OT with Jewish literature: “The idea of a suffering Messiah is not found in the Old Testament or in other Jewish literature prior to the New Testament period,” The implication is that it is found in light of the Gospel (see 2 Cor 3:7-4:6). Isn’t this also the point of the transfiguration accounts in the synoptics which is intimately tied up with the passion prediction? Moses the lawgiver and Elijah the prophet stand with Jesus, but the voice tells the disciples to listen only to Jesus (Lk 9:35). He is the interpretive key to the law and prophets (Lk 24:27). This is why he had to open the Apostles minds to the understanding of Scripture (Lk 24:46). Note that the footnote to this passage refers you back to the one you quoted. Also, recall that the second and third passion predictions in Luke mention the fact that the disciples did not understand what Jesus was saying.
Notice too the footnote to the first suffering servant song: “1 [1-4] Servant: there are three other “Servant-of-the-Lord” oracles, 49:1-7; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12. Many identifications have been proposed, e.g., historical Israel, ideal Israel, an Old Testament historical character before or during the lifetime of the prophet, the prophet himself. The New Testament and Christian tradition, however, have seen a fulfillment of these prophecies in Jesus Christ. (My emphasis)
2 [3] A reference to the mercy of Christ.”
Finally, note what is said in the introduction: “Luke’s story of Jesus and the church is dominated by a historical perspective. This history is first of all salvation history. God’s divine plan for human salvation was accomplished during the period of Jesus, who through the events of his life (Luke 22:22) fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies (Luke 4:21; 18:31; 22:37; 24:26-27, 44), and this salvation is now extended to all humanity in the period of the church (Acts 4:12)”
You may recall from a comment I left on your blog a week or so ago that I’m no fan of the NAB, but I see nothing sinister here; just a poorly worded notation.
October 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pmDim, I’m impressed. That was an ingenious interpretation you just offered!
However, it still stands to reason that recent archeological finds have demonstrated that many pre-Christian Jews actually did expect a suffering Messiah. I’m not sure why these discoveries were overlooked in the NAB.
Can you make sense out of the footnotes on Matthew 21:7 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew21.htm#foot5), Mark 8:31 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark8.htm#foot7), or Matthew 16:21-23 (http://usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm#foot16)?
October 17th, 2008 at 8:23 amFirst, how recent are the archaeological finds you’re referring to? How well known and well received were they by the scholarly community when the revision was taking place? The deadline for manuscripts for the revision was November 1980, a full generation ago. The editorial process ended in September of ‘86. As the preface to the revised edition notes: “Although the Scriptures themselves are timeless, translations and explanations of them quickly become dated.”
Regarding the first footnote. I would point out that the note on 21:4-5 reads: “The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Isaiah 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).”
I would first of all point out that the prophetic character of the cited text(s) is not being called into question, just whether the Evangelists]’s understanding of a detail concerning the prophecy is correct. The other three Gospel writers describe the event, and all make reference to just one animal.
Your contention in the original post was that the notationalist( pardon the word invention) was “flat-out denying the existence of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament.” I do not think this was his intention at all. I think the fundamental issue is how you and he differ regarding the extent of inspiration. Sadly, we (probably) cannot get his views, but I think knowing yours would be pertinent to the discussion.
Regarding the note on Matt 16:21-23, it reads: “This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29).”
The notationalist clearly thinks Mark’s Gospel was written first. If Mark was written first then Matthew clearly adds elements to the passion prediction not found in Mark. Is he compiling elements from various other statements of our Blessed Lord? That’s possible, since our Lord probably issued more than three prediction, and, on number of occasions alluded to his death.
Since Matthew’s Gospel contains words of Jesus not found in Mark’s parallel, and since words of Jesus not found in Mark’s Gospel are found in Matthew’s parallel, then one or the other can be descried as not containing the exact words of Jesus “as they stand” without detriment to the truth of either. It’s rather obvious that the Gospel writers on occasion compiled texts from various sources and from various time periods of our Lord’s ministry. The Gospels are not “day by day with Jesus in the holy land” but, rather, interpretations of his life and teaching based on the facts of history, but not chronologically.
Regarding the footnote on Mark 8:31, I have perpetual adoration in an hour and will have to give answer at a latter time; hopefully tomorrow evening or Monday afternoon/evening.
October 18th, 2008 at 7:59 pmDear Dim,
Thank you for having this conversation with me. I think this topic is extremely important, and you most certainly have some very insightful things to say.
Regarding my understanding of Biblical inerrancy…
Sacred Scripture is absolutely inerrant regarding matters of faith, morals, and religion.
By faith, morals, and religion, I mean the following:
Faith: what to believe about God, the spiritual realm, and their interaction with the material world.
Morals: how to behave toward our fellow man, and our duties and responsibilities to him.
Religion: how to behave toward God, and our duties and responsibilities to Him.
The Bible is also absolutely inerrant concerning that which pertains to the necessary foundation of these things, namely historical realities.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:06 pmFirst, a couple of clarifications.
Regarding what I said in relation to Luke 24:26. The underlying concept is what scholars call the sensus plenior, the fuller sense.
The SP is the deeper meaning intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, that is seen to exist in the words of Scripture (like Isaiah 53)) when they are studied in the light of further Revelation or of development in the understanding of Revelation. (The Jerome Biblical Commentary 71:57. Words in parenthesis are mine).
From this it can be readily seen how the notationalist can speak about the idea of a suffering Messiah not being found in the OT, yet still refer to the texts as prophecy.
I would also point out that the footnote on Matt 16:21-23, which I quoted above, specifically refers to Jesus “revelation”, a clear indication that what is underlying the note is the sensus plenior.
Regarding the footnote on Mark 8:31, I think it needs to be understood in light of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document CONCERNING THE HISTORICAL TRUTH OF THE GOSPELS. An English translation by Fathe Joseph Fitzmyer can be found here, along with his commentary:
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_HistTruthFitzmyer.htm
Pertinent in reference to the footnote on Mark 8:31 is what is said concerning the third level (or stage) of the Gospel’s formation.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pmDim,
You missed my point regarding the footnote on Matt. 16:21-23. The rest you have explained well.
My concern regarding the footnote on Matt. 16:21-23 resides in the following statement: “However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29).”
This casts doubt on whether or not Jesus understood the nature of his mission. It seems to be in conflict with CCC 474, which says “By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.”
This would entail that Christ knew he had come to die. The aforementioned footnote is in violation of this doctrine.
October 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pmIts just plain liberalism and unbelief. Even worse is the ecumenical New Oxford Study Bible.
jay
October 27th, 2008 at 9:45 am