jay

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?