St. Joseph bible notes

[kern]

The widely-used St. Joseph (I think) Bible has a set of standard notes which are used in many different editions. The Bibles have the Imprimatur, so theoretically they should be OK to use.

The notes, however, are much more liberal than I would have thought such a widely used Bible would be. The notes and introductions follow standard modern Biblical criticism, and say (among other things):

1. Most of the books were not written by their supposed authors (the Gospels, 2 Peter, and Jude, for instance) but were compiled from numerous sources

2. Some of the quotes attributed to Jesus do not resemble anything that Jesus ever said, but are theological developments from a later time that were simply attributed to Jesus by the Gospel authors.

3. Scenes like the Sermon on the Mount did not actually happen; that was just a device the author of Matthew used to frame his collection of sayings of Jesus (which was probably a mix of real and "not real" sayings of Jesus).

4. It espouses the PJD theory of the Torah

And more. Since these Bibles have the Imprimatur, does that mean that a Catholic can believe these things in good conscience? I've been told otherwise in the past, but if these things are in direct contradiction of Tradition (which is what I was told), then I don't understand what the Imprimatur is supposed to mean.

-Chris

 

[kern]

I knew I had asked this question or similar ones before, and searching has shown me that at least #4 (PJD) is acceptable:

289. "Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The INSPIRED AUTHORS[emphasis mine] have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the 'beginning': creation, fall, and promise of salvation."

-Chris

 

[Roald]

I have a big problem with #2 and #3. I am pretty sure that the Gospels are to be understood as containing what Jesus actually said and did.

 

[Roald]

19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

--DEI VERBUM, VATICAN II

Here it is. (Emphasis mine). The bold section says the Gospels are accurate. The section in blue suggests that the writers weren't exact, but it does not suggest that they imposed their theological notions upon Jesus' words.

 

[kern]

That doesn't really deny #3 -- saying that the Sermon on the Mount does not capture the literal words that Jesus spoke there is fine as long as the Sermon reflects Jesus' actual teachings. In the ancient world they didn't really have the same concept we do that it's necessary to capture someone's *exact* words.

#2 surprised me the most, though -- I wish I had the Bible here with me to find the exact passage.

So how did it get the Imprimatur then?

-Chris

 

[thereselittleflower]

kern

Any bible notes I take with caution . . just because bible notes appear in a Catholic bible, that does not mean they are not liberal, etc . . so I don't rely on those notes . . they have to be held up to the light of real criticism and what the Church declares . . they are tool, but need to be discerned . .


Peace in Him!