A reader writes:
Here’s a really quick one for you. (I know your time is valuable!) Father metioned something yesterday I don’t recall ever hearing before, namely, that Mary became pregnant immediately after "fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum [Latin, "May it be to me according to your word," Luke 1:38]." Does the Church teach this definitively?
No, certainly not.
The Church has very very few Bible verses whose meaning it has addressed infallibly, and this one is not one of them.
I know that it’s customary for individuals to speak of Mary becoming pregnant during the Annunciation, as if the Holy Spirit were coming upon her that moment, but this is not what Scripture indicates, nor is it part of Church teaching.
In fact, that’s not what the Greek text here would suggest. In the Greek of Luke 1:35 ("The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you") the verbs are in the future tense, indicating that the Holy Spirit would come upon Mary at some point in the future.
Hypothetically, it could have been a few seconds later, but that’s not the natural sense of the text, and if it was then Mary showed no signs from what Luke records of being aware of the event when it happened.
It could have happened at any time up until shortly before Joseph and Mary began cohabiting (because Joseph already knew she was pregnant by this time; Matthew 1:20).
Personally, I tend to think the Incarnation of Our Savior was something that had phenomenal effects–i.e., that it was something Mary was aware of when she was overshadowed by God’s power–and this means that the exact moment of the Incarnation is likely one that is hidden from us–something not recorded in Scripture.
People tend to look at the Annunciation as if it were the moment of the Incarnation because it’s the closest thing we have in Scripture to a description of that moment, but if you read the text itself, it does not suggest that this is what was going on while Gabriel was talking to Mary.
But that’s just my opinion. If someone wants to hold the opinion that when Gabriel said "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" that he meant "in just a few seconds, during this very conversation" then that’s also permitted.
It surely must have been within a relatively short period of time since we are told she went to visit Elizabeth who was already in her 6th month and when Mary arrived she was with child with Jesus.
I think it was right after the angel departed…
My question is, why would Mary question how she will conceive, if it was going to happen in the future? She was already betrothed to Joseph. Wouldn’t she assume it would happen when she has relations with her husband?
There is extensive commentary on this and the Immaculate conception, in the ” Life of Jesus Christ” a four volume set dictated by Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerich, the greatest mystics of all time.
She saw into the past and the future.
There appears to a significant problem scripturally with the Incarnation and that involves Mt 1:1-17 (Genealogy of Jesus: (1) Matt 1:1-17, (2) Luke 3:23-38)??
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ,
the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Abraham became the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah,
whose mother was Tamar.
Perez became the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
Ram the father of Amminadab.
Amminadab became the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Salmon the father of Boaz,
whose mother was Rahab.
Boaz became the father of Obed,
whose mother was Ruth.
Obed became the father of Jesse,
Jesse the father of David the king.
David became the father of Solomon,
whose mother had been the wife of Uriah.
Solomon became the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asaph.
Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Joram,
Joram the father of Uzziah.
Uzziah became the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amos,
Amos the father of Josiah.
Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers
at the time of the Babylonian exile.
After the Babylonian exile,
Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
Zerubbabel the father of Abiud.
Abiud became the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
Azor the father of Zadok.
Zadok became the father of Achim,
Achim the father of Eliud,
Eliud the father of Eleazar.
Eleazar became the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
Of her was born Jesus who is called the Christ.
Thus the total number of generations
from Abraham to David
is fourteen generations;
from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations;
from the Babylonian exile to the Christ,
fourteen generations.”
This can only happen if Jesus has Joseph’s DNA. As per Jimmy “The Church has very very few Bible verses whose meaning it has addressed infallibly, and this one is not one of them” I am assuming includes Matthew 1:1-17 or Luke 1:38.
I believe most contemporary NT scholars have determined that Matt 1: 1-17 was a later embellishment by a well-meaning scribe.
opps….Jesus did not have the DNA of anyone of those persons.
Opps, all Catholics know this, why not you ? this.
What is your real faith tradition ?
The veneer is beginning to fade quickly.
Opps……. Someone is not saying their Rosary every day !
The Apostles Creed…..
” …and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the HOLY SPIRIT
born of the virgin MAry, suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified , died and was buried.
Dear Defender,
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ,
the SON OF DAVID, the son of Abraham”. As per the New American Bible:
“[1:1-2:23] The infancy narrative forms the prologue of the gospel. Consisting of a genealogy and five stories, it presents the coming of Jesus as the climax of Israel’s history, and the events of his conception, birth, and early childhood as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The genealogy is probably traditional material that Matthew edited. In its first two sections (Matthew 1:2-11) it was drawn from Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chron 1-3. Except for Jechoniah, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel, none of the names in the third section (Matthew 1:12-16) is found in any Old Testament genealogy. While the genealogy shows the continuity of God’s providential plan from Abraham on, discontinuity is also present. The women Tamar (Matthew 1:3), Rahab and Ruth (Matthew 1:5), and the wife of Uriah, Bathsheba (Matthew 1:6), bore their sons through unions that were in varying degrees strange and unexpected. These “irregularities” culminate in the supreme “irregularity” of the Messiah’s birth of a virgin mother; the age of fulfillment is inaugurated by a creative act of God. Drawing upon both biblical tradition and Jewish stories, Matthew portrays Jesus as reliving the Exodus experience of Israel and the persecutions of Moses. His rejection by his own people and his passion are foreshadowed by the troubled reaction of “all Jerusalem” to the question of the magi who are seeking the “newborn king of the Jews” (Matthew 2:2-3), and by Herod’s attempt to have him killed. The magi who do him homage prefigure the Gentiles who will accept the preaching of the gospel. The infancy narrative proclaims who Jesus is, the savior of his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), Emmanuel in whom “God is with us” (Matthew 1:23), and the Son of God (Matthew 2:15).”
No DNA from Joseph and the prophets were then wrong. Which way is it?
as per another view “A further example of this is the inherent contradiction between the genealogies supplied by Matthew and Luke tracing Jesus’ Davidic ancestry through Joseph, and the idea of the virgin birth. The apologetic claim that these are Marian genealogies doesn’t hold water. Price shows that both evangelists, trying to reconcile conflicting interests, have rather clumsily tried to ‘compromise’ on the final link of the ancestral list, the connection between Joseph and Jesus. Or perhaps such attempts at harmonization are the work of later scribal editors. Either way, countless similar problems and indicators throughout the Gospels reveal both the variety and evolution of early Christian ideas and the very human attempts of writers and editors to force them into a coherent whole.” _from http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvSonofMan.htm
“Thus, Joseph became, to all outward appearance at the time, the father of Jesus; and through his adoptive or foster fatherhood he transmitted to Jesus juridically the lineage of David, which was sufficient in Jewish law and custom to establish the descent of Jesus from David which the prophets had foretold of the Messiah.” Dr. Warren Carroll, “History of Christendom, Vol I”. page 302. “The fact that Joseph was not related to Jesus according to the flesh was not, oddly to modern eyes, seen as an objection to the use of his geneology to prove the Davidic descent of Jesus, until the sixteenth century.” ibid, footnote 48, page 312.
“Bjoth geneologies are now hel to be Joseph’s, one by natural and one by levirate succession, according to the ancient Jewish law which oblliged a man whose brother had died without male issue to marry his brother’s widow to perpetuate his brother’s line, and/or by other forms of adoption.” Ibid, same footnote.
Realist,
We are discussing Christianity not Cros(in)sanity.
Your response to anyone else’s quote of Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition is Crazy Crossan said it is not history or the inspired Word of God while sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalala.
If you don’t accept the canon of Scripture why quote from it?
Get ready Bill912 Realist is going to prove you right again!
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
The New American Bible is a faulty , very faulty translation. Its best place is in a garbage can with a lid tighted securely.
So, realist, you have another opps in your corner.
You are truly a legend, in your own mind.
Err…I’ve heard somewhere that Mary was also of the house of David, though of course only distantly related to Joseph. I’m not sure if this is correct, however, nor can I correlate this. Anyone know any better?
Whatever happened, the liturgical calendar treats the Annunciation as equivalent to the conception of Jesus, occuring 9 months prior to Christmas (March 25 -> Dec 25).
Dear Defender,
Since the US Conference of Bishops uses the New American Bible on their website, it is hardly trash. http://www.usccb.org/nab/ What creditials do you have to label it such?
Crossan’s books were not used in this discussion.
I quote from the Scripture to show that there are some problems with it, problems apparently indirectly noted by the Vatican in not declaring it to be infallible.
Who would want David to be in the family anyway?
From over one million Conservative Jews, “Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp
No scripture is infallible, as only a being is capable of infallibility, i.e. the inability to make an error. Scripture is inerrant. Again, Realist proves his intellectual integrity by insisting that anything he disagrees with is historically inaccurate. I said he would do it again, that he couldn’t help it, and he proved me right.
Hmmm, as per Jimmy A., “The Church has very very few Bible verses whose meaning it has addressed infallibly, and this one is not one of them.” Apparently the Church has declared at least a few Biblical passages as being infallible.
According to OT tradition, didn’t Jesus death, as any prophets’, happened on the anniversary of His conception, i.e., Easter Friday? After all, isn’t it why Christmas is on 12/25, give or take 9 months after Easter, with a lee-way due to the conversion from the Hebrew calendar to the Gregorian one?
TIA
Realist, you remind me of the Flannary O’Connor character who started the Church of Christ Without Christ, where the blind don’t see, the lame don’t walk, and what’s dead stays that way. I forget which character it is and my copy is out of reach right now, but I’m sure someone out there knows. Why bother if none of it ever happened and nothing in scripture is real?
“The Church has very very few Bible verses whose meaning it [i.e. the Church] has addressed infallibly”
“Infallibly” in this sentence pertains to the Church, not Scripture.
Realist,
Even your reading skills are failing. Jimmy said “THE CHURCH has very very few Bible verses whose meaning IT HAS ADDRESSED INFALLIBLY, and this one is not one of them.”
THE CHURCH has only infallibly INTERPERTED a few verses.
When I say Cros(in)sanity I mean ALL your looney tune theologians and professors. They ignore Sacred Tradition, Church tradition, history and make it up as they go along.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
No more treats for the trools. Realist you are going to gain weight with all the treats folks are feeding you.
Viajero wrote: “My question is, why would Mary question how she will conceive, if it was going to happen in the future? She was already betrothed to Joseph. Wouldn’t she assume it would happen when she has relations with her husband?”
One explanation is that she had vowed to remain a virgin and was surprised at the announcement that she would be pregnant. (In this understanding, her marriage to Joseph would be a celibate one. Supposedly uncommon, but not unknown).
I’ve often thought that Mary conceived on her way “up to the hills of Judea”. Just as the bread of life is lifted “up” on the cross; just as the Eucharist is “lifted up” at Mass, then I think Jesus would have become incarnate when Mary “went up” to the hills of Judea. jmho
Jimmy,
It would be nice if you could supplement your argument from the Greek tenses by suggesting what the tense WOULD have been if Mary WERE going to conceive within seconds. It couldn’t have been past, and it couldn’t have been present–so I’m not seeing another option besides future. But I’m sure you could figure something out.
I would say that the idea that she conceived at that moment is at least small-“t” tradition (i.e., if not Tradition). The Church of both East and West has long celebrated the Annunciation 9 months before Christmas – just as Mary’s (Immaculate) conception is celebrated 9 months before her nativity.
Hippo354, that would be Hazel Moates – who also said “Nobody with a good car needs to be justified.” 🙂
Dear Defender,
You have not noted your credentials as a biblical expert/scholor. Calling the New American Bible “trash” when it is used for daily scripture readings at all Masses is very disturbing.
With respect to biblical scholarship, here is a list of documents NT scholars use when evaluating the history of the NT.
FIRST STRATUM [30-60 CE]
1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians [I Thess]. Written from Corinth in late 50 CE (Koester, 1982:2.112).
2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians [Gal]. Written from Ephesus possibly in the winter of 52-53 CE (Koester, 1982:2.116).
3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians [1 Cor]. Written from Ephesus in the winter of 53-54 CE (Koester, 1982:2.121).
4. Letter of Paul to the Romans [Rom]. Written from Corinth in the winter of 55-56 CE (Koester, 1982:2.138).
5. Gospel of Thomas I [Gos. Thom. I]. A serial collection of Jesus’ sayings with limited individual linkage by means of theme, word, or expression. Although is has several dialogues, it has no miracles, no narrative connections, and no passion-resurrection account. It is known in three fragmentary Greek copies from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655; van Haelst ##593-595) and in a Coptic translation (CG II,2 ) among the Nag Hammadi codices (Koester et al., 1989). There may be at least two separate layers in it. One was composed by the 50s CE, possibly in Jerusalem, under the aegis of James’ authority (see Gos. Thom. 12). After his martyrdom in 62 CE, the collection and maybe also its community, migrated to Syrian Edessa. There a second layer was added, possibly as early as the sixties or seventies, under the aegis of the Thomas authority (see Gos. Thom. 13). The collection is independent of the intracanonical gospels (Davies, 1983; Crossan, 1985, 1988; but especially Patterson, 1988). Those twin layers are identified, but tentatively and experimentally, as follows: the earlier James-layer is now discernible primarily in those units with independent attestation elsewhere and is placed in the first stratum (Gos. Thom. I], the Thomas-layer is now discernible primarily in that which is unique to this collection or at least to the general Thomas tradition, and is placed in the second stratum (Gos. Thom. II]. That rather crude stratification underlines the need for a better one but it also emphasizes how much of this collection is very, very early.
6. Egerton Gospel [Eger. Gos.]. The Egerton Gospel is known from a single codex now separated over two locations: (a) Papyrus Egerton 2 (P. Lond. Christ 1; van Haelst #586) contains 87 damaged lines on two large fragments, one much smaller one, and a scrap; (b) Papyrus Köln 255 (Inv. 608) adds 12 lines of completion or addition to the bottom of fragment 1. The Egerton Gospel must now be taken as presented and numbered not by Bell & Skeat (1935a;8-12; 1935b: 29-32; NTA 1.96-97; Cameron, 1982:74-75) but by Gronewald (138-142 & Plate V). He, however, presuming the Egerton Gospel’s intracanonical dependence, changed the order of the fragments to 1,3,2. The standard order of 1,2,3 is probably more neutral and preferable, hence the best available edition is now that of Daniels (12-16). The codex has been dated from the early second to the early third century but the original composition, which is independent of all the intracanonical gospels, could be as early as the 50s CE.
7. Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 2325 [P. Vienna G. 2325]. A tiny 7-line text from a 3rd century papyrus (scroll?) is commonly known as the Fayum Fragment because it was discovered among provincial archives from the Egyptian Fayum acquired by the Archduke Rainer for the library of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Vienna (van Haelst #589). The editio princeps is either Bickell (1887) or Wessely (1946, from 1907). It is, as argued by Bickell, Wessely, and Harnack (1889), independent of the intracanonical gospels, a fact more evident in the Greek original than in English translations (Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson: 1.115-116; James: 25)
8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 [P. Oxy. 1224]. Two fragments from a Greek papyrus book of the early fourth or maybe even the late third century were discovered by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt in 1903-4 and published by them in 1914. The pages are numbered and the thirty pages between fragment 1 and 2 make it possible that they might not even be from the same document (Grenfell & Hunt, 1914:1-10 & Plate I; van Haelst #587). Fragment 1 is very small but fragment 2 is large enough to indicate that it is independent of the intracanonical gospels.
9. Gospel of the Hebrews [Gos. Heb]. There are no extant fragments, it is known only from seven patristic citations, and is independent of the intracanonical gospels (Koester, 1982:2.223-224). Composed by the 50s CE, in Egypt, it depicted the preexistence, advent, sayings, and resurrectional appearance of Jesus as the incarnation of divine Wisdom.
10. Sayings Gospel Q now imbedded within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. A serial collection of Jesus’ sayings but with more compositional organization than the Gospel of Thomas. Composed by the 50s, and possibly at Tiberias in Galilee, it contains no passion or resurrection account but presumes the same myth of divine Wisdom as do the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews. There may be three successive layers in its development: a sapiential layer (1Q), an apocalyptic layer (2Q), and an introductory layer (3Q) and it is inventoried within those three rubrics (Kloppenborg, 1987, 1988).
11. Miracles Collection now imbedded within the Gospels of Mark and John. Of the seven miracles in John 2-9, the five in John 5,6 (two),9,11 which have Markan parallels, appear in the same order in Mark 2,6 (two),8 and Secret Mark. Collections of Jesus’ deeds, like collections of Jesus’ words, were already being composed by the 50s CE.
12. Apocalyptic Scenario now imbedded in Didache 16 and Matthew 24. There is a common apocalyptic source behind both Did. 16:3-8 and Matt 24:10-12,30a which was not known or used by Mark 13 (Kloppenborg, 1979).
13. Cross Gospel now imbedded in the Gospel of Peter [Gos. Pet.]. It contained, at least, a linked narrative of Crucifixion and Deposition in 1:1-2 & 2:5b-6:22, of Tomb and Guards in 7:25 & 8:28-9:34, and of Resurrection and Confession in 9:35-10:42 & 11:45-49. Composed by the 50s, and possibly at Sepphoris in Galilee, it is the single source of the intracanonical passion accounts (Crossan, 1985, 1988). A major alternative proposal is that a single Passion Source was used independently by Mark, John, and the Gospel of Peter (Koester, 1990:220).
SECOND STRATUM [60-80 CE]
14. Gospel of the Egyptians [Gos. Eg.]. There are no extant fragments, it is known only from six patristic citations, and is independent of the intracanonical gospels. Its dialogue format is more developed than that in the Gospel of Thomas (Koester, 1980b:255-256) but both contain the same theology of celibate asceticism as necessary to restore the pre-Adamic split into male and female (MacDonald). It was composed in Egypt, possibly by the sixties.
15. Secret Gospel of Mark [Secret Mark]. The first version of the Gospel of Mark and contained the accounts of the Dead Man Raised in 1v20-2r11a after Mark 10:32-34 and of the Raised Man’s Family in 2r14b-216 after Mark 10:35-46a (Smith, 1973ab). This version was composed in the early 70s but those units were immediately interpreted by libertine gnostics, proleptic Carpocratian as it were, similar to those Paul encountered at Corinth (Crossan, 1985).
16. Gospel of Mark [Mark]. The second version of Mark expurgated those passages but left their textual debris strewn across its text. That may well have been done, with the minimal rewriting necessary, by the end of the 70s CE (Crossan, 1985; but see Koester, 1983).
17. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 [P. Oxy. 840]. This fragmented account of a debate between Jesus and a Pharisaic chief priest is formally more developed than the debates in the Egerton Gospel or Mark 7, so it may be dated tentatively around the 80s (Cameron, 1982:53).
18. Gospel of Thomas II [Gos. Thom. II]. See comments earlier under Gospel of Thomas I [Gos. Thom. I].
19. Dialogue Collection now imbedded within the Dialogue of the Savior (CG III,5 ). The dialogues between Jesus, Judas, Matthew, and Mariam, which constitute more than half this document, are created by expanding a collection of Jesus’ sayings which is independent of the intracanonical gospels. This source is still clearly distinguishable in Dial. Sav. 124,23-127,18; 131,19-132,15; 137,3-147,22 (Pagels & Koester, 1978; Emmel, Koester, & Pagels, 1984) and shows a more developed dialogue format than in the Gospel of Thomas or the Sayings Gospel Q (Koester, 1980b:255-256).
20. Signs Gospel or Book of Signs now imbedded within the Gospel of John. In John 2-14 the distinctive theology involves a combination of miracle and discourse wherein the earlier Miracles Collection is integrated with an independent collection of the sayings of Jesus so that physical miracles become signs pointing, through their attendant discourses, to spiritual realities. It is independent of the three Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. A more difficult question is whether it had anything about John the Baptist and an even more difficult one is whether it had any passion and resurrection account. If it had neither, their later presence might be due to and dependent on the Synoptic accounts.
21. Letter to the Colossians [Col]. Written most likely not by Paul himself but posthumously by one of his students in his name (Koester, 1982:2.261-267).
THIRD STRATUM [80-120 CE]
22. Gospel of Matthew [Matt]. Written around 90 CE and possibly at Syrian Antioch, it used, apart from other data, the Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q for its pre-passion narrative, and the Gospel of Mark and the Cross Gospel for its passion and resurrection ac-count (Crossan, 1988).
23. Gospel of Luke [Luke]. Written possibly as early as the 90s but before John 1-20 which used its passion and resurrection account. Like the Gospel of Matthew, it used, apart from much other data, the Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q for its pre-passion narrative, and the Gospel of Mark and the Cross Gospel for its passion and resurrection ac-count (Crossan, 1988).
24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John [Rev]. Written in Asia Minor towards the end of the first century CE by a church leader named John exiled to the island of Patmos presumably under Domitian (Koester, 1982:2.250).
25. First Letter of Clement [1 Clem.]. Written on behalf of the Church at Rome by Clement, its secretary, to the church at Corinth, soon after the Domitian persecution in 96-97 CE. It is independent of the intracanonical gospels (Koester, 1957:4-23; 1982:2.287-292).
26. Epistle of Barnabas [Barn.]. Written towards the end of the first century CE, it probes the Hebrew Scriptures not only for a deeper understanding of ritual law but especially for biblical bases concerning the suffering and death of Jesus. It is independent of the intracanonical gospels and indicates the prophetic interpretation from which the narrative tradition of the Cross Gospel was created (Koester, 1957:124-158; 1982:2.276-279; Crossan, 1988).
27. Didache 1:1-3a & 2:2-16:2 [Did.]. The earliest church order was written in Syria towards the end of the first century CE. It explains virtues and vices, rituals and prayers, offices and functions, and is, apart from the later insertion of 1:3b-2:1 (Layton, 1968), independent of the intracanonical gospels. Indeed, to the converse, the apocalyptic source behind Did.16:3-5 may have been known by Mark 13 (Koester, 1957:159-241; 1982:2.158-160), or, more likely, by Matthew 24 (Kloppenborg, 1979).
28. Shepherd of Hermas [Herm. Vis.; Herm. Man.; Herm Sim.]. Written at Rome around 100 CE, and divided into Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes, it proposes an apocalyptic ordering of moral life. It is independent of the intracanonical gospels (Koester, 1957:242-256; 1982:2.257-261).
29. Letter of James [Jas]. Written in Syria possibly around 100 CE, it indicates the continuing importance of James of Jerusalem in terms of ethics and offices. It criticizes misinterpretations of Paul’s teachings (Koester 1982:2.156-157).
30. Gospel of John I [John]. The first edition of the Gospel of John was composed, very early in the second century CE and under the pressure of Synoptic ascendancy, as a combination of the Johannine Signs Gospel and the Synoptic traditions about the passion and resurrection. It is dependent, but very creatively so, on the Cross Gospel and the Synoptic gospels for its passion and resurrection account (Crossan, 1988). The earliest extant fragment of John is dated to about 125 CE.
31-37. Letters of Ignatius, To the Ephesians [Ign. Eph.]; To the Magnesians [Ign. Mag.]; To the Trallians [Ign. Trall ]; To the Romans [Ign. Rom.]; To the Philadelphians [Ign. Phil.]; To the Smyrnaeans [Ign. Smyrn.]; To Polycarp [Ign. Pol ]. Written by Ignatius, bishop of Syrian Antioch, from Smyrna and Troas around 110 CE, as he was being taken under guard across Asia Minor to martyrdom at Rome. They are independent of the intracanonical gospels. (Koester, 1957:24-61; 1982.2.279-287).
38. First Letter of Peter [1 Pet]. Written from Rome and pseudepigraphically attributed to Peter, it was sent to encourage persecuted Christians around 112 CE in the situation known from the letters of Pliny the Younger to Trajan (Koester, 1982:2.292-297).
39. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 13-14 [Pol. Phil.]. Polycarp, already bishop of Smyrna in Ignatius’ time, was martyred around 160 CE. Pol. 13-14 is an earlier letter than Pol. 1-12 and was sent, soon after Ignatius’ martyrdom, to accompany a copy of the Ignatian letters requested by the church at Philippi (Harrison, 1936; Koester, 1957:112-123; 1982:2.306-308).
40. First Letter of John [1 John]. Interpretations, catholic against gnostic, of the Gospel of John caused a split within the Johannine community and this letter was written to underline the catholic reading of that text (Brown, 1979, 1982). The opposite reading may be seen in the Acts of John 87-105 (Koester, 1982:2.192-198; Cameron, 1982:87-96).
FOURTH STRATUM [120-150 CE]
41. Gospel of John II [John]. A second edition of the Gospel of John is indicated most clearly by the appended John 21 which underlines not only Synoptic but Petrine ascendancy. Many other additions such as 1:1-18: 6:51b-58; 15-17; and the Beloved Disciple passages, may also have been added at this late stage.
42. Acts of the Apostles [Acts]. Although probably conceived, along with the Gospel of Luke, as the second part of a two-volume writing, this part was probably written some time after its predecessor.
43. Apocryphon of James [Ap. Jas.]. There is an intracanonically independent tradition of Jesus’ sayings, going back to the 50s CE, behind this document, but it is no longer possible to separate them as a unified first century source. The final composition of this Nag Hammadi writing (CG 1,2 ) dates from the first half of the second century (Cameron, 1982:55-57; 1984; Williams, 1985).
44. First Letter to Timothy [1 Tim]. The three Pastoral Epistles of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were composed by the same author in the general Aegean area during the peaceful years after 120 CE and were pseudepigraphically attributed to Paul. 1 Timothy is concerned with ethics and offices as a defense against gnostic inroads (Koester, 1982.2:297-305).
45. Second Letter to Timothy [2 Tim]. Written in the format of a last will and testament, 2 Timothy was originally the last of the three Pastoral Epistles but with the same emphasis on ethics and offices found in all three (Koester, 1982:2.297-305).
46. Second Letter of Peter [2 Pet]. Pseudepigraphically attributed to Peter, this letter, which uses 1 Peter and Jude, was written in the second quarter of the second century CE (Koester, 1082:2.295-297).
47. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 1-12 [Pol.]. This section of the document was originally written a few decades after Pol. Phil. 13-14, around 140 CE, on the occasion of a crisis in the church at Philippi. It is dependent on the intracanonical gospels of Matthew and Luke (Harrison, 1936; Koester, 1957:112-123; 1982:2.306-308).
48. Second Letter of Clement [2 Clem.]. A treatise, attributed to the author of 1 Clement by its manuscripts, but written around 150 CE. Dependent on the intracanonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke but in harmonized excerpts, it may well be the earliest anti-gnostic writing known from Egypt (Koester, 1957:62-111; 1982:2.233-236).
49. Gospel of the Nazoreans [Gos. Naz.]. About twenty-three excerpts from an expansive translation of the Greek Gospel of Matthew into either Aramaic or Syriac are known from patristic citations and marginal notations in a family of thirty-six manuscripts stemming from a “Zion Gospel” edition of about 500 CE. The translation dates from around the middle of the second century CE (Koester, 1982:2.201-202; Cameron, 1982:97-98).
50.Gospel of the Ebionites [Gos. Eb.]. All seven excerpts from this gospel are cited by Epiphanius at the end of the fourth century CE. The text, written around the middle of the second century CE, was dependent on a harmonized version of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and possibly Mark as well (Koester, 1982:202-203; Cameron, 1982:103-104).
51. Didache 1:3b-2:1 [Did.]. An inserted section, from the middle of the second century, which depends on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and which carefully and rhetorically harmonizes their versions of specific Jesus’ sayings (Layton, 1968).
52. Gospel of Peter [Gos. Pet.]. Extant middle-second-century CE text is redacted from the Cross Gospel and intracanonical units such as Joseph and Burial in 6:23-24, Women and Youth in 12:50-13:57, and Disciples and Apparition in14:60. Those new units are redactionally prepared for by, respectively, Request for Burial in 2:3-5a, Arrival of Youth in 11:43-44, and Action of Disciples in 7:26-27 & 14:58-59. It indicates, as do the two editions of the Gospel of John, the Synoptic and Petrine ascendancy within the western Syrian traditions (Crossan, 1988).
Calling the New American Bible “trash” when it is used for daily scripture readings at all Masses is very disturbing.
What’s disturbing is the fact that it *is* used for daily scripture readings.
The errors contained in this edition are numerous, deliberate, and render the meaning of many passages nearly worthless.
In reality, it is not a Catholic Bible. My pastor advises to never read it, and toss it if you own it.
+J.M.J+
FWIW, here are the Scripture verses which the Church has infallibly interpreted:
1. Romans 5:12 (“By one man sin entered into this world”) refers to original sin.
2. I Corinthians 4:7 (“What hast thou that thou hast not received”) proves divine grace to be a sheer gift of God.
3. Isaiah 7:14 (“Behold a virgin shall be with child, etc.”) must be regarded as prophetic of a Redeemer to come.
4. Genesis 3:15 (“I will put enmity between thee and the woman”), and Luke 1:28 (“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee”) contain at least implicitly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
5. Philippians 2:6 (“Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not prize being equal with God, etc.”) refers to the existence of the person of Christ as the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity before He became man in the Incarnation.
6. Matthew 16:16-19 (“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”) and John 21:15-17 (“Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep”) contain the doctrine of Papal Supremacy.
7. Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not and do thou . . . confirm thy brethren”) must be interpreted as providing a basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
8. John 3:5 (“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”) shows the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with water.
9. Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24, recording our Lord’s words at the Last Supper: “Do this for a commemoration of me”, indicate the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the apostles being ordained as priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass or Holy Eucharist.
10. Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-29, demand the literal and not merely a symbolical interpretation of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper: “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” so that we must hold they teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist or Blessed Sacrament.
11. Malachi 1:11 (“From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice”) is a prediction of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
12. John 6:54-57 (“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood”) does not require Communion in both kinds instead of under the form of bread only.
13. Matthew 18:18 (“Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven”) and John 20:23 (“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them”) prove the Sacrament of Penance and the power of priests to forgive sins in confession.
14. James 5:14 (“Is any man sick . . . let him bring in the priests of the Church . . . anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord”) teaches the existence of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.
15. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37 (“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and souls and mind and strength”) do not require a love so spiritual and out of this world as to exclude all human emotional feelings and desires based on devotional sentiments.
(From “Questions People Ask About the Catholic Church” by Fr. Rumble p. 176-177)
This doesn’t mean that no other passages in the Bible are true, but that the Church has infallibly defined the meanings of these particular verses. That’s what Jimmy Akin meant.
BTW, I’m not sure what DNA has to do with anything. Jews back then knew nothing about DNA, so they certainly did not understand descent, tribal affiliation and inheritance issues according to modern genetics. As bill921 pointed out above, Jesus was the legal son of St. Joseph and belonged to the Tribe of Judah and house of David on that basis alone. (Also, as HolyDragon pointed out, Mary is most likely a descendant of David as well.)
In Jesu et Maria,
Realist,
Was there any point in cutting and pasting a list of ancient Christian documents?
Regarding the New American Bible, I would expect anyone seriously engaging Scripture study to be aware that the NAB translation is very loose in translating clauses, sentences, and meanings into English (making it arguably best suited for public readings), whereas other translations, such as the RSV are more direct and thus helpful in more detailed examinations which may involve a verb tense or specific obscure Hebrew phrase. Of course a knowledge of source languages is necessary for any competent Scripture scholar.
You really need to ground yourself in a Catholic understanding of Scripture before you attempt pedantic “Ah Ha” moments on such issues. I suggest that you read “The Interpretation Of The Bible In The Church,” a document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
Frankly, it’s kind of embarrassing to watch you shoot down some protestant literalist understanding of Scripture and pretend that you have done something, as if you are completely unaware of the legitimate use of the historical-critical method in Catholic exegesis.
Furthermore, your inability to properly read a simple sentence and understand the nature of the Church, infallibility, and the inerrancy of Scripture is somewhat disturbing.
Either learn what the teaching of the Church is regarding these matters or explicitly notify us of what you believe that you have disproven when you engage in a cut-and-paste job. It would be much appreciated.
The Gospel ofJohn, and the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees is all about DNA.
the Pharisees just used a different term, sperma.
They told Jesus they were of Abrahma’s stock since they had a DNA connection. Jesus rebukes then to say, it is not about DNA fellas, it is about following the word of God.
And since you guys do not follow it, you are not of the house of Abraham.
As to the New American bible containing infallible statemtns, yesit does.
When I write, ” Jesus is God.” I just wrote a infallible statement.
Dear Defender,
You noted “My pastor advises to never read it (NAB), and toss it if you own it.” Strange comment since the standard Mass missalettes used I thought in all US dioceses are from the New American Bible. It appears you and your pastor have some issues with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“Is the New American Bible the only translation of Scriptures we can read from at Mass?
After May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible will be the only Lectionary that may be read at Mass, except for the current Lectionary for Masses with Children which will remain in use. “http://www.usccb.org/nab/faq.shtml
Again, you do not give your credentials with respect to biblical scholarship.
I copied and pasted the normal reading required to get said credentials assuming you would respond to the documents on the list that you have read. Maybe your pastor has read them?
+J.M.J+
“Sperma” means seed, which denotes a descendant. It does not indicate the genetic makeup of a person, but their descent from an ancestor.
Yes, being descended from someone means you will likely have at least some of that person’s DNA. Though that could become more and more diluted over time, especially if there is some intermarriage along the way (as is clear in Jesus’ geneology). Nonetheless, the concept of being the “seed of Abraham” is a bit more complicated than simply having Abraham’s DNA.
Jews have not traditionally made a big deal out of “racial purity”. A convert to Judaism is considered to be “reborn” as a Jew, and can intermarry with other Jews. From the perspective of genetics, this mean that “Gentile” DNA will make its way into the “Jewish bloodline”. But Jews have not traditionally troubled themselves over this; they believe that converts can be accepted into the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and be assimilated into the Jewish people. “Racial purity” is a concept more dear to white supremacists than to Jews.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Let me make this more clear:
Being the “seed” of Abraham means one can trace ones lineage back to Abraham, as proveable through a geneology. It does not mean one has 50% of Abraham’s genetic material, or 25% or 10% or 5% or 1%, etc. It simply means that one can show that one has descended from Abraham by at least one line (the father’s line used to be the official criterion, but later it became the mother’s line).
Once again, ancient Jews did not know about the existence of DNA. So they were not saying: “I have exactly 3.24% of Abraham’s DNA left in me, which makes me the seed of Abraham.” They were saying: “I can trace my lineage through my ancestors right back to Abraham, which makes me the seed of Abraham.” They may very well have carried some of his DNA within themselves, but they didn’t know about that so they didn’t go by it.
Besides, DNA tends to get shuffled around quite a bit from generation to generation, so after a while you might no longer have any DNA left from one of your more distant ancestors. Yet that does not mean you are not that person’s descendent; it just means that genetics is a crapshoot.
In Jesu et Maria,
While there is no definitive Church teaching on when exactly the incarnation took place, the common explanation of exegetes and theologians has long been that it took place on the Annunication.
Hence an official Catechism, the Baltimore, could without scruple have a question like this:
74. Q. On what day was the Son of God conceived and made man?
A. The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation Day-the day on which the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God.
Further, the Visitation, which happens shortly afterwards, points strongly to Mary being pregnant at the time. Otherwise the praising of the “fruit of her womb, the Mother of my Lord” the John the Baptist leaping for joy, is without sufficient explanation, for if she wasn’t pregnant, she wasn’t a mother yet, nor was there fruit of her womb.
So if we have to set a time, right after Mary says, let it be done to me as you have said, one naturally infers that it was then done to her as he had said.
An article on the subject, defending the traditional Catholic position that before the angel left, the Incarnation had taken place:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=908
Realist-
You seem to have this odd idea that if one reads a lot of books, one will be qualified to be a Catholic scripture scholar, but you leave out the first and most indispensable qualifier.
Any truly Catholic scripture scholar must first place themselves in humble submission to the magisterial authority of the Church.
Without that first step, it doesn’t matter how many books you pile on top of your head.
This is a fascinating comment:
“they believe that converts can be accepted into the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and be assimilated into the Jewish people.”
In this case, ” THEY ” refers to Jews of today.
If you substitute Catholics for THEY and assume we refer to Jewish converts coming into Catholicism, there are many ‘Catholics’ who say that Jews can convert and hold fast to the Mosaic rituals of the past.
Is that possible ?
Here’s what Pope Benedict XVI said on the geneology:
“However, it is the evangelist Matthew who gives the greatest prominence to the putative father of Jesus, pointing out that, through him, the Child was legally inserted in David’s line and thus he realized the Scriptures, in which the Messiah was prophesied as the ‘son of David.’ ”
Realist,
Seeing how you completely misunderstood Jimmy’s sentence.
Why would any of us believe you have read those documents (many of them not Sacred Scripture and some even Gnostic in origin) or understood them properly.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
+J.M.J+
>>>In this case, ” THEY ” refers to Jews of today.
Actually, Jews believed that in the past as well.
I don’t want to go on at length on tangents, since that would break Da Rulz. So to bring this back to the topic at hand: I’ve always been under the impression that the Incarnation occurred right after Our Lady gave her consent and St. Gabriel departed.
FWIW
In Jesu et Maria,
Inocenio,
I did not say I read the list of NT historical documents. The Defender called the New American Bible, “trash”. To make such a statement, he would have to be a NT scholar and have read the documents I listed since the list is typical of the references given in most books written by NT scholars. For example, check Raymond Brown’s references, bibliographies, index and table of contents in his An Introduction to the New Testament to see what it takes to become a NT scholar.
Such scholarship went into the preparation of the New American Bible and that is why the US Conference of Catholic Bishops approved it. And that is why we use the readings from it at Mass every day.
The Defender has yet to give references to his scholarship. Therefore his calling the NAB “trash” is unacceptable to anyone interested in the truth in our scriptures.
If you and the Defender have issues with the NAB, I recommend taking them to the USCCB then report your results to “blogdom”.
Raymond Brown is a heretic. His works are a deliberate subversion of truth.
the fact that the NAB contains several mistranslations which subvert the meaning of many important doctrines of the faith, it is harmful for any Catholic to read it.
It belongs in the trash. It is a concoction of heretics.
Realist,
I have no problem with the NAB translation, I personally prefer the RSV-CE. I have many Catholic translations and 6 non-Catholic translations, for comparison and reference.
I want to thank you for your honesty in admitting you that have not read the documents (that you cut and pasted) and are not a NT scholar (by your own definition).
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
I have problems with the NAB, but I will stop short of calling it trash.
I am a little suspicious of a Bible translation that contains more footnotes than text.
Also, compare these two renderings of the same passage in Isaiah –
RSV – “…his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”.
NAB – “They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.
It seems to me that the translators may have intentionally distanced themselves from the well-known traditional rendering of this passage for no apparent reason.
Change just for the sake of change is a Bad Idea.
Tim J.,
I agree the NAB translation is weak and the footnotes are HORRIBLE.
I simply meant the text is an easier read for someone who has never read the Sacred Scriptures.
I also wish a better translation would be used for the Holy Mass. If it is what the bishops have decided we use, I sadly accept that.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
For a little X-mas cheer:
(With my sincere apologies to any blondes out there.)
“What do you call a dead blonde in a closet?
Last years hide and seek champion.”
I did not say I read the list of NT historical documents. The Defender called the New American Bible, “trash”. To make such a statement, he would have to be a NT scholar and have read the documents I listed since the list is typical of the references given in most books written by NT scholars.
Actually, all he’d need is a knowledge of Greek, and the ability to hold a copy of the NT of the NAB next to the Greek NT. When my wife was studying New Testament Greek, she was in the habit of checking her translation against a few published English translations. She invariably found that the NAB was better characterized as a loose paraphrase than as a real translation. She even found the Douay-Rheims translation-of-a-translation was more faithful to the original Greek than the NAB, which purports to be translated directly from the Greek. (Perhaps those with a knowledge of Hebrew can testify whether the OT of the NAB similarly demonstrates the truth of the old saying, “traddutori tradditori.”)
Dear CD,
You noted: “Raymond Brown is a heretic. His works are a deliberate subversion of truth.”
Brown is hardly a heretic as noted by the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur in his An Introduction to the New Testament.
“A nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.”
See http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385247672/ref=sib_rdr_zmin/104-3844678-9588760?p=S009&j=1#reader-page for a copy of the book’s page with said information.
You therefore have slandered Raymond Brown and owe him and the readers of this blog an apology.
Raymond Brown is/was a heretic and is a danger for any Catholic who reads him.
Today, a Nihil Obstat and imprimatur are not the safeguards they once might have been. The fact is you have Catechsims printed that teach 180 degress opposite what other previoous catechisms teach. Now, which one is wrong ?
The fact is Catechisms are not infallible works ,although most Catholics think they are.
Brown is a deceased priest, and has already been judged. However, his heresy is not a secret to anyone.
What a legacy the Jesuits have produced since they were rehabilitated. Karl Rahner, Brown, Malachi Martin, ay vey.
I did not say I read the list of NT historical documents. The Defender called the New American Bible, “trash”. To make such a statement, he would have to be a NT scholar and have read the documents I listed since the list is typical of the references given in most books written by NT scholars.
I am quoting Catholic scholars in their assessment of this ” bible ”
It is not a authntic bible any more than the king james is a bible ,since so many words and phrases are changed,removed and rewritten.
It should be replaced by the Dhouy Rheims bible, a authntic Catholic Bible.
Catholic Defender,
You noted: I am quoting Catholic scholars in their assessment of this bible (NAB) ” .
Which Catholic scholars are you referring to??
Considering your concerns about changes in the CC, scripture and the continuing problems with Jesuits, it appears you need a private audience with B16. He apparently is unaware of these “problems”
What a legacy the Jesuits have produced since they were rehabilitated. Karl Rahner, Brown, Malachi Martin, ay vey.
Raymond Brown, S.S., was not a Jesuit, but (as the S.S. after his name would indicate) a Sulpician.
I haven’t read through all the previous posts on this topic. Sorry if someone has already pointed out any of the following.
The Church celebrates the Annunciation (as a solemnity of the Lord, not of Mary) on March 25–precisely “Nine Months” (!) before the Solemnity of the Lord’s Birth. Though the precise moment of the Lord’s Incarnation is not defined, the Church nonetheless celebrates it on the Solemnity of the Annunciation.