Basic Scripture

By William G. Most,

(c) Copyright, 1997 by William G. Most

Introduction

The new Universal Catechism is heavily Scriptural, and loaded with
teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We are now to begin to
make a preliminary exploration of that Scriptural riches. Hence it
is good for us to open with a sketch of what the Catechism says
about Scripture and Tradition.

1. A desire for God is written into the heart of man: God has made
our hearts too large, too demanding, to be filled with anything
less than Him.

We begin to know Him and things about Him by reason. The Church
teaches, without endorsing any particular set of proofs, that we
can by reason alone be certain of His existence. And in seeing the
manifold perfections of creatures, we can know that these
perfections exist in the highest degree, and without alloy, in
Him.

2. Even though we can know Him somewhat by reason, history shows
that even the best minds make so many errors in thinking about
Him. Hence He graciously has provided us with revelation about
Himself. He revealed Himself to our first parents, and right after
their sin, He lifted up their hope by the promise of a Redeemer in
Genesis 3:15. After the deluge, He made a permanent covenant with
all humans. But soon He began to prepare for a fuller revelation,
in choosing Abraham and his descendants. But the full revelation
of Himself came in His own Son. This does not mean we do not have
specific truths about that Son, and about the Father. We do of
course.

Christ confided His truths to the Apostles, and commissioned them
to teach others. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition come from
the one source, God Himself. The Church by teaching and by its
worship, perpetuates these truths about Him to every generation.

He gave to us, His people, a wonderful sense to discern what is
truly revealed, so that if the whole Church, people as well as
authorities, has ever accepted a thing as revealed, that belief
cannot be in error. However, the task of giving an authoritative
and clear interpretation of the meaning of both Scripture and
Tradition He entrusted solely to the living teaching office of the
Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Christ.

In fact, it is only through this Church that we can know with
certainty which books are inspired and contain His revelation.
There are 46 sacred books of the Old Testament, and 27 of the New.
The central part of these books is the Gospels, for they speak to
us of His Son. These sacred books contain what He willed us to
have for our salvation. This does not mean that other points may
be in error in them. No, everything that is asserted by the Sacred
Writers is asserted by the Holy Spirit. We need the action of that
Spirit to fully understand the deposit of faith.

Since the chief Author of all of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, we
cannot assume that one part of Scripture will clash with another.
The unity of the divine design means that the Old Testament
prepared for the New, which fulfills the Old. So, the two
testaments shed light one another.

Chapter 1: A Revolution by Vatican II?

Has the Church in our times reversed many teachings about
Scripture? This claim is made about the Scriptural Encyclical
Divino afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, and still more about Vatican
II, which is supposed to have revolutionized theology. The answer
is: Definitely no. But we should see the specifics.

We are going to see the chief positive aspects of Scripture study.
But first we must clear away some very serious objections.

We begin with Vatican II. The Constitution Dei verbum on Scripture
had a stormy history at the Council, and was not finally approved
until November 18, 1964.

The peak of the problem came on October 2, 1964, when Cardinal
Koenig of Vienna rose and said that there are errors in Scripture
in the matter of history. (Cf. A. Grillmeier, in H. Vorgrimler,
ed. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Herder & Herder,
1969, III, pp. 205-06). Sadly, many Bishops chimed in with him,
and there was at least no public correction by Paul VI. Yet, the
Holy Spirit was present. Really, considering the atmosphere at
Vatican II, our faith in Divine Providence should be stronger, for
the final documents left no trace of such unfortunate things (it
is only the final texts that are divinely protected: floor
speeches and debates are not protected. And the difference was
evident at Vatican II, as also at the very first General Council,
Nicea, in 325 AD, when about 15 Bishops denied the divinity of
Christ).

We will answer every one of the specific cases Cardinal Koenig
alleged presently, and also the broader charges made today in New
Jerome Biblical Commentary which dares to assert, in reference to
Cardinal Koenig's intervention, "pre-voting debates show an
awareness of errors in the Bible" (p. 1169, 72:14 - which refers
to other statements in 65:50 and 70-71 in the same vein).

But first, let us get the setting from the preface to DV where the
Council said: "Following in the footsteps of the Councils of Trent
and Vatican I, [this Council] intends to present the true doctrine
about divine revelation and its transmission." This of course does
not fit at all with an idea of reversal of previous teaching or an
acceptance of error in Scripture.

We begin with the specifics from Cardinal Koenig, and then we will
meet the broader charges just mentioned. There were three cases
given by the Cardinal:

1) In Mark 2:26 we read that David had entered the house of God
"under the High Priest Abiathar" and eaten the bread of the
Presence. But really, 1 Samuel 21:1 ff. shows that it was not
under Abiathar, but under his father Abimelech (Cf. Grillmeier, p.
205).

Reply: The Greek text of Mk 2:26 has epi Abiathar archiereos. Now
that Greek preposition epi when used with the genitive case of the
person can readily have the generic time meaning, that is, "in the
days of... ." (Cf. H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar for Colleges,
American Book Co., NY, 1920, #1689, which reports such usages in
various authors, e.g., Thucydides 7. 86). So the phrase really
means "in the time of Abiathar". The reason for using Abiathar's
name for the time period rather than that of Abimelech was that
Abiathar was much more prominent and better known to readers of
the Old Testament than his father, because of his close
association with David under whom he became chief priest along
with Zadok.

2)Matthew 27:9 says that in the fate of Judas, a prophecy of
Jeremiah was fulfilled. Really, said Cardinal Koenig, it was
Zechariah 11:12 ff. that was quoted (cf. Grillmeier, p. 205).

Reply: Even the hardly conservative original edition of the New
American Bible has a note on this passage which says that
Matthew's free quotation of Jeremiah 32:6-15 and Zechariah 11:13
shows that the Evangelist sees the death of Judas "as a divine
judgment." Actually it was not unusual at all for the Rabbis to
combine texts, and then give the name of the best known of the
authors: cf. M. De Tuya, Biblia Comentada, V. Evangelios, 3d ed.
Madrid, 1977, p. 441.

3)The Cardinal also charged that in Daniel 1:1 we read that King
Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of King
Jehoiakim, which the Cardinal says was 607 B. C., whereas the
authentic chronicle of the King that has been discovered shows
that the siege must have taken place three years earlier (Cf.
Grillmeier pp. 205-06).

Reply: If we were reading a modern historical novel about the
Civil War, we would expect, and find, besides real history, also
some fictional fill-ins. Finding these does not cause us to charge
the author with ignorance or deception. No, that is the right way
to write such a novel and we, as natives of this culture, know how
to take it. There are many other patterns of writing in English,
each with as it were, its own rules. But when we move into a very
different culture stream, namely, ancient Semitic, it is foolish
to think they used the same patterns. By accident they may at
times, or may overlap. But we need to check what patterns were
actually in use in that ancient culture at that time. Then and
then only do we know how to take the various styles of writing. We
often call these patterns literary genres. Now in Daniel, all
agree there are two patterns or genres. One is apocalyptic - we
will see about it later on. The other seems to be the edifying
narrative. It contains much fact, but also free use of fill-ins,
somewhat like what we know in the modern historical novel. The
passages that one might mistakenly think were intended by the
writer as our kind of history, are not such: they are the edifying
narrative genre. We know for certain that such a genre was in use
in the ancient Near East, e.g., in the story of Ahiqar.

Therefore, within such a framework, the author may or may not
bother to observe historical precision. What is important is this
question: What does he mean to assert? For example in our
historical novel he does not assert that the fictional fill-ins
really happened. Nor does a writer using the edifying narrative
genre assert that all details are historical. In this vein, Pius
XII, in his great Divino afflante Spiritu (Enchiridion Biblicum #
559) told us the ancient Semites often used more exaggeration than
we do, and also, used mere approximation. No man then would ask
his wife to meet him downtown at 4:15 PM. Such accurate time
keeping then was out of the question.

But there is a different way, that is better. For there were two
ways at that time of dating the first year of a king. In the <non-
accession year system> the year in which a king actually began to
reign was counted as his first year, even if he began to reign
later in that year. In that system, the first year of Jehoiakim
would be 608. This system was in use in Judah at the time (the
northern kingdom had used the accession year system, but that
kingdom came to an end with the fall of Samaria in 722.).

<In the accession year system, the year in which the king actually
began to reign was called his first year. In Babylon the accession
year method was in use at this time. Thus in Babylonian reckoning
the first year of Jehoiakim would be 607 and his third year would
have been 605, the year of the siege of Jerusalem. So the problem
vanishes if we suppose that Daniel, who was writing from Babylon,
used the Babylonian system.>

So any competent Scripture scholar should have known that the
objections raised by Cardinal Koenig are all in vain.

We already mentioned that the New Jerome Biblical Commentary
charges that Vatican II allows us to think there are all sorts of
errors in Scripture: in science, in history, even in religion.
Only the things needed for salvation are protected. They appeal to
DV # 11 which says: "Since, then, everything that the inspired
authors or hagiographers assert should be held as asserted by the
Holy Spirit, hence the books of Scripture are to be considered as
teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error, that truth which
God, for the sake of our salvation, wanted to be confided to the
Sacred Letters."

The writers of NJBC focus on the clause at the end, which we have
underlined. They want to say that it means that ONLY things needed
for salvation are protected. There may be error in all else.

Reply: NJBC claims the clause is restrictive, which is not
impossible, but it is more normally taken as just descriptive. The
charge is astounding, showing complete neglect of all normal rules
of interpretation:

1) The Council itself adds notes on DV # 11 which refer us to
older documents of the Magisterium, which flatly rule out the
proposal of NJBC. First, it refers to Vatican I, DS 3006: "The
Church holds those [books] as sacred and canonical not merely
because they were approved by the Church, after being written by
human efforts, nor merely because they contain revelation without
error, but because since they were written by the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such, were
handed down to the Church." Vatican II works most of this text
into DV #11. And Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, said the
text of Vatican I, was a "solemn definition."

Now it is completely obvious that if God is the principal author,
there can be no error of any type whatsoever. NJBC, p. 1169
comments that we now use "an a posteriori approach". An a
posteriori approach is contrasted with an a priori approach. When
we work a priori, we make a decision in advance, and say what we
have just said: since God is the author, there of course can be no
error. But the a posteriori approach would instead say: Look at
the actual text and see all the errors. Thomas A. Hoffman, in an
article in CBQ, July, 1982, pp. 447-69, says Scripture is so full
of errors that to try to answer them all would be "basically
patching holes on a sinking ship." In fact, he says that would be
a lack of faith. We wonder on what that faith is based, if
Scripture is so full of errors! He adds that when it is said that
Scripture is inspired it means "simply a writing in which they
experienced the power, truth etc. of the Spirit of Christ. ."
Shades of Calvin, who said we know a book is inspired if the Holy
Spirit interiorly tells us so!

In contrast, Pius XII, in Divino afflante Spiritu, cited the words
of Vatican I which Vatican II cited, and said (EB # 538): "When
certain Catholic authors, contrary to this solemn definition of
Catholic doctrine... dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture
to matters of faith and morals... our predecessor of immortal
memory, Leo XIII, in the Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus...
rightly and properly refuted those errors." So Pius XII, in an
Encyclical greatly praised by the leftists, called the statement
of Vatican I, that God is the Author of Scripture, which Vatican
II quoted, a solemn definition. So the NJBC would ask us to think
that Vatican II intended to contradict a solemn definition - and
even referred us to that definition and quoted it!

Ironically such charges are made today when finally we have the
new techniques that allow us to handle successfully charges of
error which earlier in this century were insoluble. We will give
some presentation of those techniques in this book. For more
details, cf. Wm. G. Most, Free From All Error, Prow Books,
Libertyville, IL, 2d ed. 1990.

DV # 11 also refers us to other older texts of the Magisterium,
with the same general thought. Especially significant are the
words of Leo XIII (EB 124):"It is altogether not permitted to
either limit inspiration to only some parts of Sacred Scripture,
or to say that the sacred author himself was in error. Nor is the
method tolerable which, to get out of the difficulties just
mentioned, does not hesitate to say that divine inspiration
pertains to matters of faith and morals and nothing more... For
all the books, the complete books, which the Church receives as
sacred and canonical, were written, with all their parts, at the
dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is so far from possible that any
error could underlie divine inspiration that it of itself not only
excludes any error, but excludes and rejects it as necessarily as
it is necessary to say that God, the Supreme Truth, is the author
of no error at all." A clearer and flatter rejection of the theory
of NJBC could hardly be imagined -- yet Vatican II, in the very
same passage, DV # 11, refers us to this passage along with
others!

2) We notice the words of DV # 11 on genre, for it said -in words
underlined in our quotation of the statement - that everything
asserted by the human writer is also asserted by the Holy Spirit.
When we explained genre briefly in answering Cardinal Koenig, we
stressed that word assert. Not everything in a text is asserted by
the Holy Spirit or the human writer. For example in the edifying
narrative genre, some fill-in details are not asserted. Similarly,
in a modern historical novel, the writer asserts that the mainline
is history, and that the background descriptions fit the time. But
the fill-ins are not asserted to be true. But whatever things are
asserted, are asserted by the Holy Spirit, and so are free from
every kind of error.

By observing this qualification, we can easily see that no error
at all, of any kind, is possible.

With this approach - plus that of form and redaction criticism,
which we will see after a bit - things that seem like errors can
all be solved. Early in the 20th century, and before, Scripture
scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, were well aware of many
problems in Scripture, things that seemed like errors or
contradictions. They could solve some problems; but many they
could not. Yet they were men of faith, and lived and died saying:
Even if we cannot find the answer, there must be one. Today thanks
to great progress in techniques, we can solve the problems they
could not solve. So it is strangely ironic that at the very time
when we have the means to solve the formerly insoluble problems,
so many today are claiming it is all hopeless. In fact, they say
some things are hopeless whose solution was known before, e.g., as
to the seeming contradictions in the three accounts of St. Paul's
conversion in Acts, it is said that in 9:7 the men with Paul heard
the voice, but saw no one, while in 22:9 it says they saw the
light but did not hear the voice. The answer is so easy: in Greek,
akouein has a broad span of meaning - so does English listen - so
it can mean to perceive a sound, or to perceive it and also
understand it (cf. John 12. 28-29). Again it is noted that in
26:14 the men all fell to the ground, while in 9:7 it says they
stood amazed. One needs no Greek to solve this one: first they
fall to the ground, but as soon as they could, scrambled to their
feet and stood in amazement.

Our conclusion thus far: Vatican II is not guilty of the charge of
contradicting earlier documents.

Chapter 2: What is Inspiration - Which Books are Inspired?

We have just seen a false notion of inspiration as proposed in
NJBC. Now we should see what the true doctrine is.

Athenagoras, an apologist of the second century, said the Holy
Spirit used the human writer, "as if a flutist breathed into his
flute" (Legation for the Christians 9). Not much later, around 181
A. D., St. Theophilus of Antioch wrote (To Autolycus 2. 10):
"Moses... or rather, the Word of God, who used him as an
instrument, said, 'In the beginning God made heaven and earth. '"

These texts imply that God Himself is the chief Author. A more
explicit statement found in the Ancient Statutes of the Church (DS
325: 5th-6th century) says the one who is to be ordained Bishop
should be asked, "if he believes that God is the one and same
author of the New and Old Testament."

Vatican I (DS 3006) taught: "The Church considers them [the books
of Scripture] sacred and canonical, not that they were written by
mere human diligence and then approved by her authority, nor only
that they contain revelation without error, but because being
written with the Holy Spirit inspiring them, they have God as
their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself."

We notice Vatican I was rejecting two theories of inspiration:
1)It is not enough to say the books were produced by mere human
labor and then approved by the Church. Then God could not be said
to be their author. This was the old error of Sixtus of Siena in
the 16th century. 2) Nor is it enough to say Scripture contains no
error. That too would not be enough to let us say God is the
author. So there is more.

Pius XII in Divino afflante Spiritu (EB 556-- to which a note on
DV # 11 refers us) wrote: "The sacred writer in producing the
sacred book is the organon, that is, the instrument of the Holy
Spirit, an instrument living and endowed with reason... He,
working under inspiration, still uses his own faculties and powers
in such away that all can easily gather from the book he produces
'the proper character, and as it were, the individual lines and
characteristics, '" of the human writer (internal quote is from
Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920, EB 448).

This does not mean that God dictated the words as one would do to
a shorthand stenographer. Then the human being could not also be
called the author. And what could we do with the words of St. Paul
in 1 Corinthians 1:14-18? First Paul says he is glad he baptized
only Crispus and Gaius. Then he adds - as his memory wakes up in
stages - that he also baptized the household of Stephanas. Still
further, he adds that he is not sure if he baptized any others. So
clearly, this could not fit with a stenographic dictation theory -
such a theory was generally given up by the end of the 19th
century.

We really have a remarkable picture. God can so employ the human
writer as His instrument that the writer will write all that God
wills, and do so without any error, but yet retain his own
literary style and grammatical ability.

If we ask precisely how this can be, we must take refuge in divine
transcendence, that is, we know He is above and beyond all our
categories and classifications.

To illustrate we think of the question of how God knows things. We
humans know things in either the active or the passive mode. In
the passive mode, we receive, we take on an impression from
outside, gaining something new. But God cannot be passive, nor can
He lack anything. In the active mode: if a blind man is pushing a
chair, he knows the chair is moving only because he is pushing it.
But we must not make God like a blind man.

Some have wanted even so to say God knows things only by causing
them. It is true, He does cause all things. But St. Thomas Aquinas
does not limit His manner of knowing to that. Several times over,
St. Thomas deals with the problem of how God can know a future
free decision, for example, one I will make tomorrow at 10 AM.
There are no causes lined up, which will, as it were intersect at
10 AM and cause me to make that decision. Then it would not be
free. Further, the decision has not yet been made, and so it is
non-existent.

St. Thomas explains (e.g., in Contra gentiles 1. 67; De Veritate
2. 12. c.; and Compendium theologiae 1, 133 # 272) that God's
duration is eternity - a life in which there is no change at all.
We creatures who live in time see ahead of us a moment we call
future - it quickly changes to present - then to past. But since
God cannot change, there is no past or future for Him. (Here is
another case of transcendence. We say He made the world - a past
statement. But to His eternal mind, creation is present. Again, we
say Christ will return at the end - but to God, that too is
present).

To return to our question. God can know my decision - which is
future to me - because eternity makes it present to Him. Viewed as
future, it would be non-existent, and so, unknowable. But in the
present, it is knowable. However, St. Thomas always stops at
precisely this point in making such explanations. He never goes on
to say how God knows the thing, once it is present to Him. If St.
Thomas really meant that God knows the future decision because He
intends to cause it - there would be no need to go into the long
explanation about His eternity making the thing present. Thomas
would merely say: He knows it because He intends to cause it.

So we again appeal to His transcendence when we say He is the
Chief Author, and the human author is a real author too, with his
own style, but yet God causes the human to write all that He
wills, and to do so without any error whatsoever.

Now that we know what inspiration is in general, it is obvious we
need to ask which books are inspired. For in the first centuries
there were many so-called Gospels in circulation in addition to
the four we recognize, with the names of Apostles on them. So we
ask: How can we tell which is which?

We must not start out by saying: Ask the Church. For there could
be a vicious circle: believe the Church because the Gospels say so
- believe the Gospels because the Church says so.

To avoid such irrationality, we will indeed start with the
Gospels, but we will not at the start look on them as inspired.
That is something still to be proved. Rather, we look on them at
first as merely ancient documents. There is no doubt they are
such.

We ask first: has the text come down to us substantially
correctly? Textual Criticism deals with this problem. It is
especially easy with the Gospels. In the case of pagan works,
e.g., Julius Caesar's wars, there is a gap of nearly 1000 years
between the copy he wrote or dictated, and the oldest manuscript
we have. But for the Gospels the gap is far less. The Sinai and
Vatican Codices each date from around 350 A. D. We have others,
the Alexandrian Codex and the Codex Bezae from around 400 A. D. We
can narrow even this small gap. We have papyri giving parts of the
New Testament. The Chester Beatty Papyrus II comes from the early
200s, and includes most of the Epistles of St. Paul. Bodmer
Payprus P 75 also comes from around 200, and has parts of Luke and
John.

There are major new finds. In the library of Magdalen College,
Oxford there are three small fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel.
Carsten Thiede by careful paleographic analysis dates them to the
60s AD. (in: <Eyewitness to Jesus>, Doubleday, 1996). There is
also a smaller fragment found at Qumran that is said to be from
Mark.

There are other checks too. The Old Syriac and Old Latin versions
go back to at least the late 100s. The Coptic and Sahidic versions
come from the early 200s. Besides, the Fathers of the Church were
quoting Scripture still earlier.

But really, no scholar at all worries about the accuracy of our
texts, for the variations between the manuscripts are mostly
trifling. They surely have no effect at all on the six key points
we are going to be using soon.

A sad mistake was made by the famous scholar Norman Perrin of the
University of Chicago. In his <Rediscovering the Teaching of
Jesus>, p.26 he claimed "No ancient texts reflect the attitudes of
the modern western world." He clearly had not read much if
anything of the ancient historians of Greece and Rome. From 5th
century BC. Herodotus (Preface 1) and Thucydides (1.22) and Roman
Livy (7.6.6) and Tacitus, <Annals> 1.1) and numerous others we see
that their chief aim was to record facts. They added
interpretations more than we do, but there is no harm in that.
They also includes speeches, which we do not do. But Thucydides
explains he tried to get the actual text or at least he wrote what
seemed to fit. Since he so honestly tells us this, we need not be
deceived. Modern historians would give Thucydides and Tacitus an
"A" for facts (some think Tacitus is rather hard on Tiburius--
which is debated today). Livy and Herodotus would rate a B.

Next we ask what genre of writing the Gospels are. It is evident,
they mean to give facts about Jesus, plus interpretations for the
sake of faith. This is the sort of writing we would expect, in the
Jewish factual tradition.

The objection arises: can we tell the facts from the
interpretations? Is there any such thing as an uninterpreted
report? The answer is: Many times it is very possible. We need two
conditions.

First the item in question should not be entangled with an ancient
culture, which might be hard to reconstruct. (Really this is
hardly worth a mention, for the Hebrew culture is known so well).

Second, some happenings are such that anyone present could pick up
the facts with eyes and ears, with no possibility of damage from
bias. For example, a leper stands before Jesus asking to be
healed. He says: I will it: be healed. Someone could fake the
whole thing, but other than that, there is no room for any effect
from bias.

Would someone fake the basic facts about Jesus? Definitely no: the
first Christians believed their eternal fate depended on knowing
about Him.

Someone will say: Muslims and others die for their beliefs. True,
but that proves only sincerity. In addition, we must see whether
they have the facts. Muhammed went into a cave, claimed
revelations there. But there is no check whatsoever on it.

So we must ask now: could the Evangelists have access to the
facts? Very definitely yes: (1)The First Epistle of Clement to
Corinth is dated about 95 A. D. The writer says Peter and Paul
were of his own generation - that is obvious, for Peter and Paul
died around 66 AD. Clement became Pope in either 88 or 92. We
would expect he was around to hear them - as were countless others
still living later. (2)Quadratus, the earliest Greek apologist,
wrote around 123 AD. He says that in his day, some were still
alive who had been cured by Jesus or raised from the dead by Him.
This need not be as late as 123 of course. But it would surely
cover the period 80-90 when leftists think Matthew and Luke wrote
(they think Mark wrote a bit before 70). (3)Papias, Bishop of
Hierapolis c. 130, and also the Antimarcionite Prologues (late 2nd
century) and St. Irenaeus (died c 200) all report Mark wrote from
the preaching of Peter. Even Martin Hengel of the University of
Tubingen - the source from which so many unsound critical and
rationalistic views have come -- believes these reports about
Mark. There are still other sources, but let us mention merely
this: Jesus died around 30 or 33 AD. A person then in his/her
teens would be about 65 by the year 80, the period when some think
Matthew and Luke wrote. So there would be some still alive - as
Quadratus said - who had heard Jesus in person.

Up to this point we are able to gather this: The Gospels should be
able to give us at least a few of the very simple facts - not
enmeshed with an ancient culture, and such that there is no room
for bias in the report unless there was complete fakery, which
their concern for their eternity ruled out. So we look for and
find six facts, all of which match this description:

1)There was a man called Jesus. This is obvious from all over the
Gospels. We have even pagan evidence. Tacitus, a Roman historian
admired by modern critics, comments in connection with Nero's
persecution (Annals 15. 44): "The author of this name, Christ, was
executed during the reign of Tiberius, by the procurator Pontius
Pilate."

2) He claimed He was sent by God, as a sort of messenger. This is
evident all over the Gospels. He often demanded belief in Himself
as a condition for a cure.

3)He did enough to prove He was such a messenger not just by
working miracles, but miracles done in a framework where there is
a tie between the miracle and His claim, e.g., when He healed the
paralytic let down through the roof to prove He had forgiven the
man's sins. As to the miracles themselves - not even His enemies
in His own day denied them - they just said He did them by the
devil or magic. (Incidentally, His miracles are in continuity with
the scientifically checked miracles of Lourdes, many worked when
the Blessed Sacrament passed in procession. This implies an
abiding, not just a transient Real Presence there - which no other
church claims is true).

4)We would expect this item: In the crowds He had a smaller group
to whom He spoke more.

5)We would also expect this: He told them to continue His work,
His teaching. We cannot imagine God sending a messenger with such
power for just one generation.

6)Again, knowing He is a messenger sent from God, and seeing His
power so often, we are not surprised when He promises God will
protect their teaching: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16).
We notice that although He identifies with the poor as poor, in
this case He identifies with His teachers as His teachers. Again:
"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen
and a publican" (Mt. 18. 17).

Now, after this process, in which we did not appeal to faith at
all, we have before us a group - we could call it a Church -
commissioned to teach by a messenger sent from God, and promised
God's protection on that teaching. Now it is not only
intellectually permissible, but mandatory - if we have followed
the reasoning - to believe what the group/Church says. It can then
tell us which books are inspired, it can tell us that the
Messenger is divine; it can tell us there is a Pope, and what
authority he has. It can tell us many more things about the
Gospels, so we do not have to fight our way through numerous
incidents questioned by critics. We have made, with the six simple
facts, a bypass around all their worries.

We notice that there is no other way to determine which books are
inspired. Luther thought if a book preached justification by faith
strongly, it was inspired. But he did not prove that was the
standard, and further, he could write such a book, and so could I,
and it would not be inspired. John Calvin thought we know which
books are inspired by the interior testimony of the Spirit
(Institutes I. 7). But that is hopelessly subjective.

Chapter 3: A Revolution by Pius XII?

There is no doubt that the great Scriptural Encyclical of Pius
XII, Divino afflante Spiritu, issued in 1943, was and has been a
great encouragement and help to Scripture study. But was it a real
turn-about, so that Wilfred Harrington was right in saying (The
New Guide to Reading and Studying the Bible, Enlarged Edition,
Glazier, Wilmington, 1984, p. 32) that "the effect of that
document had changed Roman Catholic biblical studies beyond
recognition."

A major claim is that it was formerly forbidden to use the
approach via literary genres - some prominent scholars had been
disciplined for being rather free.

First a word about disciplinary actions - for we must carefully
distinguish such decrees from doctrinal decrees. Yes, some
scholars did suffer, but the reason was the need for precautions
against two things: the new teaching of evolution, and the
widespread heresy of Modernism.

When Darwin first proposed evolution, it shook the faith of many,
both Catholic and Protestant. For although the Church had never
taught a crude or fundamentalistic view of the creation account in
Genesis, so many thought it had done so. In the minds of many,
there was a tie-in, such that if they accepted evolution, the
whole faith would be gone. That never was true, but the fact that
people thought so, created a danger. We think of the story of a
little boy who came and said: "Mommy, I just found out there is no
Santa Claus. And I am going to look into this little Jesus story
too!" Today, now that that psychological danger is gone, the
Church no longer hinders writings on evolution, as Pope Pius XII
explicitly said in Humani generis, in 1950 (DS 3896): "The
Magisterium of the Church does not forbid that the theory of
evolution... be investigated and discussed by experts in both
science and theology... they are rash and go too far who act as if
the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter...
were certain and fully proved."

But at first there was the great danger mentioned. Hence there was
need of disciplinary action, to protect the faith of the many,
until the passage of time would remove the bad psychology. A
fundamentalist view would say that God made the world in 6 times
24 hours, that there were only 4000 years before Christ, that God
literally made a clay statue and breathed upon it, and similar
things. In others words, such people neglect the lesson of
literary genres. They do not ask what is the genre of Genesis 1-3.
It is actually an ancient story, made up to serve as a vehicle for
teaching some things that really happened, chiefly: God made all
things, in some special way He made the first pair (we leave room
for possible theistic evolution, one that sees the need of God's
intervention every time higher being appears), that He gave them
some command (we do not know if it was about a fruit tree - that
may be stage dressing in the story, something not asserted), that
they violated His orders and fell from favor (= lost grace and so
did not have it to pass on to their children). Pius XII in the
Encyclical Humani generis, in 1950 wrote (DS 3898) that, "the
first chapters of Genesis, even though they do not strictly match
the pattern of historical writing used by the great Greek and
Roman writers of history, or of historians of our times, yet in a
certain true sense - which needs further study -do pertain to the
genre of history." We have just suggested in what way they do
pertain to history, namely, in that they report things that really
happened, through the vehicle of a story.

Had the Church once taught a fundamentalistic view? First, to
retell the story of Genesis in the same or similar words, does not
amount to an interpretation. But further, the Fathers of the first
centuries seldom tried to find what the ancient author really
meant to say (=asserted). We comment that the words "literal
sense" have two meanings, one which we have just indicated, which
tries to find what the author meant to assert, taking into account
genre, differences of language and culture etc. The other would
treat the text as though written by a modern American and ignore
genre and all such things. The Fathers instead preferred allegory,
in which one thing stands for another. When they did seek the
proper literal sense, they often were not at all fundamentalistic.
For example, St. Augustine, in his De Genesi ad Litteram 6. 12. 20
(Literal Sense of Genesis) wrote: "That God made man with bodily
hands from the clay is an excessively childish thought, so that if
Scripture had said this, we should rather believe that the writer
used a metaphorical term, than to suppose God is bounded by such
lines of limbs as we see in our bodies." St. John Chrysostom made
a similar comment on the episode of the creation of Eve from
Adam's rib in Genesis 2:21-22. He said, in his Homily on Genesis
22. 21: "See the condescendence [adaptation to human weakness] of
divine Scripture, what words it uses because of our weakness. 'And
He took', it says, 'one of his ribs.' Do not take what is said in
a human way, but understand that the crassness of the words fits
human weakness." St. John did not suggest what was the sober way
to take the text. A fine suggestion was made by Pope John Paul II
in his Audience of November 7, 1979. He said putting Adam to sleep
could stand for a return to the moment before creation, so that
man might reemerge in his double unity as male and female.

What of the claim that the approach via literary genres had once
been forbidden? It is not really true. On June 23, 1905, the
Biblical Commission gave a reply: "Can that be accepted as a
principle of sound interpretation which holds that some books of
Scripture that are considered as historical - partly or totally -
do not at times, give history strictly and objectively so called,
but instead, have just the appearance of history, so as to convey
something other than a strict literal or historical sense of the
words?" The reply was: "No, except in the case in which when the
sense of the Church does not oppose it, and subject to the
judgment of the Church, it is proved by solid arguments that under
the appearance and form of history, the sacred author intended to
give a parable, an allegory, or a sense differing from the
properly literal or historical sense of the words." In the case of
evolution, there was danger from a false psychology. In the case
of literary genres, there was danger from Modernism, which
radically reinterpreted everything, so that Pius X called it the
synthesis of all heresies. So the Church needed to be careful
while the danger was fresh. Yet even at the start, the reply of
the Biblical Commission did not really forbid the use of the genre
approach, it merely insisted on careful scholarship, restricting
the genre approach to things not against the sense of the Church,
and requiring evidence for the genre used.

Later, when the danger seemed to have abated, Pius XII could
positively encourage that which the Commission had only gingerly
allowed. Even today Vatican II insists on careful scholarship,
says that all must be subject to the Magisterium (DV #10) and adds
that one must watch for the sense of the Church and "the analogy
of faith (DV # 12) - see if a proposal fits with the whole body of
teachings of the Church.

In addition, some say that the early decrees of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission were mostly reversed: those decrees had said:
a) Moses was substantially the author of the Pentateuch (first
five books of Old Testament), b) That the early chapters of
Genesis were historical, c) That there was only one author for the
book of Isaiah, d) That Matthew was the first Gospel, e) That Luke
and Acts were written in the 60s, f) That Paul was the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us look carefully at the evidence
for each point. But let us say at the outset that who was the
author of a book of Scripture is not a matter of faith, but of
history. Even so, let us look at the claims:

a)Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch: The Biblical Commission said on
June 27, 1906 it was permissible to hold "that the work, conceived
by [Moses] under divine inspiration, was entrusted to another or
to several to be written... and that finally the work done in this
way and approved by the same Moses as the leader and inspired
author was published." The original (1968) edition of Jerome
Biblical Commentary (I. p. 5) said: "Moses is at the heart of the
Pentateuch, and can, in accord with the common acceptance of the
ancient period, correctly be called its author." The ancient usage
in mind is this: rights of authorship were not well respected.
Some later person might change or add, and leave it under the name
of the original author.

The NJBC has pulled back from this position. It is believed by
many that the Pentateuch was put together out of four basic
documents: Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly Code, and Deuteronomist -
hence the name JEPD for the Documentary Theory. But that
Documentary theory is not proved. Joseph Blenkinsopp of Notre Dame
in his review of R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch
(Journal For Study of Old Testament Supplement 5. Sheffield, 1987)
wrote (CBQ Jan. 1989, pp. 138-39): "It is widely known by now that
the documentary hypothesis is in serious trouble, with no viable
alternative yet in sight." He continues saying that Whybray has
easily shown the fragility of many of the arguments given for the
theory, sometimes requiring an unreasonable level of consistency
within the sources, at other times not. Further, Newsweek of Sept.
28, 1981, p. 59 reported that Yehuda Radday, coordinator of the
Technion Institute in Israel, fed the Hebrew text of Genesis into
a computer, and concluded: "It is most probable that the book of
Genesis was written by one person."

So we cannot be sure Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch in
the ancient sense.

b)Historical nature of the first chapters of Genesis: We already
cited Pius XII saying that in some way the first eleven chapters
pertain to history, even though not a history of the type written
by the great Greek and Roman writers, or by modern writers. We
take this to mean that the literary genre is such that by the
vehicle of a story, things that really happened substantially are
conveyed. We add now that the theory of evolution is far from
proved even today. The Research News section of Science, November
21, 1980 gives a long report on a conference held at the Field
Museum in Chicago, of geologists, paleontologists, ecologists,
population geneticists, embryologists, and molecular biologists.
The majority of the 160 participants decided Darwin was wrong, in
the sense that the fossil record does not show the intermediate
forms Darwin supposed. So they - still not willing to abandon
evolution - thought up a new theory of "punctuated equilibria"
according to which a species might stay the same for millions of
years, and then by some fluke, a much higher form, in the same
type, would appear. If they had evidence that this actually
happened, the research report did not mention it. The closest one
could find to that would be the Grand Canyon, in which there are
high vertical layers exposed, with simple organisms such as
Trilobites down below, more and more complex things as one goes
higher. But there was no proof that any of the higher ones simply
came from the lower. It would take great faith - without basis -to
suppose that. If one uses the mathematics of factorials to
calculate the chances of such a fluke, the odds against it are
enormous.

c)One Isaiah: It is now common to say that the Book of Isaiah had
two or even three authors. The reasons given are these: first
Isaiah threatens disaster, second Isaiah is addressed to exiles in
Babylon; Jerusalem has been deserted. Second Isaiah mentions the
dynasty of David, but transfers its privileges to the whole people
(55:3-5). In Third Isaiah, Israel is back again in her own land
and the problems spoken of in chapters 1-39 are no longer present.
Similarly, the tone varies in the three parts - from threats - to
sorrow - to consolation.

It is quite possible that there were three authors, for this is a
problem of history, not of faith. However, the arguments given are
inadequate. One Isaiah could have been given a prophetic vision to
see the exile and the return. Really, the Deuteronomic pattern
(threat, punishment, rescue) alone would suggest that, for it too
moved from threat to punishment, to restoration. One wonders: was
this theory of several authors originally motivated by the
conviction that there can be no real prophecies?

d)Matthew's Priority: For long most scholars have held that Mark
wrote first. That consensus is now weakening, several major works
have called it into doubt. For example: W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic
Problem (Dillsboro, 1976); Bernard Orchard: Matthew, Luke and
Mark, (Manchester, 1977); E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the
Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge, 1969); John M. Rist, On the
Independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge, 1978); Hans- Herbert
Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis (Edinburgh,
1980). The ancient witnesses put Matthew first. However, they were
thinking of the Hebrew Matthew. We do not know the relation of our
Greek Matthew to the Hebrew. In any case, it is a respectable
opinion today, gaining in support, to deny that Mark wrote first.

The reasons for putting Mark first are not solid. They say that
the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem, is not as clear, chiefly in
13:14, as it might have been. So Mark wrote before 70. But then
they think that Matthew and Luke used Mark - since there is so
much material similar in all three at many points: but this does
not prove which of the three wrote first. Further, they say,
Matthew and Luke are rather clear about the fall of Jerusalem, and
so must have written after it happened. Luke even speaks of an
army surrounding Jerusalem.

The reasoning is very weak. In ancient sieges, an army always
surrounded a city. As to Matthew, he is clearly so fond of
reporting fulfillments of prophecies, he could hardly have
refrained from mentioning the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus
about that fall if he had written after it happened.

There is also the claim that Matthew seems not to know the debate
which St. Paul had with the Judaizers, in which he insisted we are
free from the law, while Jesus said (Mt. 5:17) that He came not to
destroy but to fulfill. But there is a good explanation. First,
Matthew had a different purpose from Paul's. Secondly, if we get
the setting, we will see how it all happened. Some Judaizers said
that Christ is not enough - one must also keep the law. Paul
naturally replied that Christ is sufficient, we need not keep the
law. But he also made clear to all but Luther that if one violates
the law he is lost: 1 Cor 6. 9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Rom 3:31; Eph 5:5.
Luther did not know what Paul meant by the word faith, and thought
it meant just the conviction that the merits of Christ count for
him ("taking Christ as personal Savior"). After that, as Luther
wrote to Melanchthon in Epistle 501: "Even if you sin greatly
believe more greatly." The volume, Justification by Faith.
Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, eds. H. G. Anderson, T.
A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1985) ## 24 & 29
admits that poor Luther was scrupulous, he thought he was in
mortal sin all or most of the time. He found peace only by
thinking it made no difference if he did sin mortally. He could be
all right if he just had faith that Christ had paid for his sins.
But St. Paul meant something quite different by faith, as even the
Protestant Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement, p.
333 admits. If God speaks a truth, faith will believe mentally; if
God makes a promise, faith will have confidence; if God gives an
order, faith will obey (cf. "obedience of faith: Rom 1:5). All of
this is to be done in love. Now, how could faith dispense one from
obedience, as Luther thought, when obedience is an essential
element of faith!

Briefly, Jesus said we must become like little children to enter
heaven. Paul said if we break the law we will not inherit. We
inherit as children of our Father and coheirs with Christ (Rom
8:17). So Jesus and Paul taught the same. For one who believes in
the fact that the same Holy Spirit is the chief author of all
books of Scripture, no difficulty at all could arise.

e)Luke and Acts written in the 60s: Objectors also claim Luke must
have written late, and did not know Paul because St. Paul, who was
supposed to be present at the Council of Apostles in Jerusalem,
according to Acts 15, seemed not to know of its decree, found in
Acts 15:28-29 which said people were free from the Mosaic law, but
yet asked them to do a few things, including abstention from food
sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul in 1 Cor. chapter 8 said they could
eat such meat, unless there would be scandal. But the answer is
simple: If the Vatican today sends an order to the Bishops of some
one area, it holds only in that area, not outside it. So Paul did
preach the decree within the area to which it was sent, Syria and
Cilicia (cf. Acts 16:4. For more details on the agreement of Acts
and Paul's Epistles, cf. Wm. G. Most, Free From All Error,
Libertyville, Il, 1990, chapter 18).

f)Paul as author of the Epistle to the Hebrews: There were
considerable doubts about Pauline authorship even in the first
centuries. It as about the 4th century before the West accepted
it, though the East did so earlier. The June 24, 1914 reply of the
Biblical Commission asked (EB 418) whether it was necessary to say
that Paul gave it its present form. The answer was, "No. subject
to further judgment of the Church." The first two parts of the
same reply spoke more strongly in favor of Paul's authorship, so
that the third only said we are not sure Paul gave it its present
form.

The chief difficulty against Pauline authorship is the style. But
anyone who has ever read Tacitus' historical works in the original
Latin, and has also compared them with his Dialogue on Orators
will never be moved much by stylistic differences. The style of
Tacitus in his historical works is highly distinctive, even
pungent. It is day and night different from that of the Dialogue.
Yet other arguments have convinced practically all scholars that
it really is by Tacitus.

It is easy enough to conclude that while the Encyclical of Pius
XII was a real impetus it was not a revolution, and surely did not
reverse any previous doctrinal positions. We add that it
encouraged translations from the original languages. There had
been a misunderstanding from the fact that the Council of Trent
had declared the Vulgate "authentic". It meant merely that it was
a proper base for religious discussion. It did not mean to forbid
translations from the original.

Chapter 4: Using the Genre Approach to defend Inerrancy

We already saw, in answering Cardinal Koenig's charges, an example
of this use of the genre approach. It is highly likely that the
narrative parts of Daniel were meant as the edifying narrative
pattern. There is apt to be a core of history, but along with it
go some rather free additions. Again, the key word is assert or
claim. The writer does not assert or claim he is writing pure
history. Part of it will fit with history, but he does not assert
that the fill-ins are historical.

In using the literary genre technique we are not being unfaithful
to Scripture. Rather, we are being completely faithful, and using
a great means to defend Scripture against attacks. For it is clear
that we should try to find out what the inspired writer really
meant to say. To find that, we must ask: What did he mean to
assert? To ignore that is to impose our own ideas on Scripture.
That is being very unfaithful.

So the poor misguided Fundamentalists think they are respecting
the sacred text, but actually they are not. They are imposing
their own ideas on Scripture.

Genesis 1-11: When we looked at the first eleven chapters of
Genesis we said the genre was that of an ancient story, which
still conveys things that really happened. Pope John Paul II, in
his series of audiences on Genesis, on November 7, 1979 called
this narrative "myth". He explained: "The term myth does not
designate fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of
expressing deeper content." So we need not say God created in 6
times 24 hours. Still less need we say creation was 4000 years
before Christ. That number was reached by adding up ages of
patriarchs and others. Centuries ago, St. Augustine knew better.
In his City of God 15.7 he noticed that Cain was said to have
built a city, and named it for his son Enoch, at the time when
Genesis listed only about three men alive. He replied that the
purpose of the sacred writer was not to mention all humans, but
only enough to show the line of descent of the two cities.

Exodus: The books that describe the departure from Egypt and the
wandering in the desert very probably use something like an epic
genre. That genre tells of the great beginnings of a people. The
story is basically history, yet has some fill-ins which are a bit
fictional, which the writer does not assert really happened. But
in spite of this, it is clear that there was an exodus, and not
just a revolt of peasants in Canaan who never left there. The
story of a great people beginning in slavery is not likely to be
invented.

But there are new discoveries. It is now certain that Sinai was in
Midian--when Moses had to flee Egypt he went to Midian, married
the daughter of a priest of Midian, and while watching sheep there
saw the burning bush. Wyatt Archeological Research, Presentation
of Discoveries went to the real Sinai, photographed the top of
Sinai where the top rocks are still blackened from the fire at the
time of the Ten Commandments. They also found and photographed the
twelve pillars erected by Moses at the site. There are more
remarkable things in this video (More controversial: at the start
of the video we see the discovery by using radar that penetrates
soil, of a large boat, right dimensions for the ark. The problem
is that a high Pentagon officer told me he had been permitted to
see the photos made by a U.S. satellite from space, on which the
ark is in the open, partly covered with snow, farther up on Mt.
Ararat).

Also Larry Williams, in <The Sinai Myth> (Wynwood Press, NYC,
1990) visited the site of Mt. Sinai in Midian and photographed the
blackened top of Sinai and saw the twelve pillars of Moses. He
also engaged the services of George Stevens of Horizon Research
who was able to study the photos taken by the French satellite
with infrared. He was able to see the precise spot where Israel
crossed the Gulf of Aqabah, and to trace other parts of their
movements in the area. (Further comments below in chapter 10).

Joshua vs Judges: These two books seem to contrast. Joshua tells
of a great triumphant sweep of conquest; Judges gives a lower key
picture of much struggle. The answer lies in the genres: Joshua is
part of the epic style; Judges is a more sober narrative on the
whole.

Jonah: Another fascinating example is in the book of Jonah. God
ordered Jonah to preach to Nineveh that He intended to destroy it
- of course, if they did not repent. Jonah feared God would
actually not destroy it, and thought that then he would seem to be
a false prophet. So he boarded a ship headed out into the
Mediterranean. Soon a great storm arose. The crew threw overboard
much of the cargo to lighten the ship. But the danger was still
great. Then one of the sailors remembered that Jonah when coming
on board had said he was running away from his God. So the sailors
came to Jonah and questioned him. Jonah replied that yes, he was
the cause. So they should throw him overboard, and then the storm
would cease. They did so, and the storm stopped. But a large fish
- a whale? - swallowed Jonah, but threw him up on the shore on the
third day. Then Jonah decided he had to preach to Nineveh. They
all did penance at once in sackcloth and ashes. So God did not
destroy the city.

What did the sacred writer intend - to write history, or a sort of
extended parable? There are difficulties against an historical
view. The matter of the fish swallowing Jonah is not too
difficult. In February 1891 the ship Star of the East caught an 80
foot sperm whale. But a seaman, James Bartley was missing. After a
search, he was presumed drowned. Yet the next day when the whale
was being cut up, they found Bartley inside, still quite alive.
(Cf. Wallechinsky & Wallace, People's Almanac, Garden City, NY
(Doubleday, 1975, p. 1339).

Another inconclusive objection comes from the language of the
text. It has some words that are later than the supposed date. But
we know that the Jews sometimes deliberately updated the language
of the ancient texts. So the objection is not strong.

But there are more serious difficulties: Jonah 3:3 says, "Now
Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in
breadth." The remains found there do not show a city that size. A.
Parrott (Nineveh and the Old Testament, New York, Philosophical
Library, 1971, pp. 85-86) suggests perhaps Nineveh could have
referred to a 26 mile string of settlements in the Assyrian
triangle. Or else, since people gathered at the city gates, Jonah
would speak there. And since there were many gates there, and
Jonah would talk much at each, it could have taken three days.

On the other hand, no matter what the genre of the book, it surely
does teach two major lessons. First, the Assyrians then were
considered the world's worst people, because of their deliberate
terrorism in war. Yet God showed concern for them. So He must love
everyone. Second - and this is not complimentary to us - when
prophets went to the original people of God, they had a hard time,
suffered much. But the pagan Nineveh welcomes Jonah readily. The
Jews knew this: In the late 4th century Midrash, Mekilta de Rabbi
Ishmael (tr. Jacob Lauterbach, Jewish Publication Society of
America, Philadelphia, I. p. 7) we read words imagined as said by
Jonah: "Since the Gentiles are more inclined to repent, I might be
causing Israel to be condemned [by going to Nineveh]."

In Jonah 4:11 God says there are more than 120, 000 people who do
not know their right hand from their left. If one takes the
expression to mean babies, it would imply a huge populace. But it
could merely mean they did not know the basics of religion. Jonah
3:6 speaks of the king of Nineveh - not the usual Assyrian
expression. He was called king of Ashur. But Jonah might not have
used the Assyrian way of speaking. However, we do not know of a
king living in Nineveh at the time supposed in the story. Nineveh
became the capital under Sennacherib (704 - 681).

It may be objected that Jesus Himself referred to Jonah, and said
He was greater than Jonah. But to refer to a well-known story does
not amount to asserting the story happened. We could quote Alice
in Wonderland to illustrate things, and not think that tale was
historical. Actually, this literary use occurs elsewhere in the
New Testament, e.g., in 1 Cor 10:4 and Jude 9.

Apocalyptic: Besides the narrative parts of the book of Daniel,
there are parts in the apocalyptic genre. This genre first
appeared in full-blown form about 2 centuries before Christ, had a
run of three or four centuries. In it the author describes visions
and revelations - not usually clear if he means to assert he had
them, or is just using the account as a way of making his points.
There are highly colored, bizarre images, secret messages. The
original readers knew better than to take these things as if they
were sober accounts. (Sadly, some today have taken some of the
apocalyptic images about streams of fire etc. as proof there were
ancient astronauts who overawed the simple people of the Hebrews.
That was foolish, for we must recognize the genre). For a very
strong example of apocalyptic, please read Daniel chapter 7.

Touches of Apocalyptic: Now it happens at times that a writer will
use some touches of apocalyptic in a work that is on the whole of
a different genre. Thus Isaiah 13:10 includes some definitely
apocalyptic language in speaking of the fall of Babylon: "For the
stars of the sky and their constellations will not show their
light, the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not
give its light." In foretelling the judgment on Edom, Isaiah 34:4
said: "All the stars will be dissolved, the sky will roll up like
a scroll and all the host of the skies will fall, like withering
leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from their tree."
Ezekiel 32:7-8 uses much the same language to prophesy the
judgment on Egypt: "When I blot you out, I will cover the skies
and will darken their stars. I will cover the sun in a cloud and
the moon will not give its light." We cannot help thinking of the
language of Matthew 24:4. So we gather that while God surely could
make such signs happen at the face value of the text, yet we
cannot be sure that He intends to do it: the language of Isaiah
and Ezekiel shows such expressions can be merely apocalyptic.

The "rapture": This brings us to the question of "the rapture".
St. Paul in First Thessalonians 4. 13-17 is answering the concern
of the people there: Would it not be too bad if we should die
before the return of Christ - then the others would get to see Him
before we would. Paul replies that it will be as follows: Christ
will descend from the sky with a blast of a trumpet. Then the dead
in Christ will rise, and after that, "we the living" will be taken
to meet Christ in the air. Many fundamentalists say that this
event must be different from the last judgment scene which we find
in Matthew 25:21-46 in which Christ the Judge is seated on the
earth, and has before Him the sheep and the goats. The
fundamentalists say: the scene in First Thessalonians takes place
in the air - the scene of the last judgment takes place on the
earth. So there must be two separate events. So there is a
separate rapture, when Christ will suddenly snatch out all good
people from this world, leaving only the evil. The good will then
reign with Him for 1000 years before the end.

The trouble is that they have neglected the genre, as usual. Both
passages are clearly using some apocalyptic language. For in the
judgment, all persons of all ages of the world must stand before
Christ. The whole globe would not give standing room for that. So
it must mean some sort of spiritual revelation of the just
judgments of God at the final resurrection. In apocalyptic, we do
not make close comparisons, for the whole is loose.

So the bumper sticker is wrong, which said: "In case of rapture,
this car will be unmanned," and will crash into others. But no
problem, only the bad people are left!

Just incidentally, many who are not fundamentalist err in thinking
that the words "we the living", which come twice, show that Paul
must have expected to be alive at the end. So they reject his
authorship of Second Thessalonians, in which he very clearly shows
he does not expect that. They do that contrary to all the ancient
witnesses who say both are by Paul. They reject his authorship for
the sake of an expression which is at most, ambiguous. Really,
many teachers will often say I or we to make something vivid,
without intending to give any information about themselves at all.

Wisdom literature: This genre is one the Hebrews had in common
with other ancient near Eastern peoples. With most peoples it is
basically a group of worldly wise counsels, especially for the
young, on how to get along in this life. Egypt was specially famed
for it, and the Jews may well have gotten ideas in their long stay
there. The Egyptian Wisdom of Amenemopet has many parallels to the
Old Testament. For example, Proverbs 22:17-18 says: "Incline your
ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply you mind to my
knowledge; for it will be pleasant if you keep them within you, if
all of them are ready on your lips." Amenemopet says: "Give thy
ears. Hear what is said, give thy heart to understand them. To put
them in thy heart is worthwhile (from ANET 421). Many texts of
Proverbs and Amenemopet are given in parallel columns in J.
Finegan, Light From the Ancient Past, 2d ed. Princeton Univ.
Press, 1974, pp. 124-25.).

We must keep in mind in reading the wisdom literature that only
some things are meant as religious principles. Clement of
Alexandria, head of the catechetical school at Alexandria in late
2nd century, tried to set up a counter attraction to the snob
appeal of Gnosticism. So in books II and III of his Paidagogos, he
tried for a deeper knowledge of the rules of morality, and gave
very detailed rules for how a Christian should do everything: eat,
drink, sleep, dress, use sex, and so on. He sometimes supports his
injunctions from Scripture. He quotes Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 32:3 &
7, without understanding the genre: In Paidagogos 2. 7. 58: "I
believe that one should limit his speech [at a banquet]. The limit
should be just to reply to questions, even when we can speak. In a
woman, silence is a virtue, an adornment free of danger in the
young. Only for honored old age is speech good: 'Speak, old man,
at a banquet, for it is proper for you... Speak [young man], if
there is need of you, do it scarcely when asked twice."

Variant Traditions: There is another kind of seeming error that we
can solve by the use of genre and determining what is asserted.

In Exodus 14:21-25 we find: "Then Moses stretched out his hand
over the sea; and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong wind all
night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And
the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground,
the waters being a wall to them on their right and on their left."

We notice two different explanations: 1) a wind sent by God dried
up the sea, 2) the water was like a wall on both sides of them.
Clearly these two pictures do not fit. A sea dried up by the wind
would be just shallow water - and after the drying, there would be
no wall of water on left and right.

But we ask: What did the inspired writer really mean to assert?
Let us picture him sitting down to write. He has on hand two
sources - written or oral - and they do not fit. He has no means
of knowing which is the right one. He decides: "I will let the
reader see both." But that means he does not assert both. That
cannot be done. What he does assert it this: I found two accounts,
and do not know which is it. Here they are.

Another similar case concerns how David came to meet and know King
Saul. In Chapter 16 of First Samuel, Saul is upset. He asks his
servants to find a man skilled at playing a harp to soothe him.
They bring David (16:18) "son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is
skilled in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in
speech. "So David enters his service, and becomes armor- bearer to
Saul. Saul sends word to David's father saying he wants David to
stay in his service.

But in chapter 17 the picture is very different. David is feeding
his father's sheep. One day his father sent him to bring food to
his brothers who were in the army of Saul. David hears of the
giant Goliath, and the great reward the king offers to one who
will kill Goliath. So David goes to Saul, boasts of having killed
lions and bears, offers to fight Goliath. Saul gives David armor,
but David is not used to wearing armor, and discards it. So he
gets some stones from the brook and a sling, and kills Goliath.

In chapter 16 (verse 18), David is called a mighty fighter, a
gibbor. But in chapter 17, after David has killed Goliath, Saul
asks his captain Abner who that is. Abner says he does not know
(though in chapter 16 David has previously been in the service of
Saul). Abner takes David to Saul, holding the head of Goliath.
Saul asks who he is.

Clearly, the two accounts do not fit together. But we ask again:
What did the inspired writer mean to assert? He meant to assert
only: I found these two, and do not know which is right. But you
can see both of them. He asserts no more than that.

Poetic Genre: In any culture, poetry is apt to use fanciful images
and exaggerations. Scriptural poetry does the same. But if one
does not recognize that a passage is poetic, mistakes can result.

St. Justin Martyr, in Second Apology 5, shows he believes angels
have bodies. We do not blame lack of knowledge of genre for this:
there was much hesitation in the patristic age on angels. But in
Dialogue with Trypho 57 he says that angels have food in heaven
since, "Scripture says that they [the Hebrews in the desert] ate
angels' food." Justin does not understand Psalm 78:24 which speaks
of bread from heaven, referring to the manna in the desert.

Isaiah 40:2 says Israel has received double for all her sins. Now
of course God would not punish twice as much as what was due: We
need to recognize Isaiah is a lofty poet, and/or take this as
Semitic exaggeration.

Psalm 124. 3 has God saying: "All of them have turned, together
they have gone astray. There is no one doing good, not one". One
might imagine this could apply only to people of the time of
composition, but St. Paul in Romans 3.10 cites it as meaning
everyone. Again, we need to recall this is poetry. Paul had a
different reason for citing it. He was out to prove that if one
tries for justification by keeping the law, all are hopeless. To
understand this, we need to know St. Paul at times uses a sort of
focused view in which as it were he would say: The Law makes heavy
demands, but gives no strength. To be under heavy demands without
strength of course means a fall. In the focused view (a metaphor,
as if one we were looking through a tube, and could see only what
is framed by the circle of the tube) one does not see the whole
horizon. Off to the side, in no relation to the law, divine help
was available even before Christ. If one uses it, then the result
is quite different. (More on focusing later on).

Isaiah 64:5 said: "All the deeds we do for justification are like
filthy rags." Some, not seeing the poetic nature of the passage,
thought all our good deeds are sinful. It is true, there is
imperfection in most good things we do. Yet not everything is a
mortal sin. St. Paul says in Philippians 3:6 that before his
conversion he kept the law perfectly. Luke 1:6 says the parents of
John the Baptist were keeping all the commandments without blame.
2 Timothy 4:6-8 looks forward to a merited crown from the Just
Judge.

Chapter 5: How to Interpret Inspired Scripture

We saw from our sketch of how to find which books are inspired
that it is the Church alone that can tell us. We commented too
that we really would expect that a messenger sent from God, with
such a mission and such powers as He displayed, would arrange to
protect the teachings of those He sent out. He did it, e.g. ,"He
who hears you hears me."

Some today are claiming that in order to find the truth, they must
be free of any outside authority - including the Church. What
impossible folly! They discard the very prime means of gaining the
most absolute certitude of the truth, including the meaning of
Scripture. They also claim "Academic Freedom." Really, it belongs
only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field.
Now among the things needed to be properly qualified is, of
course, that the professor know and use the method that is correct
in his field, as called for by the very nature of the material.
Theology starts with the sources of revelation - Scripture and
Tradition - but when something appears in them that is not obvious
in meaning: How does he decide? If he is Catholic, the final word
comes from the teachings of the divinely protected Church. Vatican
II, in spite of misrepresentations of its teachings, did say in DV
#10: "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God,
whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been
entrusted exclusively [underline added] to the living teaching
office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of
Jesus Christ." We notice the Council appeals to precisely the same
thing as we did in our sketch of apologetics, namely the authority
given by the Divine Messenger, Jesus Christ.

Therefore, any professor who would not use the proper Catholic
method is not a Catholic theologian and as such, has no claim at
all to academic freedom. Imagine a professor of natural science
who wanted to go back to the poor medieval methods of science. He
would be laughed off the campus, not protected by academic
freedom. He would be called a quack, and deserve it.

That same Magisterium has given us excellent guidelines,
especially in DV ## 11-12. We already saw the chief material from
DV #11.

Now for #12, which opens saying: "Since however in Sacred
Scripture, God has spoken through men in human fashion, the
interpreter of Sacred Scripture, to see what He intended to
communicate with us, must investigate attentively what the sacred
writer really intended to convey, and what it pleased God to
manifest by their words." We underlined the word and because of
its special importance. Some have argued that since two things are
mentioned, namely, what the human writer meant to convey, and what
it pleased God to manifest, therefore the text indicates that God
might intend to say more than what the human writer saw. (This is
the theory of the "fuller sense", sensus plenior). The Theological
Commission at Vatican II (cf. Grillmeier, p. 220) reported that if
the text had used the connector que instead of et, the Council
would have settled the question in the affirmative, meaning: Yes,
there is a fuller sense. (The connector -que is much closer than
et. Both mean and).

Even though the Council at that point did not see fit to
explicitly affirm the fuller sense, yet the Council itself, in LG
# 55 actually used it: "These primeval documents [thinking chiefly
of Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14], as they are read in the Church,
and are understood in the light of later and full revelation,
gradually bring before us the figure of the woman, the Mother of
the Redeemer. She, in this light, is already prophetically
foreshadowed in the promise, given to our first parents when they
had fallen into sin, of victory over the serpent (cf. Gen 3, 25).
Similarly, she is the Virgin who will conceive who will conceive
and bear a Son whose name will be called Emmanuel (cf. Is 7, 14)."

It is clear that the Council did not want to say flatly that the
human writer of Genesis and Isaiah saw all that the Church now,
after fuller light, gradually has come to see. Hence, at the
request of some Bishops, the two instances of cf were added, and
hence we underlined them. So it was making use of the idea that
the Holy Spirit could intend more than what the human writer saw -
really, not a surprising thing.

DV #12 continues: "To discover the intention of the sacred
writers, among other things, one must look to the literary genres.
For truth is proposed and expressed different ways in texts that
are in different ways historical, or prophetical, or poetical, or
other types of speaking. So it is necessary that the interpreter
seek out the senses which the sacred writers wanted to express and
did express in determined adjuncts, in accordance with the
conditions of his time and culture, and by means of the literary
genres used at that time. To rightly understand what the sacred
writers meant to assert [underline added] in writing, one must pay
due attention both to the usual native ways of thinking, speaking,
and narrating, which were in use at the time of the sacred writer,
and to those which in his age were commonly used in people's
dealings with one another."

Here the Council strongly insisted that it is not just legitimate,
but necessary, to check the literary genre. This needs to be done
not just for each book of Scripture, but for each part of each
book. For example, we already saw that in the Book of Daniel, we
have both apocalyptic and edifying narrative genres.

We note with pleasure that the Council stressed the matter of what
the writer mean to assert.

The Council indicated what Pius XII brought out still more clearly
(EB 558): Real research is needed into what genres were actually
in use at the time of writing. It would be very wrong to just use
our imaginations, and suppose we know. This is what the Biblical
Commission also insisted on, as we saw before (in EB 161).

It said we must pay attention to everything in the culture and
conditions of the writer. So the interpreter really should know
well the ancient languages, chiefly Greek and Hebrew, and the
history and the culture.

Failure to know Hebrew could lead to horrid consequences, e.g.,
St. Paul who knew Hebrew, in Romans 9:13 quoted Malachi 1:2 in
which God said: "I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau." But poor St.
Augustine thought this meant God really hated Esau! and destined
him to hell without even looking to see how he would live (Ad
Simplicianum 1. 14). But at the bottom is a Hebrew way of
speaking. Hebrew and Aramaic both lack the degrees of comparison,
such as: good, better, best, or, clear, clearer, clearest. Not
having such forms, when they have such ideas, they are forced to
use other devices. One of them is to speak of hate vs. love. In
our language we would say: I love one more than the other. In Luke
14:26 Jesus says we must hate our parents. But that is the same
Semitic pattern. Matthew 10:37 softened it, using the western way
of speaking, and said: "He who loves father or mother more than
me, is not worthy of me." We recall that we saw earlier some
striking texts from Isaiah 13:9-0 and 34:4 as well as Ezekiel
32:7-8 in which the apocalyptic way of speaking could be very
misleading if one did not recognize the genre.

Another feature of the Hebrew way is this: they regularly
attribute to the direct action of God things He only permits. Thus
in 1 Samuel 4:3 (literal version of the Hebrew) after a defeat by
the Philistines, the Hebrews said: "Why did the Lord strike us
today before the face of the Philistines?" They knew of course it
was the swords of the Philistines that did it. Again, in the
account of the ten plagues in Egypt, at times we read that Pharaoh
hardened his own heart. But we also read, and often, that God
hardened his heart.

A study of the Targums and Rabbinic writings can contribute much.
The Targums are ancient Aramaic versions of the Old Testament. We
have them for nearly all the Old Testament, and in the Pentateuch,
have more than one. They are mostly free versions with fill-ins,
which show how they understood the text of Scripture.
Unfortunately, many scholars today ignore the Targums - the NJBC
has a rather good essay on them in the back part of the volume,
but fails to use them at all in explaining the Messianic
prophecies one by one.

The plea is that we do not know the date of composition. But we do
know that they were made without hindsight - without seeing them
fulfilled in Christ. For they hated Christ when He came. Hence
they surely reflect ancient Jewish understanding of the Messianic
prophecies. Further, Jacob Neusner of Brown University, one of the
greatest of Jewish scholars today, in his Messiah in Context
(Fortress, Philadelphia, 1984) made an exhaustive study of all
Jewish literature after the fall of Jerusalem up to and including
the Babylonian Talmud (completed 500 to 600 A. D. ). He found that
before the Talmud there was no interest in the Messiah. Within the
Talmud, interest revives, but they take up only one of the classic
prophecies: He will come of the line of David. Now the Targums see
messianic prophecies in so many places. (For a fine study, cf.
Samson Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. Hebrew Union
College, Cincinnati, 1974), it is inconceivable that the parts on
the Messianic prophecies could have been written in the centuries
in which there was no interest in the Messiah. So the Targums must
have been composed (at least orally) before the fall of Jerusalem.
Some scholars think they go back to the time of Ezra.

Another example of the need of Hebrew is the way the translations
deal with Hebrew hesed. It means the bond between those who have
made a covenant, such that each has rights and duties, and should
act as kinsmen toward each other. (We can see an implication for
the sprinkling of the blood in Exodus 24:8. It meant the people
were becoming kinsmen of God). Unfortunately, Greek had no word
for hesed. So they usually translated by eleos, which means mercy.
There is partial truth in that translation. For if we ask why God
gives good things under the covenant, the answer comes on two
levels. On the most basic level, He made a covenant and gives
things under it out of unmerited, unmeritable generosity. No
creature by its own power can establish a claim on Him. All is
basically mercy. Yet on the secondary level, given the fact that
He did make a covenant, if the people do what He prescribed, He
owes it to Himself to give favor (or punishment for disobedience).
Incidentally, this twofold sense explains the difficult text of
Romans 2;6 where Paul says God will repay each one according to
his works. That is part of a quote from Psalm 62:12 which says, in
the full text: "You, O God, have hesed, for you will repay each
one according to his works." Many English versions unfortunately
render it to say: "You O Lord have mercy, for you will repay...."
Mercy and repayment do not go together.

In a similar way, the beautiful little Psalm 117 (which used to be
used at the end of Benediction) is hardly understood in the usual
translations. It should be: "For His hesed [observance of His
covenant] towards us is great, and the fidelity of the Lord [to
His covenant] is forever."

Hebrew berith means only covenant, but the Greek version was
diatheke, which had two meanings: covenant, or testament. A study
of the ancient Hittite treaties reveals that they required the
subordinate king to "love" his overlord. In context, it means
obey. We see from John 14:15 & 21 that in practice, love towards
God means obedience. For love towards all others besides God means
willing good to them for their sake. We cannot wish that God have
any good, He is infinite goodness. But yet Scripture pictures Him
as pleased when we obey, displeased when we do not. It is not that
He gains anything from our obedience. No, but for two reasons He
wants us to obey: 1)He loves everything that is right and good. It
is right that creatures should obey their Creator, children their
Father. 2)He wants to give us good things - it is in vain if we
are not open to receive. His commandments tell us how to be open.
They also steer us away from the penalties for sin that lie in the
very nature of things (cf. St. Augustine, Confessions 1. 2: "Every
disordered soul is its own punishment"). Cf. also 2 John 6: "this
is love, that we walk according to His commandments."

A study of Jewish literature of all periods - Old Testament,
Intertestamental Literature, New Testament, and Rabbinic texts
helps us understand the thought world of Scripture. St. Paul of
course was trained as a Rabbi. Now an important concept in those
writings is that sin is a debt, which the Holiness of God wants
repaid. (Cf. Wm. G. Most, Our Father's Plan, chapter 4). Simeon
ben Eleazar (Tosefta, Kiddushin 1. 14), writing about 170 AD.,
claiming to quote Rabbi Meir from early in the same century, said:
"He [anyone] has committed a transgression. Woe to him. He has
tipped the scale to the side of debt for himself and for the
world." Pope Paul VI in the doctrinal introduction to his
Indulgentiarum doctrina (Jan 9, 1967) affirmed the same truth. We
need to think of this when we read that Christ has "bought" us,
and of the "price" of redemption (cf. 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23).

Often too, when we read a Greek word in St. Paul, we need to ask
what is the Hebrew word in his mind. For example, know often
reflects Hebrew yada, which is much broader than the English know,
and takes in both mind and will. Justice reflects Hebrew sedaqah,
which is the virtue inclining one to do all that morality
requires.

Still another feature of that culture was approximation and
hyperbole, as Pius XII (Divino afflante spiritu, EB 559) points
out. St. Paul in Galatians chapters 1-2 tells of his conversion
and subsequent activities. He speaks of three years, and fourteen
years, without making clear the point at which the periods begin
to run. In 1 Cor 10:8, St. Paul says that 23, 000 fell in the
incident described in Numbers 15:1-9. Numbers says 24, 000 fell.
Approximation would not mind that difference.

The heart of the section is the following: "But since Sacred
Scripture is to be read and interpreted by the same Spirit by
which it was written, to rightly determine the sense of the sacred
texts, one must look not less diligently to the content and unity
of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the living
Tradition of the whole Church, and the analogy of faith."

The expression in the first part which says Scripture must be
interpreted "by (or :"in") the same Spirit by which it is to be
written is open to more than one interpretation. It is certain
that the Holy Spirit in giving faith, gives the context in which
Scripture is to be read. We think too of the words of St. Paul in
1 Cor 2. 10-16 where he explains that just as only the spirit or
soul of a person knows his depths, so only the Spirit knows the
depths of God. And he adds: the merely natural man - the one who
has not received the Spirit dwelling in him by grace - does not
understand the things of the Spirit. But the spiritual man does.
So one who does not have the Spirit dwelling in his soul by faith
will fail to understand many things even though the words are
there, and their sense, objectively, is at hand to be seen. It is
true, further, that the farther one advances in the spiritual life
and follows the lead of the Holy Spirit more fully, the greater is
his understanding of spiritual things, by what we might even call
a sort of connaturality.

In fact, sometimes even intelligent people fail to understand
things which they could even recite. There may be a positive
obstacle, a subconscious block within them, in that they perceive
at last subconsciously that if they accept the faith, it will
entail consequences for their living which they would not want to
accept, e.g., in avoiding contraception and divorce. Then they
will not accept, without knowing fully consciously why they are
not accepting.

It is also certain that the words of Scripture seem to have a
special kind of power, which ordinary explanations alone do not
have.

Next the text of DV # 12 tells us we must take into account the
unity of all of Scripture. Since it all has the same chief Author,
the Holy Spirit, there can be no contradictions. Some today, in
noticing that one Evangelist, for example, may have a different
scope and slant than another, have gone so far as to say that one
contradicts another. For example, they will say that Mark 3. 21-35
paints Our Lady as not believing in Jesus, while the annunciation
scene in Luke shows her as wonderfully believing. So such a
contradiction is to be ruled out. Again, some love to say that Job
14. 13-22 raises the possibility of a survival after death, but
then denies it. This of course contradicts so many things in
Scripture, and so cannot be true (we will see details on these two
passages later on).

Still further, we must consider the living Tradition of the whole
Church. Again, the Church praises Our Lady for her faith, and
would shrink in horror from a statement from a prominent scholar
that at the annunciation she boldly opposed her human will to the
will of God. So the statement that she did such a thing is
terribly false. The Church follows, always has followed the words
of Elizabeth at the visitation (Lk 1:45): "Blessed are you who
have believed!"

In regard to following the "analogy of faith," the sense is
similar. Pius XII in Divino afflante Spiritu had said (EB 565)
that there are few texts whose meaning the Church has declared,
and similarly, few for which we have unanimous teaching of the
Fathers. This is obviously true. But the same Pope also explained
(EB 551) that we must follow the analogy of faith. That is, any
interpretation that we might consider accepting must be checked
with the whole body of the truths of faith, with the teachings of
the Church. If it would clash even by implication, it is to be
dropped. So even though there are few explicit teachings on the
sense of individual texts, yet indirectly, by means of this
analogy of faith, we know exceedingly many things about the
meanings of parts of Scripture. For example, the teachings of the
Council of Trent against Luther's errors settle the sense of many
things in St. Paul.

Some today have gone so far as to say, contrary to Pius XII that
there are no texts whose meaning the Church has defined. They
claim that where it seems we do have a definition, the text of
Scripture is cited only to illustrate. But this is not realistic,
if we examine individual texts of the Magisterium. For example,
the Council of Trent gave us the following definition in Canon 2
on the Mass (DS 1752): "If anyone shall say that by those words,
'Do this in commemoration of me' Christ did not establish the
Apostles as priests, or did not ordain them so that they and other
priests might offer His flesh and blood, let him be anathema." It
takes some strange mental contortions to say that the Council
cited "Do this in commemoration of me" only to "illustrate." Not
at all, it says that when Jesus said those words, He really did
ordain the Apostles.

We have been speaking of definitions by the Church of the sense of
parts of Scripture. We must not forget that there are other levels
of teaching in addition to the solemn definition. There is a
second level, of which Vatican II taught (LG # 25): "Although the
individual bishops do not have the gift of infallibility, they can
still teach Christ's doctrine infallibly, even when they are
scattered around the world, provided that, while maintaining the
bond of unity among themselves and with the successor of Peter,
they agree on a teaching as the one which must be held
definitively." If they can do this even when scattered, of course
they can also do the same when gathered in a Council with the
Pope, even if they do not put things in the form of a definition.
The key word is definitively. Whatever mode of teaching may be
used, if the Magisterium makes clear it is presenting something as
definitive, that is infallible.

There is also a third level of teaching, of which Pius XII wrote
in Humani generis in 1950 (DS 3885): "Nor must it be thought that
the things contained in encyclical letters do not of themselves
require assent of the mind on the plea that in them the pontiffs
do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. These
things are taught with the ordinary magisterium, about which it is
also true to say, 'He who hears you, hears me. '(Lk 10:16)". This
really means that the Pope alone, in as much as he speaks for the
whole Church, can do alone what a Council can do, as described in
the second level. He can bring something under the promise "He who
hears you, hears me." Of course that promise of Christ cannot
fail. So the teaching is infallible.

This does not mean that everything in an encyclical is infallible.
No, Pius XII went on to specify the conditions in which this will
come true: "If the supreme pontiffs in their acta expressly pass
judgment on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that
the matter, according to the mind and will of the same pontiffs,
cannot any longer be considered a matter open for discussion among
theologians." For the Pope has shown he is making a definitive
decision on something currently being debated. A special case of
this came in the Encyclical on the Mystical Body by Pius XII. The
modern discussion and tendency to claim ignorance in the human
mind of Jesus began with P. Galtier in his book, L'unite de Christ
in 1939. Precisely in that context, Pius XII taught, in that
Encyclical of 1943, that the human soul of Jesus, from the first
instant of conception, had the vision of God, in which all
knowledge is available. As we recall his words in Humani generis,
cited above, it is clear he intended to close the debate. But it
did not close, so he complained about that in Sempiternus Rex of
Sept 8, 1951 (DS 3905). Again, in Haurietis aquas of May 15, 1956
(DS 3924) he explicitly restated the teaching about that vision.
Still further, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on
July 14, 1966, with the approval of Paul VI, again complained of
theologians in error in this point. Even the first text of 1943,
as we said, showed the intention to settle the debate. And the
repeated teachings by two Popes shows the repetition which by
itself makes a teaching infallible.

We said that in that vision all knowledge is "available." The
reason is this: the human soul of Jesus, being created, cannot as
it were contain infinite knowledge. But it did know, as St. Thomas
Aquinas said (III. 10. 2. c): "All things that in any way are, or
will, or were done or said or thought by anyone, at any time. And
so it is to be said that the soul of Christ knew all things in the
Word."

There is also a fourth level of teachings of the Magisterium that
are not definitive, but still provide moral certitude. Canon 752
of the New Code makes this aspect clear: "Not indeed an assent of
faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be
given to the teaching which either the supreme pontiff, or the
college of bishops [with him] pronounces on faith and morals when
they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not
intend to proclaim it by a definitive act." Vatican II in LG # 25
had said the same thing: "Religious submission of mind and of will
must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the
Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely,
that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according
to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the
nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the
same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking." [emphasis added].
We must, in other words, look to see if a thing is presented as
definitive or not.

How can we believe something which is not infallible? In daily
life we do it. Routine opening of a can will not detect Botulism,
a deadly food poisoning. Yet we do not send each can to a lab to
be checked. We know there is a remote chance, but take it. Life
would be unworkable without doing so. The chances of an error on
this level by the Church is even more remote. Only the Galileo
case, in 2000 years, comes close. Even there, the Pope himself,
Urban VIII, stated in 1624 as to the theory that the earth went
around the sun, that "the Holy Church had never, and would never,
condemn it as heretical, but only as rash."

Some scholars today dare to assert that the Church has very little
ability to tell us what a text of Scripture meant originally - it
can usually just tell us what it means to people today. To know
the original sense, we must depend on scholars! This is a clear
contradiction of DV #10, cited above, which says that the task of
interpreting belongs exclusively to the Magisterium.
$
Chapter 6: The l964 Instruction of the Biblical Commission

On April 21, 1964, The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued an
Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. Left-wing
scholars often quote only the parts they like, and omit other
important things. We will try to give a broad coverage of the
document.

The most important feature of the document is what it has to say
about Form and Redaction Criticism.

Before looking at the comments in the Instruction, we notice
something that is quite obviously true, which the Form and
Redaction critics consider basic: in the production of the Gospels
there were three stages:

1) The actions and words of Christ. We notice He would adapt His
wording to the current audience. Any good speaker does that.

2) The way the Apostles and others of the first generation
reported and preached what He did and said. Again, we would expect
them to adapt the wording to the current audience. Therefore it is
not necessary to suppose they used always the same words Jesus had
used. But they would keep the same sense.

3) Some individuals within the Church, moved by inspiration, wrote
down some part of what Jesus did and said. This became the
Gospels.

Before going ahead, we inject the comment: In this way we see that
the Church has something more basic than the Gospels, its own
ongoing teaching. For the Gospels are just part of that teaching,
written down under inspiration.

The critics would like to find at which of the three stages the
text we now have took its present form. In this way they hope to
find out some helpful things.

The study of the first two stages is called Form Criticism. The
study of the third stage is called Redaction Criticism.

Thus far there can be no quarrel with this type of study. But
problems begin to arise when we attempt to take the next steps.

The work begins with two things. First we try to classify each
unit in the Gospels according to the literary form. This is much
like literary genre, but attempts a more detailed classification.
We might even speak of minigenres. The critics think each passage
in the Gospels is made up of several of these units.

In the early days of Form Criticism, the critics commonly said the
Evangelists were not authors at all. They were just "stringers of
beads." Various people who had heard Jesus were reporting each
just one thing He did or said. The Evangelists merely put these
together in a string. Today the pendulum has swung far: now the
critics see very remarkable artistry in the work of the
Evangelists. (We recall that inspiration does not affect the
literary style of an author one way or another).

The second thing the critics watch in order to separate out the
various units is what they call Sitz-im-Leben. It merely means the
life situation in which each form or unit arose, which called for
the type of form. At this point already the critics begin to show
their great subjectivity.

The two great pioneers who first applied this technique to the
Gospels are R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius. (Still earlier, Hermann
Gunkel [1862-1932] used the technique in the Old Testament).

First, Bultmann and Dibelius disagree on how to classify the
minigenres. For Bultmann the two chief major forms are the Sayings
and the Narratives. Sayings include apothegms and dominical
sayings. The apothegms are brief sayings of some importance. They
include controversy dialogues, scholastic dialogues (where the
inquirers are sincere) and biographical sayings. Dibelius uses the
name paradigms instead of apothegms. Dibelius thinks only eight
out of eighteen paradigms are pure in form.

As to the so called controversy dialogues, Bultmann thinks they
arose in the apologetic and polemic work of the Palestinian
Church. He objects to calling these passages paradigms (examples
of preaching) which is precisely what Dibelius does call them. For
example, Bultmann says that the incident in Mark 2:1-12, the
forgiveness and cure of the paralytic let down through the roof,
is a controversy saying. But Dibelius says that such passages
can't be described as disputes. Bultmann says the purpose was to
enable the Church to trace its power to forgive sins back to
Jesus. But Dibelius says the only point is the reality of the
forgiveness.

It is remarkable to hear Bultmann admit explicitly:

"Naturally enough, our judgement will not be made in terms of
objective criteria, but will depend on taste and discrimination"
(R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, tr. J. Marsh,
N. Y., Harper & Row, 1963, p. 47).

The critics commonly assert that the primitive community was
"creative." That is, it made things up. So Bultmann thought the
controversy dialogues were creations of the Church. We could
visualize it thus: two groups in the Church are disputing. Group A
has no saying of Jesus to prove its point, so it makes one up.
Group B does the same.

But on the contrary, the concern these Christians had for their
own eternity would prevent such fakery. St. Ignatius of Antioch
was sent to Rome to be eaten by the wild beasts, around 107 A. D.
He was eaten. He wrote a heroic letter to Rome, which we still
have, in which he says he wants to die for Christ. If one of the
Christians there might have influence, and could get him off,
Ignatius still wants to die! Now if anyone is tempted to think the
community was creative, let him take a copy of Ignatius' letter to
Rome to the zoo, and read it in front of the lions' den and ask
himself if a man about to be eaten would be creative and indulge
in fakery.

Not strangely, in view of the alleged creativity, the critics find
it hard to be sure of anything. They propose four criteria to see
if a thing is genuine: 1)Double dissimilarity or irreductibility:
This means that if an idea is unlike the emphases of both ancient
Judaism and early Christianity, it may come from Jesus; 2)Multiple
attestation: if we find the same idea coming in different literary
forms, it is more likely to be genuine; 3) Coherence: If the item
fits with material we already know is authentic by other criteria,
it is likely to be genuine. 4) Linguistic and environmental
tests:. If the material does not fit with the languages spoken or
the environment of Jesus we reject it. But if it does fit, it is
not enough to prove it is authentic.

It is obvious that such criteria, especially the first, would rule
out many things that are genuine. We saw earlier that we can make
a bypass around these worries of critics by means of apologetics,
using only six very simple things from the Gospels.

The leftists love to quote the fact that this 1964 Instruction
does say Catholic scholars may use these techniques. This is
correct, for the method can be used well and be helpful. But many
like to forget the warnings in the Instruction: "Certain followers
of this method, led astray by the prejudices of rationalism, [1]
reject the existence of a supernatural order and the intervention
of a personal God in the world as taught by revelation properly so
called and, [2] they reject the possibility and actual existence
of miracles and prophecies. [3] Others start with a false notion
of faith, as if faith does not care about historical truth or is
even incompatible with it. [4] Still others deny, as it were in
advance, the historical value and character of the documents of
revelation. [5] Others, finally, think little of the authority of
the Apostles as witnesses of Christ, and of their role and
influence on the primitive community, while they extol the
creative power of this community. All these things are not only
opposed to Catholic doctrine, but also lack a scientific
foundation, and are foreign to the right principles of the
historical method." [We added numbers for convenience in
reference].

Of course persons like Bultmann have these prejudices. In regard
to ##1 &2, Bultmann wrote that today "nobody reckons with direct
intervention by transcendent powers" (Jesus Christ and Mythology,
Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y., 1958, p. 36). On p. 15 of the same
book he says that the whole conception of the world supposed in
the New Testament is mythological. In his Kerygma and Myth (ed. H.
W. Bartsch, tr. Reginald H. Fuller, N. Y. Harper & Row,
Torchbooks, 1961, 2nd ed. I. p. 5) he says that anyone who has
seen electric light and the wireless cannot believe in spirits and
miracles.

Some Catholics have taken similar attitudes today. Thus R. E.
Brown once wrote (in: "The Myth of the Gospels without Myth" in
St. Anthony's Messenger, May 1971, pp. 45-46) that to accept all
the miracles in the Gospel would be fundamentalism, and adds that
no respectable scholar, Catholic or Protestant would do that
today. It is good to be able to say that now the NJBC (pp. 1320-
21), which espouses some unfortunate views on errors in Scripture,
still admits that extraordinary deeds like exorcisms and cures by
Jesus were never denied in ancient times, not even by the enemies
of Jesus - they would instead attribute them to magic or the
devil.

The third criticism of the Instruction says that some start with a
false notion of faith, as if faith would not care about historical
truth. Patrick Henry, in a broad survey of conditions at the time
of writing (New Directions in New Testament Study, Westminster,
1979, pp. 252-53) reports various views: "Much more important is
the Bible's own portrayal of the 'piety of doubt', the
'faithfulness of uncertainty." And a writer in Catholic Biblical
Quarterly (July 1982, pp. 447-69) after saying Scripture is full
of errors, says that to want to answer charges of error shows a
lack of faith, and is "a kind of idolatry that gives a certitude
that trespasses upon the true Christian faith-relationship with
God." Shades of Bultmann, who in the article cited from Kerygma
and Myth said, on pp. 211 and 19 that it is illegitimate and
sinful to want to have a basis for faith!

In regard to # 4, the denial of the historical character, we must
of course, take into account the genre of any part of Scripture we
are considering. But some insist that the Gospels are just
preaching. In a way this is true they are preaching. We recall
that the third stage mentioned above consists of writing down some
part of the original preaching under inspiration. But we must
still remember that concern for their eternity would mean that the
preaching of the Apostles and others was the truth. Some writers
today make statements that could be confusing. Thus Joseph
Fitzmyer, in Christological Catechism (Paulist, 1981, p. 118, note
34) writes that it is not easy to define what a gospel is or to
say in what "gospel truth" may consist. "In any case" he says ",
it is not simply identical with 'historical truth' in some
fundamentalistic sense."

In contrast, DV #19 tells us: "Holy Mother the Church firmly and
most constantly has held and does hold that the four Gospels
mentioned, whose historicity it unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully
hand on what Jesus the Son of God, living among men, really did
and taught for their eternal salvation." Bede Rigeaux, in his
commentary on this passage in the Commentary on the Documents of
Vatican II (edited by H. Vorgrimler III, p. 259) explained that in
this passage we see the clear intention of the Church to accept
the value of the synoptic Gospels "as testimony to the reality of
the events that they narrate and to the certainty with which they
present us with the Person, the words, and the acts of Jesus."

The Instruction does grant what we said before, that the Gospels
do not always use the same words, but adapt them to their
audience: "The fact that the Evangelists report the words or deeds
of the Lord in different order does not affect at all the truth of
the narrative, for they keep the sense, while reporting His
statements, not to the letter, but in different ways."

There has been confusion about a further statement in DV # 19:
"The Apostles after the ascension of the Lord, handed on to their
hearers the things which He Himself had said and done, with the
fuller understanding which they enjoyed since they were instructed
by the glorious events of Christ and the light of the Spirit of
truth." Cf. Jn 2:19-21; 3:22; 6:6; 12:16; 20:9.

Of course, this does not mean they invented things or falsified
things. For example, the Gospels still portray the Apostles as
slow to understand and weak in character. They had not understood
His prophecies of His death and resurrection, since their minds
were filled with the false notion that He would restore the
kingship to Israel - just before the ascension one of them asked
if that was the time for it (Acts 1:6). And after the
multiplication of the loaves, they had not understood that either,
as Mark 6:52 reports.

Again, they did not understand His predictions of His death and
resurrection at the time they were given. Later, in the light of
the glorious events, they did understand, and preached correctly
and wrote appropriately in the Gospels, without, however,
presenting themselves as having understood at the time.

So the Instruction did well to warn against considerable dangers,
which Catholic scholars have not always avoided. But yet the
technique is valuable, even though it can be used well or badly.
Let us look at an example or two, both good and bad.

Reginald H. Fuller, one of the chief critics, in Foundations of
New Testament Christology (Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y. 1965, p.
109) made a very influential analysis of Mark 8:29-33. Jesus is up
at Caesarea Philippi. He asks His disciples who people says He is.
They report various views. Now we will number the units Fuller
thought he found: 1) He asks the Apostles who they say He is.
Peter replies: You are the Messiah. 2) Jesus tells them not to
tell anyone about it. 3) He predicts His death and resurrection,
and Peter objects to His death. 4) "Get behind me, satan."

Fuller found no objection to units 1 and 4. But He thought units 2
and 3 were faked by the Church. Jesus had never said He was
Messiah. Later the Church was embarrassed, and so invented scenes
in which the subject would come up, and Jesus would tell them to
keep quiet about it. This notion is really the result of the work
of Wilhelm Wrede, The Messianic Secret (tr. J. C. C. Greig, James
Clarke Co., Cambridge and London, 1971, 3rd edition). Wrede gave
several instances in the Gospels, in which this happened. He said
his strongest case was the raising of the daughter of Jairus,
after which Jesus called for silence. But, exclaimed Wrede: anyone
could see the girl was alive. So this was faked by the Church.

The reply is extremely simple: Jesus went into the house with only
the parents, and Peter, James and John. He raised the girl, and
called for silence. If the crowds found out, they might seize Him
and proclaim Him king Messiah, with a false notion of Messiahship.
But how long did He need to keep it quiet? Just long enough for
Him to slip out quietly and get on His way to the next village.

So Fuller and Wrede have failed to invalidate the second unit.

In the third unit Jesus predicts His death and resurrection. But,
when these things happened, the Apostles acted as if they had
never heard about them. So, the critics conclude: The Church faked
this unit.

Again, the answer is simple: If someone has a fixed framework of
ideas in his mind, and something that would clash tries to get in,
it usually does not get in. For example, in the 19th century, one
of the three discoverers of germs (along with Pasteur and Lister)
was Dr. Semmelweis in Hungary. He therefore told the other Doctors
to use antiseptic precautions - which they had never heard of. So
they put him into an insane asylum for the rest of his life!.
(Scientists can be rougher on science than the Church!).

Again, Norman Perrin of the University of Chicago said in his
book, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (Harper & Row, N. Y.,
1967, p. 16) that at one time he was inclined to believe the
Gospels. But then, form criticism over and over again showed him
he could not trust them. He gives his strongest example: Mark 9.
1, "There are some standing here who will not taste death until
they see the Kingdom of God come with power." Mt 16:28 is the
same, except that they will see "the Son of Man coming in his
kingdom." In Lk 9:27 they see merely "the Kingdom of God." Matthew
and Mark, thinks Perrin, expect the end soon. But Luke has settled
down to "the long haul of history." So there is a clash.

Again, the answer is easy. All three synoptics put this line just
before the Transfiguration, so that could be what they would see.
But better, many scholars admit (e.g., John L. McKenzie,
Dictionary of the Bible, p. 481; R. E. Brown, in The Churches the
Apostles Left Behind, p. 52 - cf. also his Responses to 101
Questions on the Bible, p. 12) that often in the Synoptics the
Church is called the Kingdom of God. Thus in the end of the
parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus says (Mt. 21:43): "The
kingdom will be taken from you and given to a people who will
bring fruit." It meant that the Pharisees would be out of the
People of God, and others would take their place (the gentiles).
The implication is similar in the parable of the net and the
parable of the weeds in the wheat, as well as in other places.

So they will see the kingdom, the Church, and it will be coming
with power. Power in the Greek is dynamis. That word in the plural
means displays of power, i.e., miracles. So they will live to see
the Church being spread with miracles. As to the form in Matthew,
they will see the Son of Man, Christ, coming in His kingdom. It
means visiting, taking care of His Church by His power (the
concept of Hebrew paqad, taking care of it). Luke's reading, "the
kingdom" is of course no problem, makes no clash. So Perrin was
not really "forced" by form criticism to give up on the Gospels.
He had a mental framework, in which there was no room for the
facts on this text.

So Fuller's analysis fails since he did not succeed in showing
units 2 and 3 to be false, faked by the Church. But if we, since
it is interesting, imagine he had proved it, then he would read
units 1 and 4: Jesus asks the Apostles who they say He is. Peter
says: The Messiah. "Get behind me satan". He angrily rejects the
title of Messiah.

This false analysis has been a large root of the claims of
ignorance in Jesus.

Then there is the strange case of Teilhard de Chardin, who thought
that just before the return of Christ at the end, most people
would be joined together in a wonderful unity, like a totalitarian
state, but not painful: it would be love that would bind them. He
must have read Luke 18:8: "When the Son of Man comes, do you think
He will find faith on the earth?" or 2 Thessalonians 2.3 which
also predicted a great falling away from the faith. Or Matthew
24:12: "Because sin will reach its peak, the love of most people
will grow cold. Chardin too had a fixed framework of ideas, and so
could not see.

But as we said, this technique can be used well. For example, Mark
13:30 says: "This generation will not pass away before all these
things take place." Form criticism helps us here, by pointing out
that things are sometimes put into different settings, so that it
is likely that the original context of this verse was one of the
fall of Jerusalem. Still further, Hebrew dor can mean generation,
but can also mean a time period - here - the Christian regime -
and so the sense could be that the Christian regime is the last
phases of God's dealings with our race. It is never to be replaced
as the Old Testament was. DV # 4 assures us this is the case.

One more example. When Jesus says that if anyone would come after
Him, he must take up his cross. Now the cross in the literal sense
was known to all the people of his land and time. But He meant it
in a modified sense, in the sense of imitating him by self-denial
and acceptance of providential sufferings. We gather then, that it
is not very likely that Jesus used these words about taking up
one's cross, though He expressed the same thought in another way.
It would be only later, when the Church had meditated on this
point, that such language would be understood by most persons.

Form and Redaction criticism today is under some attack. Reginald
H. Fuller, a chief critic, and author of the analysis of the scene
at Caesarea Philippi we just saw, has now charged that Form
criticism is bankrupt, and that the bankruptcy should be overcome
by feedback from the believing community! Fuller showed bad
judgment twice. First there was bad judgment when he and others
were so very confident they had scientifically proved things, when
really the whole historical critical method (of which Form
Criticism is a part, as also the approach via literary genres)
seldom gives conclusive proof of anything, since it relies mostly
on internal evidence (e.g., the claim that Luke wrote the prophecy
of the fall of Jerusalem after 70 AD since he spoke of any army
surrounding Jerusalem). Internal evidence by its nature seldom
gives more than probability. Fuller shows bad judgment a second
time in throwing out the baby with the bath, for these techniques
really are useful if only one uses them with keen awareness of
their limitations.

Further, the critics, as we saw, think it important to discover
the life situation, the Sitz-im-Leben of each form. But there is
heavy uncertainty about a very major case of this. The traditional
view was that Mark wrote at Rome, from the preaching of St. Peter.
Some major scholars still agree, e.g., Martin Hengel of Tubingen,
in his Studies in the Gospel of Mark (tr. J. Bowden, Philadelphia,
Fortress, 1985, p. 29). Hengel thinks Mark wrote to help
Christians facing the persecution of Nero. But others, e. g,
Wilfred Harrington (Mark, Wilmington, Glazier, 1979 p. xii) thinks
it comes from a Christian community in Syria between 66 and 70 AD.
R. E. Brown, in Antioch and Rome (Brown and Meier, Paulist, 1983,
pp. 199-200) admits he cannot know what purpose Mark had in mind,
and that we cannot be sure we know what is tradition and what is
editing by Mark - a major step in Form Criticism. C. F. Evans, in
The Cambridge History of the Bible (3 vols, Cambridge University,
1960-63, I, pp. 270-71) is almost in despair on this question
about Mark.

In regard to the possible rearrangement of materials by the
Evangelists, we must ask about retrojection? It consists in
writing up something that really happened after the resurrection
as if it happened before. Could this be legitimately done? Yes
under some conditions, chiefly that the words attributed to Jesus
were really said by Him, even if in different form. Otherwise
retrojection is a lie, and contrary to inspiration. Today there is
much ferment about the question of whether it was chiefly the
Romans, or the Jews who were guilty of the death of Jesus. Vatican
II, in <Nostra aetate> #4 said there is a special and a general
guilt. All who sin have the general guilt. But only those Jews who
were before Pilate screaming for His blood contracted the special
guilt. We could add that even those Jews not present may have
acquiesced or ratified it by their persecution which came very
soon.

But to blame merely or chiefly the Romans is to make a lie of St.
John's Gospel, and parts of Matthew as well. John pictured Pilate
as knowing the innocence of Jesus and of trying to get Him off.

The retrojectors like to blame most of this on the Romans, and say
that later in the century, when hostility between Jews and
Christians became hot, the Christians invented, retrojected, the
claims of His clash with the Jews.

To say that is to make the Gospels a lie. Sadly, not only some
Jews but even some Catholics, even priests and Bishops, charge
this retrojection.

Commentators on Daniel very often say that his book contains
prophecies made after the event--that is, it was written after the
time of Antiochus IV of Syria, and retrojected to the 6th century.
Would such a retrojection be illegitimate? No in this special
case, for the genre is apocalyptic, in which fanciful things can
be said without deception.

Another fertile source of confusion is the use of the
theologoumenon. In that pattern we find language changed very
greatly, e.g., these commentators say she was not physically a
virgin: to say that is just a way of expressing her holiness. How
can we know if such a thing is being done in a concrete case? At
least most of the time we must have recourse to the teachings of
the Magisterium. Several early Councils, cited in Vatican II, On
the Church #57,have affirmed that physically she was a virgin. LG
57 itself said she showed her Firstborn to the shepherds and the
Magi, He who did not diminish but consecrated her virginal
integrity." That last word is of course a physical word.

In similar ways and by the abuse of form and redaction criticism,
the pseudo-scholars are having a field day, vying as it were with
each other to see who can say the most outrageous things. Then the
media call them heralds of new knowledge. But those who follow
what we have just explained need not be mislead.

We need to notice too that Semites are apt to use approximation,
as Pius XII reminded us in his Encyclical. Especially is this the
case on numbers. Thus the Hebrew of Jonah says God will destroy
the city in 40 days. But the Greek LXX makes it 3 days. In
Galatians 1-2 Paul says that after his conversion he went to
Arabia, and then after three years went to Jerusalem. We do not
know where to start counting the three years. Also he says in 2.1
that after 14 years he went to Jerusalem again-we do not know
where to start counting the 14 years. And in Numbers 25.1 we read
that 24,000 Jews fell--but Paul in 1 Cor 10.8 gives only 23,000.

Semites are not modern Americans.

Chapter 7: Which are the Inspired Books?

In our sketch of apologetics in chapter 2, we said that the only
way to be sure which books are inspired is to accept the decision
of the Church. Actually, the Church was in no hurry to give
definitive statements on this subject. Why?

We saw in chapter 6 that Form Criticism shows the Church has
something more basic than the Gospels, its own ongoing teaching.
Up to the time of Luther, people did not basically depend on
Scripture, they simply followed the oral teaching of the Church,
which, as we said, is primary. Jesus never told the Apostles:
Write Some books, give out copies, tell people to figure them out
for themselves. This is what the "Reformers" implied. It is
foolish. Copies were very expensive, not everyone could read, and
the study of Scripture is quite difficult, One should know the
original languages, genres, history and culture among other
things. In addition, the Second Epistle of Peter tells us (3:15-
16) that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are many things that
are hard are hard to understand: the unlearned and unstable twist
them to their own destruction. The "Reformers" surely proved that
right.

Instead, we find in Second Timothy 1:13: "Hold to the form of
sound teaching which you heard from me." And again in 2:2: "The
things which you heard from me, through many witnesses, hand on to
trustworthy men, who will be able in turn to teach others."

Not strange then that the Church saw no urgent need to draw up a
canon, that is, a list of inspired books. St. Justin Martyr, in
his defense of Christianity to the Jew Trypho (Dialogue, chapter
32, cf 68) says he will use only the Scripture that the Jews would
accept - a natural move in such a dialogue.

There was an unofficial list in the Muratorian Fragment - which
was found at Milan. It dates from late second century, and does
give a list of books. However we see in it some early hesitations.
Not mentioned are the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistles of
James and Peter. It rejects some pseudo- Pauline letters to
Laodicea, and Gnostic, Marcionite and Montanist writings in
general. From this we gather that a stimulus to make a list came
from the existence of heretical writings. Marcion rejected the
entire Old Testament, and three Gospels, keeping part of Luke and
some of St. Paul's Epistles.

While most of the books of Old and New Testament were accepted by
the Church from the beginning, there were some hesitations, such
as those about the so-called Deuterocanonicals, which are, in
general those books that are found in the Septuagint (the ancient
Greek version of the Old Testament) but not in the Hebrew Old
Testament. (They include in general: Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and
2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith and additions to Esther and Daniel).

There were also other hesitations, for example, the Epistle to the
Hebrews was accepted very early in the East, chiefly at
Alexandria, but the west did not accept it until the fourth
century. In reverse, the Apocalypse/Revelation was accepted early
in the west, only later in the East. Many fathers - chiefly:
Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian and
Hippolytus believed the John who was its author was the Apostle
John. Other fathers, chiefly: Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of
Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen and John
Chrysostom thought it was not the Apostle John.

St. Augustine accepted the longer canon (list - including the
deuterocanonicals) and defended it in his De Doctrina Christiana
8. At the Council of Hippo, his diocese, in 393 AD the longer
canon was accepted, and repeated and confirmed in the 3rd and 4th
Councils of Carthage in 397 and 418. At the end of the decree was
a request to Pope Boniface to confirm it. In 405 St. Exsuperius,
Bishop of Toulouse, wrote to Pope Innocent I, asking him for a
ruling. The Pope wrote back to him, repeating the list drawn up by
the Councils. As a result there was much unanimity in the west in
the 5th century, though the East was slower to accept, waiting
until the 7th century.

But even in the west there was some difficulty, especially under
the influence of St. Jerome, who tended to favor the shorter canon
(without the deuterocanonicals). So Pope Gregory I spoke of First
Macchabees as useful for edification but not canonical. Cardinal
Cajetan, about a thousand years later, expressed a similar view
even after the Decree for the Jacobites of the Council of Florence
(1441: DS 1335).

The really final settlement came from the Council of Trent,
against the errors of Luther, in 1546 (DS 1501-05). It accepted
the same list as the African councils.

Chapter 8: The Pentateuch

In chapter 3, in order to answer some objections, we needed to say
a few things in passing about the Pentateuch. Especially we saw
the modern views on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and
something on the Documentary theory. The tendency to reject Mosaic
authorship probably stems mostly from the belief that if Moses
were the author, then, since he would have been an eyewitness, we
would have much history in the Pentateuch. We will explore that
question more fully in our chapter on Genesis.

The objections raised to Mosaic authorship (considering authorship
on the broad base suggested by the Biblical Commission, which we
saw in chapter 3) rest on very weak arguments, e.g., that Moses
could not have recorded his own death in Dt 34. Of course not, but
someone could have added that section. Again, there are
expressions inserted e.g., at Dt 34:6 "until this day" that point
to a later time. But when we remember the ancient Near Eastern
attitude to authorship in which a later hand felt free to add
things, this is hardly strange. Again, there are claims of
anachronisms, e.g., mentions of the Philistines in Gen 26:14-18,
who were not there at the time - but this again can be the effect
of later hands. Or, the Philistines of Gen 26 may have been an
earlier wave of migrants from Crete (Cf. Kitchen, op. cit., p. 80.
Kitchen also on pp. 82-884 gives other ancient instances of such
an "anticipation" of a name).

Interestingly, Joseph Jensen in God's Word to Israel (2nd ed.
Collegeville, 1982, p. 79) repeats what has often been said, that
if the Bible did not tell us about Moses, we would have to invent
him, and adds that surely some great genius who worked with
"heroic fidelity" must have had a part in the formation of Israel.

Meanwhile, the rejection of Mosaic authorship leads naturally to
the theory of multiple documents by others, which we saw briefly
in chapter 3, but need to explore more fully now.

Documentary theory: The first beginnings of the theory go back to
a priest, R. Simon, who in 1678 argued from repetitions,
discontinuity in chronology and logic and stylistic variations to
the conclusion that there was a sort of corps of "public
secretaries" whose gradual accretions up to the time of Ezra (5th
century) produced the Pentateuch. His theory was not well received
until 1776 when a German translation of it appeared.

H. B. Witter in 1711 suggested that the variation in names for God
(Elohim/ Yahweh Elohim) pointed to different documents.

The Yahwist document (J) prefers the name Yahweh, it stresses
events after the Patriarchs as the fulfillment of the promises God
made to them. It speaks of God in human terms - anthropomorphisms
- and speaks of God as angry and regretting that He had made man,
and as coming down to see the tower of Babylon. The Elohist
document (E) prefers the name Elohim, and is much less inclined to
use anthropomorphisms. The Priestly Code (P) is noted for its
special interest in cultic things and religious laws. Thus the
Book of Leviticus would be entirely P. The Deuteronomist (D) is
found especially in Deuteronomy, with influence from that view
also seen in Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings. The
Deuteronomist document (D) tends to be oratorical or homiletic in
tone, and stresses the importance of fidelity to God's laws,
resulting in reward or punishment.

These documentary beliefs were especially promoted by Julius
Wellhausen (1844-1918) whose study of Israelite laws led him to
think Israel began with a naturist religion, then the prophets
introduced ethical monotheism. The Pentateuch reached full
development during and after the Exile, c. 450 B.C.

He thought he could give a relative dating of the documents. He
held that the law book discovered in the 18th year of King Josiah
(2 Kings 22) was Deuteronomy. Many still hold this view. So he
thought the D document must have been composed at that time, in
the late 7th century. He did not seem to consider it could have
been something much older, just discovered then. He thought the
Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) documents came from the 9th and 8th
centuries, respectively, in the early monarchy. He thought the
books of Kings showed no acquaintance with the special laws found
in the priestly code (P) but that the books of Chronicles did know
it. Chronicles he said was postexilic. P seemed to him to be an
advance on the provisions found in chapters 40-48 of Ezekiel, and
so put the composition of P in the 5th century, after the end of
the exile. Wellhausen thought an 8th century BC author could not
know anything substantial about the Patriarchs, and so made a free
creation in his writing.

Today, even scholars favorable to the Documentary Hypothesis admit
that Wellhausen's skepticism about the historical and religious
traditions can no longer be held, since advances in our knowledge
of the biblical background pretty well rule out such skepticism.
Wellhausen depended much on pagan panArabic parallels, for he did
not really know the ancient world. Further, modern study would not
favor the idea that documents were composed at definite times. The
dates assigned are really, it is thought, not those of the origin
of the material in the document, but mark the end of a long
development, so that even P, which is considered the most recent,
has much ancient material. The tendency today is to speak of
traditions or sources rather than of documents.

Many still hold the documentary theory. Pope John Paul II, in his
conferences on Genesis (Original Unity of Man and Woman,
Catechesis on the Book of Genesis, Boston, St. Paul Editions,
1981) seems to favor it. Of course his use of these things does
not constitute a teaching given to the universal Church. Further
this is a matter of history, not of faith.

Many others today are strongly rejecting the theory. A major
example appeared in R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch
(JSOT Supplements 5, Sheffield, 1987). It was very favorably
reviewed in CBQ of Jan. 1989, pp. 138-39 by Joseph Blenkinsopp who
said that it is clear that the hypothesis is "in serious trouble,
with no viable alternative yet in sight." Whybray, according to
the review easily showed the fragility of many of the arguments
given for the theory, showed that the criteria used to tell one
source from another require "an unreasonable level of consistency"
in the sources themselves, so that it has been necessary to
suppose a multitude of subsidiary sources. Yet the same
consistency was not supposed to be found in the redactors. Whybray
himself suggested the Pentateuch came from a single genius, no
earlier than 6th century B.C., who used many sources, not all of
them ancient. But this idea does not take into account the long
development of the legal tradition in Israel.

Y. T. Radday and H. Shore, in Genesis: An Authorship Study in
Computer- assisted Statistical Linguistics (Analecta Biblica, vol.
103, 1985) report the results of feeding the Hebrew text of
Genesis into a computer at the Technion Institute in Israel. They
conclude: Genesis has only one author. (Cf. also U. Cassuto, The
Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch:
Eight Lectures. Jerusalem, Magnes, 1961).

A major argument for the theory comes from supposed doublets, i.
e, it is claimed that creation is told twice, in Gen 1 and 2.
There are two genealogies of the descendants of Adam, in chapters
4 and 5. The flood is told twice there are some inconsistencies in
the number of animals and on the timetable of the flood. And Noah
enters the ark twice. There are also two accounts of the selling
of Joseph into Egypt.

However, these special features may be due to a well known Hebrew
pattern of using concentric circles in narratives: the story
begins, after a bit, it goes back to the beginning, is retold with
other details. This may go on for two or three rounds. Further,
Kenneth A. Kitchen, of the University of Liverpool, in Ancient
Orient and Old Testament (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL,
1966. pp. 112-21) has discovered similar patterns of repetition in
documents from Urartu and Egypt.

As to the so-called inconsistencies in numbers of animals taken
into the ark, there are two answers: a)Within the concentric ring
pattern, at first a general preliminary statement is made, which
is then fleshed out in the second ring, which also adds the
distinction of clean/unclean animals; b)in 6:19-20 the Hebrew is
shenayim - which is a dual ending (besides singular and plural,
Hebrew had dual, for a pair). Now one cannot add a plural ending
on top of a dual, hence we see the form which indicates pair,
without saying how many pairs. In 7:2-3 we translate "seven
pairs". Actually, the Hebrew has shivah shivah = seven seven.
Hebrew is not rich in forms.

Another major argument proposed for the documentary theory is the
variation in divine names, between Elohim, and Yahweh Elohim.
Again, Kitchen has found parallels to this sort of thing in other
ancient Near Eastern literature (pp. 121-22): There are three
names for the god Osiris on the Berlin stela of Ikhernofret; In
the Lipit-Ishtar laws Enlil is also called Nunamnir, and in the
prologue to the Code of Hammurapi we have Inanna/Ishtar/Telitum;
in the Babylonian Enuma elish epic, three gods have double names.
The same phenomenon is seen in Canaan, Old South Arabia, and among
the Hurrians and Hittites. In none of those cases do scholars try
to invent two or three documents.

Those who favor the Documentary theory also point to stylistic
differences: the style of the Yahwist has unified scenes bound
together by a continuous thread. He prefers the concrete, is good
at character portraits. The Elohist lacks the picturesque manner,
has less dramatic vigor. The Yahwist goes in for
anthropomorphisms, the Elohist does not. But we reply: The
reasoning is in part a vicious circle: the alleged documents were
differentiated on the basis of the styles - then the styles are
used to prove different documents. Again, Kitchen helps us (p.
125) by showing that style variations are common in the Near East.
He mentions the biographical inscription of an Egyptian official
Uni (c 1400 B.C. ), which contains flowing narrative, summary
statements, a victory hymn, and two different refrains repeated at
suitable but varying intervals. A similar phenomenon is found in
the royal inscriptions of the kings of Urartu.

To sum up: we have not disproved the Documentary theory, but we
have shown that its proponents are far from proving it too.

One further question for now: Could we believe that some of the
names and facts were really transmitted orally for centuries? We
know definitely that such a thing is possible. For example, the
first name on the Assyrian King List is King Tudia. For long it
was thought he was only a legend. But now the picture has changed:
An Italian archaeologist, Paolo Matthiae, began excavations at
Ebla (about 35 miles south of Aleppo in Syria), in about 1963 and
uncovered a major ancient civilization, almost unknown up to that
date. In 1969 he showed an inscription to epigrapher Giovanni
Pettinato, who quickly recognized the name of King Ibbit-Lim of
Ebla. Pettinato dates the clay tablets from Ebla at about 2500
B.C. Pettinato further has found a text of a treaty between the
King of Ebla, and King Tudia, founder of the first dynasty of
Assyria. So we now are certain that Tudia is not legendary but
historical - the Assyrian king list giving the name of Tudia dates
from about 1000 B.C., while the tablet from Ebla shows Tudia made
that treaty around 2350 B.C. So memory preserved correct data on
Tudia for about 13 centuries. (Cf. G. Pettinato, The Archives of
Ebla, Doubleday, 1981, pp. 103-05 also 70 & 73).

Roland E. Murphy, one of the editors of the NJBC (p. 4) says that
today there is a tendency to think more in terms of an expansion
of J, especially from E, which provided added traditions to
insert, but which may have never existed independently on its own.

Finally, we should mention some current terminology that one may
meet in reading. Tradition History means a study of the various
stages a unit went through before being incorporated into the
present form. The study of the final form is called

Redaction Criticism.

There is also a Literary Approach, which concentrates on the
literary qualities of the text, and does not concern itself with
questions of history or documents. Canonical Criticism
concentrates on merely the text as we now have it, as the
Postexilic community saw it, leaving aside all questions of its
formation.

Chapter 9: The Book of Genesis

Our first move is to try to determine the literary genre of
Genesis. Here we clearly must distinguish between chapters 1-11
and the rest of Genesis.

We have already seen in chapter 3, in answering objections, the
statement of Pius XII on Genesis 1-11, that Genesis 1-11 is in a
genre that pertains to history in some way, without being the same
as the pattern used by Greek and Roman or modern historians. We
saw too that John Paul II called the genre "myth", but explained
he did not mean a mere fairy tale, but meant an ancient story
devised to bring out some things that really happened.

We saw too the remarkable statement of 160 major scientists that
the form of evolution proposed by Darwin was false, since the
fossil record simply did not support it. They proposed instead an
unsupported supposition of "punctuated equilibria" that is, that a
species might stay the same for millions of years, and then by a
sudden fluke, leap up to something much higher in the same
category.

It is good to add some modern scientific work that bears on
polygenism - the theory that our race came from more than one
pair. Pius XII, in Humani generis in 1951 after saying that we may
consider evolution provided it is not atheistic, added that we are
not so free about polygenism "since it is by no means clear how
such a view could be reconciled with what the sources of
revelation and the actions of the Magisterium tell us about
original sin, which comes from a sin really committed by one Adam,
and which is passed on to all by generation, and is within each
one as his own" (DS 3897). On reading these words, some say that
polygenism is completely ruled out. Others, who mean to be loyal
to the Church, notice the Pope said we may not hold polygenism
since it is by no means clear how it can fit with Scripture and
the Magisterium. They notice - what is true - that papal texts are
framed with extreme care. And they say that the Pope may have
meant to leave door open, to say that if a way should be found to
reconcile polygenism with revealed truth, the objection would
drop.

Teilhard de Chardin proposed evolution of human mind and character
in addition to that of body, so that just before the return of
Christ at the end, most of the race would be joined in a unity
like that of a totalitarian state, but it would not be unpleasant,
since they would be bound by love. The Holy Office on June 30,
1962 warned his works contain, "ambiguities and even grave
errors," but did not forbid them or name the errors. However it is
easy to refute this great error about the time before the end: Lk
18.8 says: "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the
earth?" Cf. 2 Ths 2.3, with the same prediction and also the
picture given in 2 Tim 3.1-4.

However, on the side of natural science some impressive evidence
has come to light against polygenism. <Science News> of August 13,
1983, p. 101 reported that Allan Wilson of the University of
California at Berkeley asserts, as a result of worldwide research
on mitochondria, that we all go back to one mother, who lived
350,000 years ago. At first other scientists did not favor his
view. But that has changed. <Newsweek> of Jan 21, 1988 in a large
article reports that view is now widely accepted, except that they
have lowered the age to 200,000 years ago. Of course, this would
not disprove polygenism, for it could be that, e.g., 6 pairs
started our race, and the lines of all but one died out. For more
see <Science News> vol. 147, p. 326.

John Paul II, in a General Audience of Oct 1, 1986 clarified the
concept of original sin. He said that it "has not the character of
personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace," that
is, it is the lack of something that should be there, not a
positive presence. So the transmission by heredity really means
that grace is not transmitted. In the audience of Oct 8, 1986 he
added that when we say our mind is darkened and our will weakened,
this refers to a "relative, and not an absolute deterioration."
That is, we are put down no lower than we would have been had God
created our race with no added gifts beyond essential humanity.
Such a nature, having many drives within it, each operating
blindly, would need mortification to tame it. This disorder would
make the mind relatively less clear, and the will relatively
weaker.

From the cleverly designed story of Genesis, it is evident that
God had given our first parents what could be called a
coordinating gift, that is, a gift to make it easy to keep all the
drives in their proper place. (This has often been called the Gift
of Integrity). When God called, "Adam, where are you?" Adam said:
"I hid myself for I was naked." God said: "How did you find that
out, if you did not eat the forbidden fruit?" In other words,
before and after the fall, Adam was naked. But it formerly did not
bother him - he had the coordinating gift. Afterwards, without
that gift, it did bother him.

Did the Hebrews see original sin in the Genesis story? Surely,
they did not talk much about it. There are just a few doubtful
texts in the Old Testament that could, but need not, refer to it:
(Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5; Sirach 25:23; Wisdom 2:23-24 and 10:1-2).
There are just a few places in the intertestamental literature
(Jewish writing after the end of the Old Testament) in which we
might see original sin: IV Ezra 3. 20 and 7. 46-49 (prob. late 1st
century AD); II Baruch 18. 2; 23. 4; 48. 42-43; 54. 15-16; 56. 5-6
(early 2nd century AD); Testament of Adam 3.3 (2nd -5th century
AD); Pseudo Philo 62.5 (prob. 1st century AD).

However, even if the Jews did not notice it, it is clearly implied
in Genesis. For God had given to Adam and Eve the gift of grace,
His favor. They lost it - or rather, cast it away by sin -and so
could not pass it on to their descendants. To be born out of God's
favor is to lack grace. And that is what original sin is. We need
to notice as to the word favor, if we meant merely that God as it
were smiles at us, but gives us nothing, we would do good by our
own powers: the heresy of Pelagianism. So in practice, to lack His
favor means to lack what He gives us, His grace.

There are other things brought out by that well-designed story,
chiefly: God made all things - in some special way (leaving room
for theistic evolution) He made the first human pair - He gave
them some sort of command (we do not know if it was or was not
about a fruit tree - that may be stage dressing) -they violated
His orders and fell from favor. In addition the story tells us the
psychology of every sin. For Eve knew God had said they would die
if they ate it - but she believed the tempter who said that they
would instead become like gods - and she looked at the fruit, and
as it were said: "God may know what is good in general - but right
now, I know better! I can see for myself!" So pride is the essence
of every sin.

What of the names Adam and Eve? We do not know if they used those
names - but that does not mean we should say there was no Adam and
Eve. There was a first pair, regardless of the names they used.

Some scholars today think the writer of Genesis used some then
current stories, probably from Mesopotamia. We would not have to
rule out such a possibility in advance, for we have said that
Genesis uses stories to convey things that really happened. We add
that Vatican II (LG # 55) said, having in mind chiefly Genesis
3:15 and Isaiah 7:14: "These primeval documents, as they are read
in the Church, and are understood in the light of later and full
revelation, gradually bring before us the figure of the Mother of
the Redeemer. She, in this light, is already prophetically
foreshadowed in the promise, given to our first parents who had
sinned, of victory over the serpent (cf. Gen 3, 15)."

It is evident, especially from the use of the cf before Gen 3:15
in the parenthesis, that the Council did not want to say flatly
that the human writer understood all that the Church, in the light
of later and full revelation, gradually came to understand. So we
could conceive of the inspired writer of Genesis as using secular
stories to make his point, without understanding all that we now
see in them. Yet it is beyond doubt that he did see a first sin, a
fall, and some kind of promise of enmity. And elsewhere - DV #3 -
the Council seemed to take a more optimistic view of what that
writer understood: "Moreover, after their fall, by promising
redemption, He lifted them up into the hope of salvation (cf. Gen
3:15)." Now they could not be lifted up into hope without
understanding some promise of rescue.

But if we turn to the stories that scholars favor, the chances of
use by the writer of Genesis go far down. The Babylonian epic,
Enuma elish, often called a creation story, shows some strong
similarities in the order of things created on each day (Cf.
Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, Univ. of Chicago, 1951,
pp. 128-29). However, as Heidel himself admits ,"the differences
are far too great and the similarities far too insignificant" to
make us suppose that the Enuma elish contributed much to Genesis.

Something much closer is the creation account found at Ebla
(Pettinato, op. cit., pp. 144 and 159): "Lord of heaven and earth,
the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you
created it, the morning light you had not [yet] made exist."
However, Pettinato's translation was promptly challenged by Archi,
his successor as epigrapher of Ebla (BAR Nov. -Dec. 1980, p. 42).

Some today charge error in Genesis because it speaks of Abel as a
herdsman, and Cain as a farmer - these developments belong much
later in the history of our race, they say. Further, Genesis 4:21-
22 speaks of Jubal, the ancestor of those who play harp and flute,
and of Tubalcain as the father of all who work in bronze and iron.
Again, much too early. However, once we grasp the fact that
Genesis 1-11 consists of stories designed to bring out some things
that were really true we have no problem here. That whole stretch
is designed to show how mankind was sinful from the start, to such
an extent that God repented of making mankind and sent the deluge.
Within this framework, then, the odd little episode of 6:1-4 in
which the sons of God had children by human women is likely to be
some ancient tale, which the author of Genesis found suited his
purpose well - showing the wickedness of all. Who the sons of god
are is much discussed. Some suggest it means sons of Seth, taking
wives from the daughters of Cain. Some Fathers of the Church
thought it meant angels! (e.g., St. Justin Martyr, Apology II. 5).
Angels do not have bodies, but otherwise, we do not know. But the
point is clear, it was an ancient tale meant to help bring out the
wickedness of the race, leading right up to the deluge.

What is the genre of the deluge account? Is it just part of the
sequence of ancient tales to bring out things, or is it basically
historical this time? In favor of saying it is historical is the
fact that flood traditions are found all over the globe. And
especially the king lists of Sumer are significant. Those lists go
back to at least 2000 B.C. They say there were 8 kings before the
flood, reigning in five cities, a total of 432, 200 years. Among
them was Enmenlu-Anna who ruled 43,100 years. After the flood, the
kings became short-lived! Twenty-three kings ruled for a total of
only 24,510 years, 3 months and 3 1/2 days. (Lists can be seen in
ANET 265-66). Of course, such numbers were never intended to be
taken at face value. What was intended we do not know - perhaps
symbolic numbers? They make the great ages in Genesis 5 seem
slight.

However, our interest is other. The land of Sumer, between the
Tigris and Euphrates, had annual floods in those times. To speak
of the flood in such a context surely stands for a king sized
flood.

The Babylonian story is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and
probably goes back to at least 2000 B.C. In both stories, there is
a hero who is to be saved - Noah in Genesis, Utnapishtim in
Gilgamesh. Each is told to build an ark, with detailed
specifications. Then comes the cataclysm. The ark finally rests on
a tall mountain. Both Noah and Utnapishtim release series of birds
to see if the water has gone down. Each account mentions a dove
and a raven. Each hero offers sacrifice, but there are great
differences: The biblical flood is a punishment for sin; there is
no motive given by the gods in the Babylonian version, it is mere
caprice. In the Babylonian text, the gods cowered in fear of the
flood. When Utnapishtim offered sacrifice after the flood, they
came down and "swarmed like flies" around the sacrifice - the gods
needed sacrifices for food. The gods admit Utnapishtim to the
ranks of the gods, he becomes immortal. (The complete text of the
Gilgamesh epic can be found in Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh
Epic and Old Testament Parallels, University of Chicago, 1949.

We do not know the relation of the two. Perhaps the writer of
Genesis took the Babylonian account, purified it of polytheistic
elements, and used it. On the other hand, the two accounts could
have been independent accounts of a historical flood.

But there are new discoveries today, which make the deluge
certain. A high pentagon official told me he had been permitted to
see high resolution photos taken from our satellite, which show
the ark up on Mt. Ararat. At some seasons is it largely covered
with snow. He told me further the army had sent soldiers up to the
ark. They had entered it, had seen the animal stalls, and had
founds its measurements are those found in Genesis.

Another set of claims is this: The Turkish government today has
set up a Noah's Ark Park farther down. Ron Wyatt and associates
discovered there a buried ship, of the same measurements. Using
subsurface radar --with trained expert operators-- he found there
is a pattern of regularly occurring spots, which he takes to be
metal brackets in a pattern of lines from stem to stern, and also
going crossways.

There can be no reasonable doubt about the ark seen from space.
What Wyatt found is something real, but different. Though not
highly trained himself, he did employ radar specialists. He has
published a video showing in detail the explorations and the
results (Wyatt Archaeological Research, Nashville, TN).

As to the Babylonian tower, we note that temple towers were common
in ancient Babylonia. We cannot judge the historical character of
this account. But we notice the clever play on words with popular
etymology: Gen 11:6 speaks of it as Babel, the place where the
Lord confused tongues, playing on Hebrew babel, "confusion". Yet
Babylonian bab-ili meant "gate of the gods." The writer of Genesis
may have been making fun of the "gate of the gods".

We notice the strong anthropomorphism in this account: God comes
down to see the tower.

Genesis 12-50

Here we seem to leave the realm of mere ancient stories contrived
to bring out some things that really happened. We now have the
history of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Even so, we
ask about the genre. Many today think it is something like epic.
As we have seen, epic genre was around in those days. An epic will
have a strong core of history, but yet work in some fanciful
elements.

Naturally, we begin with the great patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob. To what age do they belong, if to any? T. L. Thompson, in
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, (Berlin, 1974)
would virtually drop archaeological evidence, and date the
patriarchs to the first millennium B.C. - since there is no room
for them historically at such a point, it amounts to a denial.
Similarly. J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, (New
Haven, 1975) drops archaeology, wants to date patriarchs in first
millennium.

Some would make the patriarchs mere eponymous ancestors, persons
from whom the names of later tribes were derived.

Most scholars would not agree with such extreme radicalism. P.
Kyle McCarter Jr. in the chapter on the Patriarchal Age, in the
symposium, Ancient Israel, (ed. Hershel Shanks) published by the
Biblical Archaeology Society in 1988 says on p. 16: "Most
[scholars] remain convinced that the stories about Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob contain a kernel of authentic history." We already
suggested something like epic genre for Genesis 12-50. And we
think there is more than just a kernel of real history, even
though the ambitious attempts of the school of W. F. Albright
(including especially E. A. Speiser and G. Ernest Wright) to use
archaeology to validate Genesis have not stood up completely
against the attacks of subsequent criticism.

There is too much evidence to deny basic reality to the
patriarchs. We cannot imagine why Israelites would invent the
claim that Abraham's wife was his half-sister (cf. Gen 20:12) or
that Jacob married two sisters (29:15-30). Leviticus 18:9
prohibits marriage with a half sister, and Leviticus 18:18
prohibits marrying the sister of one's wife, and 18. 29 calls both
an abomination.

Nor would they invent some other things, such as the shameful way
Jacob bought the birthright from his brother Esau and then lied to
get his father's blessing. Also, the jealousy of the brothers of
Joseph, and their selling him as a slave are disgraceful things.

Kitchen (op. cit, pp. 49-50 shows that seasonal occupation of the
Negeb region on the SW border of Palestine is archaeologically
attested from the 21st to the 19th centuries, but not for the
thousand years earlier or for 800 years afterwards. Abraham and
Isaac spent time in this area and were keepers of flocks and
herds, and at times grew grain. So they would fit best in the
period about 2100- 1800 B.C.

Especially significant is the fact that Joseph was sold as a slave
(Gen 37:28) for 20 shekels. That is the correct average price for
a slave in about the 18th century B.C. Before that, as shown in
the Code of Hammurabi and in Mari documents, slaves cost from 10
to 15 shekels. Later they rose steadily in price (cf. Kitchen, pp.
52-52).

It is worth mentioning too that the system of power-alliances,
such as four kings against five of Genesis 14, is common in
Mesopotamia in the period 2000-1750, but not before or after that
(cf. Kitchen, p. 45).

St. Paul often appealed to the faith of Abraham as the model of
the faith we must have (Galatians 3:6; Romans 4). Indeed it was
remarkable, not only when he believed go that he, at age 99, and
his sterile wife Sarah, at age 90, would have a son Isaac, through
whom he would be the father of a great nation, but even more so
when without asking any question Abraham obeyed God's order to
sacrifice Isaac when Isaac was still a little boy, too young to
start the fulfillment of God's promise about a great posterity
through him.

The picture of Abraham's faith corresponds exactly with St. Paul's
idea of faith. Pauline faith includes four elements: belief in
God's word (cf. 1 Ths 2:13), confidence in God's promise (cf. Gal
5:5), obedience to God's commands (cf. Rom 1:5), all to be done in
love (Gal 5:6). Abraham did believe God's word, had confidence in
His promise even when that seemed voided by the command to
sacrifice, and his obedience was so great as to be willing to
sacrifice his dear son, thereby, as we said, seeming to cut off
the promise of a great posterity - in which he was yet required to
believe.

We note in passing how different this concept of faith is from
Luther's, who held faith meant merely the conviction that the
merits of Christ applied to himself. The standard Protestant
reference work, Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement,
p. 333, gives precisely the same picture of Pauline faith as we
have just done. Luther thought if one had his version of faith, he
could disobey God's laws with impunity (Epistle 501). But Luther
did not see that faith includes obedience -- so faith does not
dispense from obedience.

There are so many other things in Genesis on which we could
comment - such as a the beautiful story of Joseph, with its
magnificent pay-off scene, when he reveals himself to his
brothers. But we have space for just a short comment on two great
prophecies, those of Gen 3:15 and Genesis 49:10.

We are fortunate in having a great ancient resource to understand
these prophecies, as well as some other things in the Old
Testament: the Targums. These are ancient Aramaic versions of the
Hebrew text, most of them free, and including fill-ins, which show
how the Jews understood the prophecies. Of course, they did this
without the hindsight of seeing them fulfilled in Christ, whom
they hated. So even if we knew no more about the date of the
Targums, we would still be able to use them to see how the Jews
themselves in ancient times understood their own Scriptures. But
we do have more help. Jacob Neusner of Brown University, probably
the greatest of modern Jewish scholars, in his book, Messiah in
Context (Phila., Fortress, 1984) made a full survey of all Jewish
literature from after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., up to and
including the Babylonian Talmud, written 500-600 A.D. He found
that before that Talmud, there was no interest in the Messiah. In
the Talmud, interest revives, but the only one of the major
prophecies mentioned is that he should be of the line of David. In
contrast, the Targums see the Messiah in so many places, in much
detail. It is hardly conceivable that such texts could have been
written during the period in which there was no, or little,
interest in the Messiah. So they must go back before the fall of
Jerusalem. Some scholars think that in oral form, they go back to
the time of Ezra (cf. Nehemiah 8:7-8).

Three of the four the Targums see Genesis 3:15 as Messianic, even
though they cloud the picture somewhat by inserting some allegory.
They say the sons of the woman will be at war with the serpent.
When the sons of the woman study the Torah, they will be
victorious. The serpent will strike at their heel, but the sons of
the woman will smite the serpent on the head. There will be a
remedy for the sons of the woman, but none for the serpent. Both
will make peace in the days of King Messiah. (Cf. Samson Levey,
The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, Hebrew Union College,
Cincinnati, 1974).

Vatican II, in LG # 55 says, as we saw above: "These primeval
documents [thinking chiefly of Gen 3:15 and Is 7:14] as they are
read in the Church, and understood in the light of later and full
revelation, gradually bring before us the figure of the woman, the
Mother of the Redeemer." So, even if the human writer of Genesis
may not have seen the full import, yet the Church now, in the
light of later and full revelation, does see Mary in this text -
and then, of course, Christ.

All Targums see Genesis 49:10 as messianic. We translate in the
light of the Targum - most modern versions seem not to utilize
them: "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's
staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs
[or: until Shiloh comes], and his shall be the obedience of the
peoples".

Jacob Neusner, in the book just mentioned, on p. 242 says: "It is
difficult to imagine how Gen 49:10 can have been read as other
than a messianic prediction." So a fine Jewish scholar can see it,
while so many Catholic scholars cannot. They say that the word
shiloh is grammatically feminine, while the verb with it has a
masculine ending. So they say the text is corrupt, they must emend
it. But Shiloh is masculine in sense, even though feminine in
grammatical form. And besides, there are other cases in the Old
Testament where the same mixture occurs, and the same scholars do
not worry about those: Jer 49:16 and Ez 1. 5-10. The pattern
becomes common in Mishnaic Hebrew. Levey (op. cit. p. 8) comments
that other rabbinic sources, Midrashic and Talmudic, take the
passage as Messianic.

The fulfillment of this prophecy was graphic: the Jews really did
have some sort of ruler from the tribe of Judah until the time of
the Messiah. Then in 41 BC Rome imposed on them Herod, who was not
of that tribe, was by birth half Arab, half Idumean. At first he
had the title of Tetrarch, in 37 BC. got the title of King. If the
Jews had not been so greatly unfaithful to God so many times over,
the fulfillment probably would have been more glorious, with great
kings of the line of David, all the way to 41 BC.

Chapter 10: The Book of Exodus

The genre of this book is most likely epic, though some today
would completely deny that there was an Exodus at all. Hershel
Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, in the March-April
issue of 1991, reports on the 1990 joint meeting of the American
Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the
American Schools of Oriental Research. On p. 66 he says the mood
of the whole session was almost entirely negative. He said there
was a "widespread negative fad" as to what could be said about
Israel before the time of the monarchy. He added they would like
to deny the existence of Israel before the monarchy. In fact, he
said, almost bitterly, they would like to say that Israel did not
exist before the time of the kings, and would do that if it were
not for the Stele of Pharaoh Merneptah who made a punitive raid
into Canaan around 1220, and said Israel was laid waste. It speaks
of Israel as a people, not as a nation. This reminds us of the
comment of Pope Leo XIII, in his Providentissimus Deus of 1893. In
it (EB 123) the Pope complained that those who are willing to see
all sorts of errors in Scripture - the report mentioned says the
negative people "can dispose of [the Bible] easily", yet they
accept ancient secular documents as if there could be no hint of
error in them. Actually, we know the boastfulness of ancient
kings. No Pharaoh ever lost a battle, if we believe the
inscriptions.

In contrast, Nahum M. Sarna, of Brandeis University, in his
chapter "Israel in Egypt" in the symposium Ancient Israel,
published by the Biblical Archaeology Society in 1988, says (p.
37) "The Egyptian sojourn cannot be fictional." For no matter what
we say the genre is, no people would invent a story that they were
originally just slaves, and report how unfaithful they were to God
over and over again. On the other hand, as we said, no Egyptian
King ever admitted a defeat in an inscription - he was a god. So
the defeat of the Pharaoh by God in the Exodus would have to be
passed over in silence in Egyptian records.

We could, however, say that the purpose of the writing was
didactic, to teach God's power and justice as against the failures
of His people. Then not every event in the book need be fully
historical.

Those who would deny an exodus at all are apt to say there was
merely a peasant revolt in Canaan.

But for the above reasons we do hold there was an Exodus. We add
that Exodus itself (12:38) tells us that a crowd of mixed ancestry
went out of Egypt with the Israelites.

When did the Exodus take place? There are chiefly two kinds of
opinions:

1)the most favored view begins with Exodus 1:11 which says that
the Israelites built for the Pharaoh two cities, Pithom and
Raamses. Raamses may be the same as Avaris-Tanis (But this
identification is controverted: Cf. John J. Bimson, Redating the
Exodus and Conquest, Sheffield, 1978, pp. 35-48). Avaris was
deserted after 1500, and was reestablished by Seti I who reigned
until around 1300 - there is much disagreement about precise
Egyptian chronology. Rameses II began to reign right after Seti.
It is known that Rameses carried on extensive building projects,
which fits with the use of Hebrews for slave labor. He also moved
the capital to the delta region. This fits with the fact that the
sister of Moses could easily run to her mother's house when the
daughter of Pharaoh found the infant Moses in the river (Ex 2:5-
8). Also the many visits of Moses to the Pharaoh suggest a short
distance. Still further when the angel of God slew all the
firstborn of Egypt, Pharaoh could call for Moses in the middle of
the night, and give orders to leave at once.

Also, toward the end of the reign of Rameses, Egyptian power
declined notably, which would make it easier for the Israelites to
engage in their attempts to conquer Canaan, than when Thutmose III
(1490-36 BC) was on the throne. He conducted extensive campaigns
in Canaan.

2)The other theory begins with the fact that 1 Kings 6:1 says that
Solomon began to build the temple in the 480th year after the
Exodus, in the fourth year of his reign. Since he probably began
to reign about 961, the Exodus would come around 1437 BC.

One problem with this view is the fact that 480 looks very much
like a round or symbolic number: 12 generations of 40 years each.

If we compare the proposed dates with the time the Israelites
spent in Egypt, we come up with confusion. The Hebrew text of
Exodus 12:40 says they spent 430 years there. But the Septuagint
says that "the dwelling of the sons of Israel which they spent in
Egypt and in Canaan [was] 430 years". This fits with Galatians
3:17 which gives 430 years for the period between the promise to
Abraham, and the giving of the law on Sinai. That would mean only
about 215 years in Egypt.

There are other problems about 430 years in Egypt: Moses and
Aaron, according to 1 Chron 5:27-29 were fourth generation
descendants of Jacob's son Levi. That would mean three generations
with an average of 143 years each. That would clash further with 1
Chron 7:20-27 which says Joshua, the younger associate of Moses,
was a 12th generation descendant of Levi's brother Joseph. Then we
would have 11 generations from Joseph to Joshua averaging 39 years
each. However, to the problems of this paragraph we reply that
ancient genealogies were not always like ours, merely family
trees. R. Wilson, in Genealogy and History in the Biblical World
(Yale, 1977, p. 166) shows that genealogies often were artificial
in the ancient world, to bring out relations other than family
lines.

As to these figure we can also notice that Pius XII, in Divino
afflante Spiritu (EB 559) speaks of Semitic approximation. He is
right, the Semites cared little for our precision in dating. We
can see that in the way in which St. Paul reports his own
activities in Galatians 2:1, where he says he went to Jerusalem
again after 14 years - with no indication of whether he counted
that from his conversion, from his return from

Arabia, or something else. And the Hebrew of Jonah 3:4 has Jonah
threatening destruction to Nineveh in 40 days. But the

Septuagint of the same text said three days. Apparently the
symbolic or broad usage made both seem equivalent to the
translators of the Septuagint.

It is usual to suggest that Joseph won readier acceptance in Egypt
during the time of the foreign rule by the Hyksos, which began
around 1720 BC, since they probably included some Semites. But
this overlooks the fact that Joseph's acceptance was basically due
to divine help in giving him the interpretation of the king's
dreams. The Israelites, according to Exodus 1:8, began to have
trouble when a new king came on the throne, who did not know
Joseph. But any change of dynasty - and there were many - could
give the same effect.

Some recent efforts favor the earlier date for the Exodus. John J.
Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (cited above) puts the
Exodus at about 1470. This solves many problems of archeology
about the cities conquered by Joshua, leaving a problem chiefly
about Ai and Heshbon. Bimson replies (pp. 215-25) that the later
village of Ai may not be the one destroyed by Joshua - for there
was often site shift in ancient cities - and adds (p. 69) that
Heshbon need not have been a fortified site at the time of Joshua.

In Biblical Archaeology review for Sept-Oct. 1987, Bimson, joined
by David Livingston, repeats his proposal, giving a date for
Exodus as 1460. This would entail changing the date of the end of
Middle Bronze Age II to just before 1400 - it is usually placed
around 1550. However, Hershel Shanks, editor of BAR, in the March-
April 1989 issue, (p. 54), in his report on the same convention
mentioned above, says that Bietak, one of the worlds' leading
archaeologists on Egypt, estimates Middle Bronze Age II ended
about 1500 -1450 B.C. These articles in BAR have generated much
debate, as we would expect.

A major development was reported in BAR, March-April, 1990 by
Bryant Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" He claims the
well known work of K. Kenyon was seriously flawed, finds the
evidence really supports a fall of Jericho around 1400. In spite
of the great reputation of K. Kenyon, this is quite plausible. An
interview in BAR, March-April, 1988, "Yigal Shiloh. Last Thoughts"
reports on more serious defects in the previous work of Kenyon who
had missed important remains in the City of David area of
Jerusalem. For this work, Shiloh received the prestigious
Jerusalem Prize in Archeology in 1987.

The Israelites are supposed to have lived 38 years at Kadesh-
Barnea, the largest oasis in N. Sinai, with many acres today of
fruit and nut trees. But no remains have been found there other
than three ancient fortresses, the earliest probably from the time
of Solomon. Cf. "Did I excavate Kadesh- Barnea" by Rudolph Cohen,
in BAR, May-June, 1981, pp. 21-33. He is uncertain if he found the
site, found no remains there. However, it is probable that the
Israelites were really in Midian at that time - many remains found
there. Midian is where Moses fled from Egypt, where he married,
where he saw the burning bush.

We mentioned possible site shift. Jericho was abandoned from
Hellenistic times, and moved to near the springs of Ain-Sultan,
onto the site of modern Jericho (Er-Riha). But in Hellenistic and
Roman times, palaces and villas were constructed at still a third
site nearby (Tulul Aby el-Alaiq). So there were three Jerichos.

Kenneth Kitchen (The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology
Today, Intervarsity Press, Downer's Grove, IL, 1977, pp. 10-15)
offers still more considerations. Commonly a site is not
completely excavated, for it is very costly. By 1977 only 1, 1/2
acres of Ashdod had been excavated - it covers 70 acres of lower
city and another 10 acres of acropolis. Only 1/10 of the site of
Et-Tell, which some think was Ai, had been excavated by the same
time.

So we must not be in a hurry to charge errors, with so many
possibilities. And of course, the epic genre we suggested leaves
room for quite a bit of looseness.

Before the Exodus, God appeared to Moses at the burning bush, and
revealed His name, Yahweh. The meaning of the name is debated, it
is most likely a verbal form of haya (originally perhaps hwy),
meaning "to be". Some would take it as a hiphil form of the verb,
meaning "cause to be." So the meaning would be either I am, or I
am He who causes things to be.

There is a problem from the fact that in Gen 4:26 we read that
"people began to call upon the name of Yahweh." But in Exodus 6:3
God told Moses that he did not reveal His name Yahweh to Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob. A possible solution: M. Dahood, in a long
afterword to Archives of Ebla, pp. 276-77, suggests the name was
known to northern tradition early on, but only later came to be
known to the Egyptian tradition. It is also possible we have an
updated form anachronistically inserted at Gen 4:26. It is also
possible the name was first known and later forgotten by the time
of Abraham.

The word Jehovah is merely a mistake. After the Exile, the Jews
developed so great a respect for the sacred name, that the
ordinary person never would pronounce it. Instead he would say
Adonai, Lord. When the Masoretes centuries later invented the
vowel points, they used the points for Adonai with the consonants
for Yahweh, so no one by forgetting would pronounce the sacred
name. If someone foolishly reads the word as written, it does come
out as Jehovah.

About the plagues before the Exodus - some of these things are
known to have happened by natural causes before. However, the fact
that they happened at specific times in response to the commands
of Moses is supernatural.

At what point did the Israelites cross the sea? The Hebrew is yam
suph which may mean Reed Sea. However, when these words occur
elsewhere they refer to the Red Sea or at least to the Gulf of
Aqaba (cf. 1 Kings 9:26). The matter is complicated by the
probable presence of variant traditions, which we saw in chapter
4.

Were the Israelites a people before the Exodus and covenant? Their
own traditions make Abraham the father of all of them. However, it
is clear that these two great experiences did contribute much to a
sense of being a special people. (By then other elements had
joined themselves to them, as we saw above: Ex 12. 38.

The route they took in the whole period in the desert is likewise
uncertain: Exodus does give names, but the location of many of
these is uncertain.

At Mt. Sinai they were taught great reverence: Exodus 19:9-15
forbade the people to even touch the mountain - if they did, they
must be put to death. (Interesting contrast on the lack of
reverence on the part of some today towards the Blessed
Sacrament!).

Then God manifested His presence by thunder, lightning, and
trumpet blasts and smoke. The people in fear( Ex 20:19) begged
that God might speak only through Moses, and not directly to them.

Then the great covenant was made. Through Moses, God spoke (Ex 19.
5): "If you really obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall
be my special possession, more so than all people."

Many commentators try to say this covenant was unilateral, not
bilateral. They mean God imposed obligations on His people, but
did not take any on Himself. They forget that God said, in effect,
in 19:5, "If you do this, I will do that." God cannot give His
word and then not keep it. So even though technically He does not
owe anything to creatures, yet He does owe it to Himself to keep
His word. The prophets in the OT often compared God's relation to
His people to that of marriage. Thus in Hosea 2:18-25: "And it
shall come to pass on that day, says the Lord, you shall call me
'my husband' and never more 'my Baal'... I will betroth you to me
forever. '" Again, He said through Jeremiah 2:2 "Go and cry in the
ears of Jerusalem; I remember the covenant-devotedness [hesed -
more on this word presently] of your youth, the love of your
espousal." (cf. also Jer 3:1; Ez 16:8; Is 50:1; 62:5). The
language of Deuteronomy 26:17-18 is so bold that most versions do
not dare to render it literally. The Hebrew uses the causative
hiphil form of the verb twice here: "You have caused the Lord
today to say He will be a God to you... and the Lord has caused
you today to say you will be to Him a people, a special
possession... and to keep all His commandments." Such language
seems to put God and His people both on the same plane! In spite
of their reverential great fear, they also did understand He was
their Father. In Is 63:16: "You are our Father. [Even if] Abraham
would not know us, and Israel not acknowledge us: you, O God, are
our Father, our redeemer is your name from everlasting." Here for
redeemer the Hebrew has goel, which means the next of kin who in
time of need has both the right and the duty to rescue his family
members who are in difficulty. So God by the covenant becomes as
it were a member of the family. Cf. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel
(tr. J. McHugh, McGraw Hill, NY, 1961, pp. 21 & 22). The word
hesed, which we saw in Jer 2:2, which means the covenant
relationship does express precisely that concept. The blood
ceremony in which Moses sprinkled the book and people with the
blood of the sacrifice indicates the belief they were becoming as
it were kinsmen of God: Ex 24:3-8. (Cf. the blood transfusion we
now have in the Holy Eucharist).

Interestingly, such a bilateral relationship is known even in
paganism. Cyrus Gordon, in The Common Background of Greek and
Hebrew Civilizations (Norton, NY, 1965 p. 96) reports how King
Hattusili III of the Hittites in His Apology said he and the
goddess Ishtar entered into a covenant such that she would protect
and advance him in return for his devotion to her, and exaltation
of her. Greek heroic literature also has many cases of covenant
relationship between a particular man and particular deity, e.g.,
Anchises and Aphrodite, or Odysseus and Athena. Similar things
were common among nomadic tribes: cf. Jensen, op. cit., p. 72.

George Mendenhall, in Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954,) pp. 26-46
and 49- 76 and in Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East
(Pittsburgh, 1955) saw that there is a well defined pattern in the
Hittite treaties of the 13th century: 1)Preamble: the Hittite king
is presented, with his titles, 2)Historical prologue: gives
foundations for obligations of the vassal, 3)Stipulations: list of
obligations of the vassal. The vassal is often told to avoid
"murmuring" and must love [=obey] the Sun (Hittite King),
4)Deposit and public reading, perhaps 3 times a year, 5)List of
witnesses - numerous gods, 6)Curses and blessings.

But there is no place in the Old Testament in which all of these
provisions are found in that order. Rather, the material is spread
out a bit. Dennis J. McCarthy, in Treaty and Covenant, (Biblical
Institute, Rome, 2nd ed. 1978, esp. pp. 241-76), pointed out
correctly that similar situations in different cultures can call
forth similar responses.

The covenant does have a legal form, but it was a work of love.
For to love is to will good to another for the other's sake. God
spelled out what things were needed, in the nature of things, to
make the people to open and capable of receiving what He so
generously wanted to give. Otherwise, they would run into the
evils present in the nature of things for wrongdoing.

Exodus also contains the Ten Commandments and a large body of
other laws. Joseph Jensen (op. cit., p. 86) says that the
tradition that represents Moses as the great lawgiver in Israel
"is undoubtedly an accurate one." But then as society developed,
new laws were needed for new situations. However they all kept the
same relation to the covenant. This was not deception, it was a
way of saying that these things came under the basic authority of
Moses. Much later, the oral law, very large, was also attributed
to Moses. When we recall the kind of language we saw in chapter 4
from apocalyptic passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel, we will not be
surprised at such a way of speaking as that which we see for Moses
and laws.

What of the fact that many laws closely resemble older codes, such
as that of Hammurabi (c 1725 BC)? The remark of Dennis McCarthy on
covenant, cited above, that similar situations call forth similar
responses applies here - that is, these laws were framed to cover
the same kind of circumstances as those envisioned by Hammurabi's
Code. Some laws were given in flat form, and are called apodictic;
others were in case law form:... if someone does thus... then....
It is the case laws that most resemble the Code of Hammurabi.

Some authors do not read carefully enough Ex 20:24-25 and Dt 12
and as a result say there is a conflict. Exodus, they say, permits
many places of sacrifice, while Dt speaks of only one. But if we
read carefully we find that in Dt. 12, especially at verses 10-11,
that God tells them that after they have crossed the Jordan and
after God has given them rest from their enemies -which would come
only in the time of Solomon, then they shall have an altar only in
the place which God will choose.

Exodus 12:37 seems to give the number of Israelites who departed
in the Exodus as 600, 000 men on foot, not counting women and
children. That would probably result in a figure of two to three
million total. But the entire population of Egypt at the time was
about 3 million. One explanation is that the number comes from
gemetria, that is, adding up the numerical value of the letters of
bene ysrael, which would be 603, 000. But this does not seem to be
consistent with other passages. Another suggestions is to take the
word elef to mean families. Still another suggestion is to say the
number is magnified, multiplied by ten, for the honor of God. Then
we would have 60, 000, a manageable figure. Since the genre seems
to be epic, this proposal is quite plausible. Interestingly, the
Greek historian, Herodotus, tells us (7. 185) that the Persian
army in the second invasion of Greece had 2, 641, 610 fighting
men, and that when we add the number of those providing supplies,
the grand total was 5, 283, 220 men.

Some are surprised at the talion law - eye for eye etc. - in Ex.
21:23 ff. The answer is that it was actually a means of holding
down much more severe measures apt to be taken.

Finally, St. Paul in 1 Cor 10 sees several prefigurings -
prophecies by action instead of by words - in Exodus, chiefly, of
Baptism and Eucharist. And of course the paschal meal prefigures
the Last Supper.

Chapter 11: The Books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy

Leviticus

Leviticus interrupts the narrative of the Exodus. It is almost
entirely laws. The Old Testament contains 613 commandments, of
which 247 are in Leviticus. If that seems a great number we could
think of the output of the U. S. Congress.

The chief things that are not laws are the description of the
ordination of Aaron and his sons, and the deaths of sons of Aaron.

Chapter 8 describes the ordination ceremony for Aaron and for his
sons. On the octave, the 8th day after the ordination, a special
sacrifice was offered.

But in chapter 10 the sons of Aaron offered profane fire, fire
that was not holy, to the Lord. Then fire came forth from the
presence of the Lord, and slew them. This was to teach the
absolute holiness of the Lord: everything must be perfect. Then,
remarkably, in chapter 16, God tells Moses that even though Aaron
is the High Priest, he must not go freely whenever he wishes into
the sanctuary beyond the veil. He must do it only once a year,
with the proper ritual, on the day of Atonement.

Again, a powerful lesson in reverence - a contrast with the
careless attitude of some towards the Holy Eucharist, immeasurably
greater than the mere veil.

The whole book of Leviticus is really concerned with making
everything perfect for the Lord. This applies even to the rules of
Levitical cleanness, which seem so strange to us, in chapters 11-
15. The rules about unclean animals which were not to be eaten may
reflect some ideas of care for health. One item prohibited was
pork, and we know that if proper care is not taken, there is
danger of trichinosis.

The most remarkable commands in the book are in chapter 4, which,
deals with the concept of sheggagah, involuntary sin. Today people
are apt to say: If a person acts in good faith, that is all right,
do not bother. But Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, takes a
different attitude.

Chapter 4 deals with several types of cases in which someone - the
priest, the whole community, the prince, a private person -
violated a command of God without realizing at the time that he
was doing it. When he finds out, reparation must he made by
offering a sacrifice of the prescribed type. The NJBC at this
point (p. 64) comments well that any sin - whether voluntary or
not - is a violation of the covenant relationship. Hence the wrong
had to be righted. It was the Holiness of God who loves all that
is right in itself that willed this. A text of Rabbi Simeon ben
Eleazar (from c. 170 A.D., but citing Rabbi Meir, early in the
same century, in Tosefta Kiddushin 1:14) says: "He [anyone] has
committed a transgression. Woe to him! He has tipped the scale to
the side of debt for himself and for the world." The Holiness of
God wants this scales rebalanced. A sinner can begin to rebalance
by giving back stolen goods, or by giving up a pleasure he could
have had, to replace a stolen pleasure. But only a divine Person
incarnate could fully rebalance the scale for even one mortal sin.
The Father was not obliged to provide this, but He willed to do
so. (The concept that sin is a debt is common in the Old
Testament, intertestamental literature, in the New Testament - the
Our Father - and in Rabbinic and Patristic literature. Pope Paul
VI, in his Constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina, of Jan 9, 1967,
explicitly taught this need of rebalance. Cf. our comments on debt
in chapter 5).

For a sin committed be yad ramah, with a high hand, the Old
Testament provided no atoning sacrifice: cf. Numbers 15:30. We
think too of the Epistle to the Hebrews 10:4: "It is not possible
for the blood of bulls and goats to take sins away."

It is interesting to review a few instances of the concern for
sheggagah.

Genesis 12:17 reports that God struck Pharaoh and his household
with severe blows because, in good faith, he had Abram's wife
Sarai. Tobit's wife had been given a gift of a goat by her
employer, but Tobit (2:13) insisted she give it back, since he
merely suspected it was stolen. Psalm 19:12-13 says: "Even though
your servant is very careful in keeping them [the commandments],
yet: Who can detect his unknown transgressions [shegioth]? Purify
me from my unknown faults."

In the intertestamental literature, the Testament of Levi (3:5)
speaks of the archangels, "who minister and make propitiation...
for the ignorant sins of the righteous." The Psalms of Solomon
(3:8-9) says the just man constantly searches his house "to
completely remove all iniquity he has done in error. He makes
atonement for ignorance by fasting and by afflicting his soul."

Our Lord Himself in Luke 12:47-48 says: "The slave who knew his
master's will and did not get ready to fulfill it will get a
severe beating. But the one who did not know it but did things
[objectively] deserving blows will get off with fewer blows." In
the picture of the last judgment in Matthew 15:44, those on the
left plead ignorance - their plea is rejected. In 1 Cor 15:9 St.
Paul calls himself the least of the apostles for persecuting the
Church - which he did in ignorance, thinking he was zealous for
God. In 1 Cor 4:4 Paul says: "I have nothing on my conscience, but
that does not mean that I am innocent." He means he may have
committed sins without realizing it.

Patristic literature has many instances. Pope St. Clement I, in
his Epistle to Corinth 2:3 "You stretched out your hands to the
almighty God, begging Him to be propitious, in case you had sinned
at all unwillingly." Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 6:6) says if
one repents, God will forgive sins of ignorance. The Eastern Rite
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has a prayer before the Epistle:
"Forgive us every offense, both voluntary and involuntary."

Numbers

Numbers takes up again the narrative of Exodus, with some
additional laws interspersed, usually in some relation to the
matter of the narrative. At the end of the book, the Israelites
are opposite Jericho.

Miriam and Aaron oppose the authority of Moses in chapter 12. They
said it was not only through Moses that God spoke: He also spoke
through them too (What a modern picture!). God rebuked them at the
meeting tent. When He left, Miriam was a leper. Moses prayed for
forgiveness; God ordered her to be confined outside the camp for
seven days, and then she was cured.

In the next chapter, 13, spies are sent out to look over the land.
After 40 days they returned, and said the land indeed flowed with
milk and honey, but the people were giants, and the cities
strongly fortified. The people believed the report, and wanted to
return to Egypt. Moses and Aaron fell prostrate in prayer. Joshua
and Caleb, who had been among the scouts, told the truth about the
land. God gave the others a punishment: Only Joshua and Caleb
would be allowed to enter the land. The rest must turn back to the
desert, and remain 40 years until all would have died off, except
Joshua and Caleb.

Another revolt, in chapter 16, was led by Korah, joined by Dathan
and Abiron. Moses challenged them to a test: they were to take
their censers to offer incense; Aaron would do the same. Then he
called on God to make known His will. The earth opened and
swallowed up Korah and the men who belonged to him. Then fire came
forth and killed 250 who were part of the revolt.

With incredible hardness, the next morning the people murmured
that Moss had killed the people of the Lord!. So God sent a plague
that consumed 14,700 people. Aaron offered incense, and the plague
stopped.

When they came to Kadesh (chapter 20), Miriam died. the people
murmured again, for lack of water. Moses and Aaron at God's order
assembled them before a rock. Moses struck the rock twice, and
water came out. God told them because they were not faithful -
perhaps a lack of faith in striking the rock twice, when once was
enough - neither Moses nor Aaron would enter the promised land.

Moses sent a request to the King of Edom to allow them to pass
through - Edom was descended from Esau, brother of Jacob. Edom
refused, so the Israelites detoured. When they came to Mount Hor,
Moses took away the priestly robes of Aaron and put them on his
son Eleazar. Then Aaron died. Soon the people murmured again. God
sent saraph serpents which bit them, so that they died. Moses
prayed for help. God told him to make a bronze serpent and put it
up on a pole. Anyone bitten who would look at the serpent would
live.

This of course was a prefiguration of the cross, which brings
salvation to all. Some have worried that the first commandment
forbade making images - and here Moses made one, by order of God.
But we must notice that the command was not against all images,
but only forbade making images to worship. After some victories by
the Israelites, Balak, King of Moab, sent for a pagan seer,
Balaam, and offered him pay to curse the Israelites. God warned
Balaam not to do so, and he refused the king's offer. The princes
of Moab came a second time. God told Balaam he might go with them,
but had to do what God ordered. Balaam's ass balked at going, and
Balaam beat the ass. Then God opened the mouth of the ass, and the
ass protested at the beating. Balaam said he would have killed the
ass if he had had a sword. Then an angel appeared to Balaam, told
him to go ahead, but speak only what God willed. So, Balaam
blessed the Israelites. The King of Moab protested. Balaam then
blessed Israel again. Balak again protested. But Balaam gave an
oracle saying: "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not
near. A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter out of
Israel. It will crush the brow of Moab and the skulls of the sons
of Sheth. Edom shall be conquered, and Seir conquered... but
Israel shall grow strong."

Even Targum Onkelos, which is sparing in seeing Messianic
prophecies, along with the other Targums, sees that the star was a
prediction of the Messiah.

Soon many Israelites worshipped Baal of Peor in Moab, and had
illicit relations with the women there as part of the worship. God
ordered them executed for this. Twenty-four thousand died.

Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy is in a way an in-between book, it is the conclusion
to the Pentateuch, but it also looks forward to Joshua, Judges, 1
& 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings. It does this by its insistence on rewards
and punishment for keeping or violating the Law, and for its
almost fervent pleas to keep the Law.

Deuteronomy uses the literary form of a series of speeches by
Moses, when the Israelites are on the point of entering the
promised land. It ends with the death of Moses. Some have
foolishly said that therefore Moses could not have written it. But
it is evident that if he did write Deuteronomy - we are not sure -
another hand could have added that last bit, much like the case of
the last chapter of the Gospel of John.

The name Deuteronomy comes from the Greek title, which means
"second law". It is essentially a resume of the previous story of
the Exodus and the desert years.

Second Kings 22-23 reports that in about 622 B.C. during the reign
of Josiah King of Judah, a law book was discovered in the temple.
When Josiah heard it, he said the Lord must be angry, for they
were not fulfilling it. So he had it read in the temple before
all, and renewed the covenant, and carried out a religious reform.
Many think the book found was Deuteronomy, perhaps only the second
address of Moses, which is 4:44 to 26:19. The same account is
given also in 2 Chronicles 34-35. That version seems to say the
reform began even before the finding of the book. But when we
consider the genre of these works, such a difference is not
significant. The great purpose of the books is to teach that
fidelity to God brings reward, infidelity brings punishment. Many
examples are given to bring out and underscore this theme.

Some think that when the northern kingdom fell with the fall of
Samaria in 721, Levites fled south carrying deuteronomic
traditions. Such a circle would have been present during the time
of the good king Hezekiah (715- 687). Hezekiah made a reform
anticipating that of Josiah. But then the evil king Manasseh went
back to pagan practices and even persecuted those loyal to God:
cf. 2 Kings 21. So the loyal went underground, and put their
traditions into a book, the one found under Josiah. We should
notice that when the Israelites were under Assyria, they would be
required by Assyria to put the worship of Assyrian gods into
Jerusalem.

In chapter 4, Moses strongly urges the people to keep the Law, for
then the other nations will say: This is really a wise and
intelligent people for having such a law. Psalm 119 is nothing but
an extended praise of the law. Later Judaism highly praised
wisdom, and even personified it, e.g., in Wisdom 9:9-18: "With
thee is wisdom, who knows thy works, and who was present when thou
didst make the world... Send her forth from the holy heavens...
For she knows and understands all things... For the reasoning of
mortals is worthless... for a perishable body weighs down the
soul, and this earthly tent burdens the thoughtful mind."

The idea that the law contains wisdom is wonderfully true. For God
does not give His commands just to exercise authority: our
obedience does Him no good. Yet He wants us to obey for two
reasons: 1)His Holiness loves all that is right and good, and it
is right and good that creatures obey their Creator; 2)He, being
Generosity, loves to give us abundant good things. But His giving
is all in vain if we are not open to receive. His commandments
explain what is needed to be open to receive. They also steer us
away from the evils we would encounter in the very nature of
things if we did not obey. For example, after a drunk comes a
headache; after much premarital sex, there is great danger of a
loveless marriage. For to love is not a feeling - even though
feelings tend to go along with it - rather it is to will good to
another for the other's sake. To use another's body for sensory
pleasure, thereby putting him/her into a state such that if death
came, they would be miserable forever - this is not willing good,
it is closer to the opposite. Hence St. Augustine wrote well, in
Confessions 1. 2: "Every disordered soul is its own punishment."

The Shema is found in Dt. 6:4-5: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God
is one Lord. You must love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with all your strength." Every
Israelite would recite this daily. As we learned from the Hittite
treaties, to love God meant to obey Him.

The most dominant feature of Deuteronomic theology appears
strongly in 4:24-27. Moses tells them that if after they have
entered the land they make and worship an idol: "I call to witness
against you heaven and earth, that you will quickly perish utterly
from the land... The Lord will scatter you among the peoples and
you will be left few in number." Dt. 29:21-27 repeats the threat
in even more dramatic form: The Lord will make the land sulphur
and salt. "And the nations will ask: Why did the Lord do this to
this land?... And the answer will be: Because they forsook the
covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers, which He made with
them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt." Later, in 1
Kings 9, when Solomon had completed the great temple, God appeared
to him and said He would put his eyes and heart there for all
time. But He added that if Solomon or his children would turn and
not keep the commandments, then: "I will cut off Israel from the
land I gave them and will cast out of my sight the temple which I
have consecrated to my name. Israel will become a proverb among
all peoples... They will say: Why did the Lord do in this way to
this land and to this house? Then they will say: Because they
forsook the Lord their God who brought their fathers up out of the
land of Egypt."

The same sad and frightening threat appears again in almost the
same words in Jeremiah 22:4-9. Finally Our Lord Himself wept over
Jerusalem (Lk 19:41- 44): "And approaching it, and seeing the
city, He wept over it saying: "If you yourself had known in this
day the things that are for your well-being. But now, they are
hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you and your
enemies will surround you with a palisade and will straiten you on
every side and will cast you down to the ground, you and your
children in you, and will not leave a stone upon a stone, because
you did not know the time of your visitation."

Some foolish commentators, convinced there can be nothing
supernatural, no such a thing as a real prophecy, say this
prophecy of our Lord is so clear, it must have been made up after
the event. They forget that in any ancient siege this is the
normal thing: an army surrounds the city until it no longer can
hold out. Compare also the sad implications of the images of the
two olive trees in the Epistle to the Romans, 11: 17-18.

In Dt. 5:2-3 Moses told them that God made the covenant not just
with their fathers, but was making it with them that day. Since
the covenant is a two- sided pact, this is clear: God wanted them
to ratify the same covenant He had once made with their ancestors
(cf. Ex. 19:5).

In Dt. 5:9-10 we meet the mysterious promise of God to punish the
iniquity of the fathers down to the third or fourth generation,
but to bless the good for a thousand generations. How does this
fit with the later words of God to Jeremiah, in 31:29-30, saying
that they must reject the proverb: the Fathers ate sour grapes,
and the teeth of the children are set on edge. Rather, each one
will suffer only for his own iniquity?

There is no problem with the favorable side, blessings for a
thousand generations. But as to the punishment for three or four
generations, even though God does not positively inflict it upon
children for the sins of their parents, according to His words to
Jeremiah, yet the effect is apt to happen in other ways. First,
children brought up by wicked parents are apt to learn the bad
ways of the parents. Also because a predisposition to sin, even to
crime, can be transmitted by biochemical inheritance. We see this
from a remarkable report in Science News (August 20-1983, pp. 122-
25) telling how a chemist from Argonne Laboratories went to
Stateville Prison, in Illinois, took hair samples from violent
criminals, found a remarkable correlation between highs and lows
of some trace elements and violent behavior. (Cf. a similar report
in Science News of Nov. 10, 1990, p. 293, on data from Archives of
General Psychiatry of November, 1990).

Some are shocked at the severity of the ban (Hebrew herem), a
theme found in many places, e.g. in Dt. 7:1-5, where God ordered
them to destroy the nations in the land of Canaan, without mercy.
Two things are to be noticed. First, God wants them to be free of
the temptation - which later experience showed was fatal - of
joining in the idolatrous worship of those nations. Second, God is
the supreme Lord of life. If He wills to end the lives of any
persons, that is His right. And we recall that in Genesis 15:16
God promised to give them the land, but not until after the fourth
time-span (Hebrew dor, which can mean either generation or period
of time). He said He would wait, because the sins of the Amorites
had not yet reached their fullness. For even one mortal sin, a
person merits death. If his sins reach their fullness, go the
limit, this is all the more fully true. As to the deaths of
children: life is a moment to moment gift from God. If He just
stops giving, or uses a human instrument to end it, there is
nothing wrong.

Finally, there is the dramatic account in chapter 34 of the death
of Moses at the age of 120. He went up Mt. Nebo and saw the
promised land, but God had told him because of an infidelity
(Numbers 20:11-12) he would not be permitted to enter it. So by
command of God Moses died there.

Chapter 12: The Books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth

Joshua

It is common today to say that the book of Joshua had a complex
history. This means not only the use of the sources JEP, but also
of other old traditions. A major reason for this claim is the fact
that there are so many parallels between Moses and Joshua: both
sent out spies to investigate; both crossed waters miraculously;
both held a special Passover celebration; both had a vision tell
him to remove shoes, because he was standing on holy ground; both
supported the victory of the army by holding up hands or a rod;
both gave farewell discourses to the people.

But really, here we see another case of the weakness of mere
internal evidence for a favored position. Of course, those
parallels exist. But is it so unlikely that the events were real
in both cases? There is nothing very remarkable about any or all
of the cases, given the fact that both men are special delegates
of God. In the opening part of the book, at 1:5 God tells Joshua:
"As I was with Moses, so will I be with you." The very last lines
of Deuteronomy record that Moses laid his hands on Joshua and so
Joshua was filled with the spirit of wisdom.

Then there are the archaeological problems of cities said to have
been conquered by Joshua. We saw above, in chapter 10, that new
research now seems to solve the chief problem, that about Jericho.

Another problem city is that of Ai, which Joshua is said to have
destroyed (8:1-29). It has been usual to identify Ai with Et-Tell,
where no ruins have been located at a time suitable for the Exodus
(let us recall from chapter 10 that the date of the Exodus is far
from settled). John J. Bimson (Redating the Exodus and Conquest,
Sheffield, 1978, pp. 215-25 gives impressive, even if not
conclusive evidence, to show that the real location is at Beitin,
still to be excavated. (cf. also the article by J. Bimson and D.
Livingston, in BAR, Sept-Oct, 1987, pp. 40ff, and attacks in BAR
Nov- Dec. 1987, and BAR Mar-April, 1988, and reply by D.
Livingston in BAR Jan- Feb. 1989. The language of the two
attacking articles is so intemperate as to damage the reader's
confidence in the attackers. Thus the article of Mar-April, 1988
says that even the slashing attack in Nov-Dec. 1987 "does too much
honor to the 'lunatic fringe' growing around the archaeology of
Palestine").

Actually a 15th century date - Bimson has proposed 1460 - fits
better with the archaeological evidence than a 13th century date,
which is the more favored one. The archaeological evidence fits
well with the following cities with a 15th century date: Jericho,
Bethel, Hazor, Debir, Lachish, Hebron, Hormah, Dan. We have
already commented on Ai, and we noted above that the base for the
13th century theory is not as solid as some think.

We do not mean to say we have refuted the claims of several
sources in Joshua. We merely wish to point out that the evidence
for them is weak. The actual genre as we said before, is probably
something similar to epic, in contrast to Judges, which seems more
sober. Really, the book of Joshua itself admits that not all the
land was conquered - 13:1 says the Lord told Joshua that Joshua
was by then very old, and much of the land still remained to be
conquered.

A fascinating problem comes at 10:12: Joshua, to be able to
complete the victory over the enemy, prayed that the sun might
stand still, and it did. But this is hard to interpret, for the
text itself adds: "Is not this recorded in the Book of Jashar"? So
inspiration would guarantee only that such a thing was recorded in
a nonbiblical account. It would not guarantee that the nonbiblical
account was true, especially since the words are in poetic form.
Without comment in either direction, we might add that a heavily
controversial Russian scientist, I. Velikovsky, in a 1950 book,
Worlds in Collision, proposed the theory that what is now the
planet Venus was some other celestial body that strayed into the
solar system, made a close pass at the earth, causing the rotation
to reverse, and then settled down as a planet. A good physicist
would admit that such a reversal was possible - most scientists
today (though not all) deny it really happened. If it happened,
there would be a double length day on one side of the globe, a
double night on the other. Strangely, the 5th century B.C. Greek
historian, Herodotus, asserts (in 2:142) that the Egyptian priests
had told him that within a period of 11,340 years, the place of
the rising and setting of the sun had shifted four times.

Near the end of the book, at 24:16-28, Joshua made a renewal of
the covenant at Shechem. An interesting question arises here.
There is no mention in the book of a conquest of Shechem by
Joshua. If the city was at the time inhabited - which is debated -
would there have been some special arrangement needed to let
Joshua conduct this large ceremony there? Some think Shechem was
already Israelite centuries before. They appeal to Genesis 48:22
where the dying Jacob gives Shechem to Joseph.

Judges

In a way the genre of Judges seems quite different from that of
Joshua. And it surely is different. Yet, as we saw, Joshua 13:1
admits Joshua did not conquer all the land.

The book seems to be a collection of stories with a deuteronomic
purpose - that is, to show that sin brings punishment, repentance
brings forgiveness. In such a pattern, exactness of detail might
not be considered important. Many times over through one of the
judges, God brought deliverance when repentance came. The theme is
set in general form in the second chapter. In the first 3 verses,
"an angel of the Lord" tells them in the name of God that they
have not kept the covenant: therefore, God would not defeat all
the enemies of the land as He had said He would. Verses 10-23 say
the same: A new generation came that did not know the Lord and
what He had done for them. They worshipped the Baals and God was
angry: He would not clear out their enemies as He would had done
otherwise.

A major judge was the woman Deborah. As punishment for false
worship, God had let the Israelites fall into the hands of King
Jabin of Hazor. At that time Deborah was functioning as a sort of
judicial judge, sitting under a palm tree and hearing cases. She
sent for Barak and told him God commanded that he fight against
Jabin. Barak was unwilling to do so unless she would come with
him. The king's general Sisera came out with 900 iron chariots.
The Lord put Sisera to rout. He fled to the tent of Jael, wife of
the Kenite Heber, and rested there. But when Sisera went to sleep:
Jael drove a tent peg through his head and killed him - in
violation of the sacred rule of hospitality. In the next chapter
we read the Canticle of Deborah, which recounts basically the same
event.

The next judge was Gideon. God had handed over the Israelites to
Midian for seven years. The Midianites made it almost impossible
for Israel to have food, for they came and took whatever they had.
While Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press to save it
from the Midianites, an angel of the Lord appeared to him, told
him he would save his people. God gave Gideon two miraculous signs
to assure him He was with Him. At first Gideon had over 30, 000
troops. God insisted he must reduce them to only 300 men - to show
that it was by God's power, not theirs, that victory would come.
Gideon employed a clever stratagem, and did win the victory.

In this account we see for the second time a remarkable pattern of
speech. At times the text says an angel of God spoke to Gideon; at
other times, it is God Himself who speaks. We saw the same thing
in chapter 2. This pattern has led many to say that the words
"angel of the Lord" are only a literary device: that there are no
separate beings called angels. We agree the pattern could suggest
that. However, it become abundantly clear from later parts of the
Old Testament, and throughout the New Testament, that angels are
separate beings. Since it is a general rule that we must
understand Scripture with the eyes of the original readers, we
must admit there are angels. The fact that the angels often
appeared in human form, e.g., to Tobit, led to hesitation among
the Fathers of the Church. But finally it became clear that angels
have no bodies.

A special case is that of Samson. His birth was announced to his
mother by an angel of the Lord, who commanded that he be a
Nazarite from birth, and that no razor should touch his head.
Samson possessed astounding physical strength: he even tore a lion
apart with his bare hands. But he lost it by infidelity to the
Lord. He married a Philistine woman, Delilah, who beguiled him
into telling how he could lose his strength: by having his hair
cut. She arranged to have that done while Samson was asleep; the
Philistines made him prisoner, put out his eyes, forced him to
work grinding grain. After a while, his hair began to grow again.
The Philistines put on a banquet, and wanted to have Samson amuse
them. He asked a boy who was leading him to bring him to the
pillars that were the support of the hall. He asked God to give
back his strength, received it, shook the pillars, and died in the
ruins with a great number of Philistines.

The story of Samson at first sight does not seem to fit the usual
pattern of the judges. Samson did not lead forces against the
enemies of Israel. Yet God made use of even Samson's sin to bring
the deaths of many of the Philistines.

So the 'Judges" were not in general judicial officers, they were
mostly charismatic leaders that is, leaders with a special divine
mission to do the work God intended.

Ruth

Sometime during the period of the Judges, Elimelech went from
Bethlehem to Moab during the time of a famine, along with his wife
Naomi and two sons. He died in Moab. His sons married Moabite
women, Orpah and Ruth. When the two husbands died, Naomi wanted to
go back to Bethlehem, and her devoted daughter in law Ruth went
with her. Back in Bethlehem, a wealthy landowner, Boaz, found Ruth
attractive, and married her. Their son was Obed, the grandfather
of King David.

The story is charming. Was it historical?. That is debated. We
notice the Hebrews put the book in the third group called
Writings. It has many Aramaic forms for so short a book. Even if
it may not be historical, it does preserve a real tradition about
the ancestry of David, and hence of Jesus. In Jewish liturgy it is
read on the feast of Pentecost.

Chapter 13: The Books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Ezra-
Nehemiah

The two books of Samuel were probably originally one book, and
similarly for the two books of Kings. Some versions, following the
Septuagint, call these same books the four books of Kings.

The pattern in these books is the familiar deuteronomic picture:
sin brings punishment, repentance and good bring salvation. They
are basically historical, with perhaps a bit of freedom since they
are written chiefly to give the deuteronomic message, with
illustrations from history.

Samuel was born of a mother who had long been sterile, but
obtained him by prayer. He proved to be the last of the judges,
the first of the prophets. When he was still quite young, she gave
him to the service of the temple at Shiloh, where Eli was the
priest. While there, God spoke to him, and told him of the doom
awaiting the house of Eli because of the wickedness of Eli's sons,
who died in the battle of Aphek, c. 1050.

In 4:3 we meet a strange line (if we translate the Hebrew
literally - most versions soften it). When the battle was over the
Hebrews said: "Why did the Lord strike us today before the face of
the Philistines?" They knew well the Philistines had hit them, but
it was common to attribute to the direct action of God things He
only permitted - we saw this in the case of the hardening of
Pharaoh's heart before the Exodus.

After the defeat, the Hebrews brought the ark of the covenant,
hoping it would protect them. But the Philistines defeated them
and captured the ark itself. But God sent plagues upon the
Philistines, so that they returned the ark, along with gold
ornaments, in reparation. Strangely, when the ark did return, it
was neglected until David later brought it to Jerusalem.

The defeats were making clear that the loose organization of
Israel, held together chiefly by having a central shrine, could
hardly match the skilled Philistines, who also had a monopoly of
iron working (1 Sam. 13:19-22).

Further, when the people saw that the sons of Samuel, by then old,
were corrupt, they asked him for a king. He was reluctant, and God
was displeased, yet he did give them a king. (there is no conflict
between the attitudes shown in chapters 8 and 9 as is often
charged: God and Samuel regret, but grant the request).

In 1 Sam 9:14-27, God reveals to Samuel His choice, Saul. In
chapter 10, Samuel goes through the ritual of choosing a king by
lot - of course, God managed the lots. (Normally it is wrong to
call on lots to learn God's will, unless there is a special divine
inspiration). Saul was made king at Gilgal, c. 1020.

For a time, Saul had considerable victories over the Philistines.
But soon he disobeyed twice. First when Samuel did not come in
time to offer sacrifice before a battle, Saul did it himself
(13:8-15). Samuel reproached him saying: "Obedience is better than
sacrifice." The outward sign, the offering of an animal, is
valuable only if it expresses the interior disposition, which is
basically obedience to God. This was true even of the sacrifice of
Jesus: Rom 5:19. So Samuel meant that without obedience, the
offering was worthless, and worse. Later, in chapter 15, Saul
violated the ban, in saving King Agag of Amalek and the best
sheep. Saul pleaded he only wanted the sheep for sacrifice. Samuel
again rejected his plea, told him again, God would not continue
his dynasty. There is no reason why Saul, in stubbornness, could
not have done both things, so claims of a clash here are not
warranted.

We ask why God rejected Saul's dynasty for these two sins, but did
not reject David for greater sins, adultery, covered by what
amounted to murder. The answer lies in a distinction of two
orders, the external, and the internal order. The external order
deals with what position a person will have, e.g., king, legal
specialist, scholar etc. The interior order is concerned with the
attainment of eternal salvation. Since God wills all to be saved
(1 Tim 2:4), he offers grace in this interior order very
abundantly. We receive all those graces which we do not reject.
But in the exterior order, the rule is that the Spirit gives what
He wills, where He wills (cf. 1 Cor 12:11). We do not know the
reason for the choice of David, but he was, after the sins we
mentioned, unusually meek and holy. Perhaps God wanted such a one
to be an ancestor of His Son.

Then, in chapter 17, David, a young man, slew the Philistine
giant, Goliath. Saul seemed happy at first, but when the women
went out singing: "Saul slew his thousands, David his ten
thousands", Saul became jealous, probably insanely jealous. He
pursued David to kill him. He even killed the priests of Nob for
having aided David.

At the cave of Adullam, David could have easily killed Saul, but
did not do so, saying meekly he would not touch the anointed one
of the Lord. A second incident of the same sort is told in chapter
24.

After this, Samuel died. Soon Saul had to face a large Philistine
force. He went to a medium at Endor, asked her to call up the
spirit of Samuel. She did, and Samuel told him he and his sons
would be killed in battle the next day. Among them died Jonathan,
who had been a fast friend of David.

Soon after the death of Saul, c. 1000 BC, Judah accepted David as
king in Hebron. Later the northern tribes also accepted him.

David then conquered Jerusalem, made it his capital, brought the
ark there.

One day David chanced to see a woman washing herself on a nearby
roof. It was Bathsheba, wife of Uriah. David sent for her, and she
conceived. To cover up, he invited Uriah to dine with him, hoping
he would go to his wife, and thus the sin would be covered up.
Uriah did not. So David had him put in the front line in battle,
deserted, so he would die. Nathan the prophet came and rebuked
David, who promptly repented.

In his last years, David's son Absalom, after winning people over
by flattery, proclaimed himself king. David ordered his forces to
spare Absalom, but they did not. David wept bitterly.

Near the very end, another son, Adonijah, proclaimed himself king.
But Bathsheba, with the help of Nathan, induced David to appoint
their son Solomon as king, and to crown him at once.

David had wanted to build a temple to the Lord, but Nathan in an
oracle told him instead that the Lord would build a house, an
everlasting dynasty, for him (2 Sam. 7). His son Solomon, under
whom Israel reached a height of prosperity greater than before or
since, did build that temple. After he dedicated it, God told
Solomon of His pleasure, but also warned that if he or his
successors proved unfaithful, He would take his presence from
there, destroy the temple, and scatter them over the earth (1
Kings 9).

God offered Solomon any gift, Solomon asked for wisdom. Yet in
spite of that, he because fatuous later on, married many foreign
wives, and built shrines for their gods. Of course the people
gladly joined in the false worship, to which they were so prone.

Therefore (1 Kings 11) God told Solomon there would be a
punishment, but not in his lifetime, because of the goodness of
David.

The punishment came in a special way. When Solomon died, Judah
readily accepted his son Rehoboam as king. But the northern tribes
assembled at Shechem and asked Rehoboam to modify the harsh taxes
and forced labor Solomon had imposed on them (1 Kings 12). His
father's advisors urged him to comply, but his younger friends
said otherwise. He told them: My father beat you with whips, I
will beat you with scorpions. The punishment was withdrawal of
light to Rehoboam (cf. Isaiah 29:14).

The northern kingdom withdrew, creating a split that never healed.
They chose Jeroboam as their king. He built shrines at Dan and
Bethel, each with a golden bull, to keep people from going to
Jerusalem. The northern kingdom lasted until 721. King Hoshea,
foolishly hoping for help from Egypt, refused tribute to Assyria.
Then Assyria took Samaria, and brought the northern kingdom to an
end.

The remainder of the books of Kings tell a sad, and mostly dull
tale: all the kings of the north followed in the footsteps of the
sins of Jeroboam. Of the southern kings, only Hezekiah and Josiah
escape criticism. To reward Hezekiah, God protected Jerusalem from
being taken by Sennacherib of Assyria in 701; Josiah too was good
ruler, but thinking Assyria was weakened (and it was) tried for
independence, and failed. He himself died in the battle of Megiddo
in 609, trying to keep Egypt from aiding Assyria. His son
Jehoiakim (609-598) undid his father's reform. Judah became a
vassal of Assyria. Assyria fell to a coalition of Babylonians and
Medes. When Jehoiakim thought Babylon was weak, he revolted. He
was dead by the time Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon came down in 597
and sacked the temple and city, deported thousands of upper-class
citizens and the next king, Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim.
Nebuchadnezzar put on the throne the weak Zedekiah. He refused the
advice of Jeremiah. Nebuchadnezzar came again in 587, deported
more leading citizens, left only some of the country's poor.

There is a bright spot in the otherwise dull story of the kings:
the cycles of stories about Elijah (1 Kings, 17:1 - 19-21) and
Elisha (2 Kings 2:1 - 8:29). Elijah was the great prophet whose
coming at the end is foretold by Sirach 48:10, Malachi 3:23-24,
and by Our Lord Himself in Matthew 17. He also appeared with Jesus
at the transfiguration. Elisha is praised briefly in Sirach 48:12-
15. So they were real figures. Some, unfortunately, speak of their
stories as mere legends.

The two books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah form a unit, and
were probably originally one. The separation of Ezra and Nehemiah
came centuries later.

The Chronicler - for we may think of the author of all four parts
by that name - had a purpose different from that of the
deuteronomists: he wanted to show that worship like that conducted
by David, with full observance of purity laws, was the way to
insure the future of Israel. The dynasty of David was gone, so
this was the real means of unity. Hence the Chronicler devotes
much space to the reign of David, and does not mention his sins.

The opening chapters of First Chronicles is largely just
genealogies, from Adam to the start of the monarchy. Detailed
coverage starts only with the beginning of the rule of David. Then
the narrative runs closely parallel to Samuel and Kings, which are
drawn on extensively, except that information on the northern
kings is practically absent.

Cyrus of Persia in 539, as part of a more enlightened policy,
allowed the Hebrews to return from exile, and encouraged them to
rebuild their temple. The ten northern tribes did not return, they
had been absorbed. But Judah and Benjamin did go back. However,
they did not at once rebuild the temple, so God urged them through
the prophet Haggai in 520, and then the temple was completed in
515. There had been opposition from the Persian governor of
Samaria, which was finally resolved when the decree of Cyrus was
found in the royal archives, searched by command of King Darius.

The second major event was the reordering of Jewish life in
Jerusalem, through the work of Ezra and Nehemiah. Here chronology
is a problem. Ezra 7:1ff says Ezra's ministry started in the
seventh year of Artaxerxes; Nehemiah 2:1 says Nehemiah's work
began in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. The trouble is that
there were three Persian kings with that name.

Nehemiah 8 describes a week-long occasion when Ezra read the Law
to the assembled people, while the Levites explained it. Some
scholars think this work of the Levites was really the beginning
of Targums - for many of the Jews during the exile had changed
from the Hebrew to the Aramaic language.

Both Ezra (9-10) and Nehemiah (13:23-27) denounced marriages of
Jews to nonJews. Ezra actually called on them to dismiss their
foreign wives and children!

There has been much discussion of the original structure of this
four part work. The reconstruction by F. M. Cross "A
Reconstruction of Jewish Restoration," in Journal of Biblical
Literature (94 [1975] 4-18) has won much favor. He proposed three
stages: 1)First and Second Chronicles, after chapter 9, was
composed between 520, when the temple foundation was laid, and its
completion in 515; 2)The work of Ezra, half a century later; 3)
Near 400 B.C., a final editor inserted the memoirs of Nehemiah and
added the genealogies of First Chronicles 1-9.

Chapter 14: The preexilic Prophets

Introduction: The word prophet has at least two senses in the Old
Testament. There are ecstatic prophets, and classic prophets.

The ecstatic prophets are marked by odd, even frenzied behavior.
In 1 Samuel 19:20-14 David had just escaped, for the time, the
hands of Saul. But Saul sent messengers to arrest him. The
messengers found Samuel seeming to lead a band of frenzied
prophets. The messengers fell into frenzy too. Saul himself then
pursued, but the "spirit of God" came upon him, and he fell into
the same state. He took off his clothes and lay naked all that day
and night.

Was this really a spirit of God, or merely what the onlookers
would call that? It is hard to imagine the spirit of God leading
to uncontrollable frenzy and making a king lie naked all day and
night. In 1 Cor 14 St. Paul speaks much of prophets, and compares
the gift of tongues to them, unfavorably for tongues. Paul speaks
of a supernatural gift of prophecy, and even then, in 14:32-33 we
find: "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;
God is not a God of uproar but of peace." Such then is the nature
of really supernatural prophecy, at least, such as it was known to
St. Paul. Such an example as that of 1 Samuel 19 does not seem to
be of supernatural origin especially since the spirits of the
prophets in 1 Samuel seem not to be subject to the prophets. As to
the statement that Samuel was leading them, he could have fallen
into a nonsupernatural frenzied state, or could have feigned it,
to protect David from Saul.

The ecstatic type of prophets in the times of the kings were often
in large groups, of even 400 at a time. Their prophecy might be
induced by music. Kings often consulted them, and at times they
gave messages such as the kings wanted, showing that at least in
such cases there was nothing supernatural about their state. In
other cultures there are similar phenomena, e.g., the dervishes.

Even Abraham is called a prophet in Genesis 20:7 and the whole
people of Israel are called prophets in Psalm 105:15. So the term
is not entirely precise. Before the great prophets there were
lesser nonecstatic prophets, such as Samuel (except for the case
mentioned), Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, and Nathan.

But it is clear that the classic prophets, of the type of Amos,
Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are very different from the
ecstatic prophets. Amos explicitly says (7:12-16) he is not a
prophet - he meant he was not an ecstatic prophet.

The call of a prophet may have come by way of a vision (e.g.,
Isaiah 6), or also through an interior communication. Such an
experience enabled the prophet to understood God in a way not
given to others. Thus they had a basis for judging events in God's
way. So the prophet was a spokesman for God. The image of Ezekiel
eating a scroll given him by God (2:8 - 3:3. cf. also Jer 15:16)
is probably a way of expressing this. Foretelling the future was
not the basic work of a prophet, it was only part of his whole
message.

The books of the greatest prophets are collections of things they
had said on various occasions. The collections could have been
made by others, e.g., Baruch for Jeremiah. It is not always easy
to determine the original setting. And continuity may be poor,
especially in Jeremiah. The fact that so many prophetic utterances
were in poetry makes it more difficult to understand them, for
they may indulge in poetic fancy.

Besides the exaggerations of poetry - and Semitic poets at that -
we need to keep some other things in mind to understand the
prophecies of the future. St. Augustine, in City of God 17. 3,
notices that some predictions refer to Old Testament persons, some
to New Testament persons, some to both. He finds an indication of
this latter when something that at first sight would seem to refer
to a certain figure, does not entirely fit him, e.g., the prophecy
of Nathan to David in 2 Samuel 7:12 speaks of a successor who will
come "after David sleeps with his fathers." At first sight this
would seem to be Solomon. But Augustine notices that Solomon
became king not after David's death, but before it: so he
concludes the prophecy is only partly fulfilled in Solomon: we
must look ahead also to Christ. And only Christ would have the
kind of realm and reign predicted (cf. Psalm 72:8, which is
entitled, "Of Solomon").

Further, some predictions may have a less glorious fulfillment
than it might have been, e.g., Gen. 49:10, as we saw, says a ruler
will not be lacking from Judah until the time of the Messiah. This
came true, but would have had a much more glorious fulfillment, in
splendid kings on the throne of David, if the Jews had not been so
unfaithful so many times.

Amos: Amos began his mission around 760. He foretold the
punishment of the northern kingdom - it fell in 721 with the fall
of Samaria. So it was announced far in advance, ample time for
people to reform, and also to say: He has been threatening in vain
for so many years, a prophet of doom and gloom.

Amos came from the town of Tekoa, about 12 miles south of
Jerusalem. He had been a shepherd, but he ministered in the
northern kingdom.

His speech opened dramatically. God said through him:

"For three crimes of Damascus and for four, I will not take back
my word... ." This was a threat against Aram or Damascus. He
continued with such threats against other gentile nations,
Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab. His hearers were probably
pleased to hear the gentiles denounced. But then he turned on
Israel (with perhaps - the authenticity is debated - a prophecy
against Judah in between). He accused them of crimes against the
poor and the powerless. They thought their sacrifices would make
up for it all, and the fact that God has chosen their nation. Amos
shattered their illusions. In fact, early in chapter 1, he said
the very fact that they had had special favor and proved unworthy,
called for greater punishment.

Then (chapter 7) Amaziah, a priest of Bethel, reported to king
Jeroboam what was going on: Amos was foretelling Jeroboam would
die by the sword, and the people would go into exile. So Amaziah
told Amos to go back to Judah where he came from. Amos replied
that he was no prophet - that is, not an ecstatic type, nor did he
belong to a company of prophets - he was just a shepherd.

Yet at the end of his prophecy, Amos says God will not completely
destroy Jacob, there will be a remnant, and God will raise up the
fallen hut of David. He will send the Messiah.

Two comments: 1) We noted the repeated lines, "for three crimes
and for four". The Hebrew poets thought it artistic to repeat
things in parallelism, using different words. But when they had to
repeat a number, they did so with the next higher number.
Interestingly, such patterns were found in the second millennium
B.C. in Urgarit to the north. (cf. Stories from Ancient Canaan,
edited and translated by Michael D. Coogan, Westminster, 1978,
esp. p. 16).

2)We see Amos confidently predicting restoration, and the critics
do not deny he did it. Jeremiah will do the same (cf. especially
chapters 29-31). So why could not one Isaiah have foreseen a
restoration, even without a special revelation, as part of the
deuteronomic pattern of sin -punishment - repentance -
restoration. It is generally admitted that the prophets helped
contribute this way of thinking to the historical books. Thus we
could answer the chief argument against the unity of Isaiah. There
would still be one objection to the unit of Isaiah, which we will
consider later.

Hosea: He began his mission only a short time after that of Amos,
i.e., near the end of the reign of Jeroboam, which ended in 746.
He too prophesied in the northern kingdom, long before its fall
with the capture of Samaria in 721. Again, as with Amos, we have
prophecies made long before their fulfillment.

The first three chapters deal with the marriage of Hosea. Every
detail is debated - was there such a thing? or is it only
imaginary, to teach a lesson. Further, many editors rearrange the
text, moving a block to a different position. Even St. Jerome
admitted there are puzzles in Hosea.

But the chief message is clear in spite of all these things. Hosea
seems to have had an unfaithful wife. She bore him children to
whom he gave prophetic names: Jezreel (the name of the place where
Jehu brought to an end the dynasty of Omri by bloodshed. (2 Kings
9-10). The name foretells the fall of the northern kingdom; lo-
ruhama ("she is not pitied") for God will not longer pity Israel;
and lo-ammi ("not my people") for Israel was going to fall out of
the people of God. Hosea through this imagery denounces the sins
of Israel who is pictured as the spouse of

God, but unfaithful. The people seemed so impressed with the idea
that they were God's chosen people that they practically thought
they could buy His favor by sacrifices that were empty
externalism, without the interior obedience that would make them
worthwhile. So God said (6:6): "It is observance of the covenant
(hesed) that I desire, and not sacrifice, and knowledge of God
rather than holocausts." Knowledge here carries the sense of the
verb yada, which means to know and love. It is not mere
intellectual knowledge. Also, when God says he wants one thing and
not the other, we must understand the Hebrew pattern which,
lacking the degrees of comparison (e.g., good, better, best -
much, more, most etc.) would say one things is wanted, and not the
other. It really means God wants obedience more than holocausts.
We recall the words of Samuel to Saul in 1 Samuel 15:22.

It is important to see that Hosea not only speaks of the covenant,
but that he compares God's relation to His people to that of
husband and wife.

Hosea foretells that for many days Israel will sit without a
judge, priest, or sacrifice. This probably has two fulfillments,
one in the exile, the other in the time after their rejection of
Christ, up to the end of time. St. Paul in Romans 9:25-26 uses a
free combination of Hosea 2:24 (RSV = 2:23) and 2:1 (RSV = 1:10)
to refer to the conversion of Israel before the end of time.

Hosea even boldly invented the name Beth-aven, "house of iniquity"
to use in place of Beth-el, "House of God". Hosea still loved
Gomer in spite of her infidelity and hoped to restore her. So God
continued to love Israel, who is compared to His spouse, so that
her sins are adultery, even when it was no longer part of His
people of God. He planned a restoration. (cf. Ephesians 5:21-33).

On of the most tender expressions of God's love is found in
chapter 11.

Isaiah: His ministry began about 742, "the year King Uzziah died",
and ran until sometime in the reign of Hezekiah (715-687). He
worked chiefly in Judah. That was a very turbulent time for Judah
and others, since Assyria was expanding to the west, aiming at a
world empire. This period included the Syro-Ephraimitic War:
Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, son of Remaliah King of Israel
tried to force Ahaz, King of Judah to join a coalition against
Assyria. They even invaded Judah in 735. Isaiah advised against
joining them, even offered (chapter 7) a sign in the sky or in the
depths. Isaiah called for faith, meaning total commitment to God.
That would make Judah safe. Ahaz refused, paid tribute to Tiglath
Pileser of Assyria, and became a vassal.

Most scholars today see three Isaiahs, for chapters 1-39, 40-55,
and 56-66, describing three periods: threat of punishment, exile,
and restoration. We consider this is possible, but there is surely
no convincing proof that there were three. For this is simply the
familiar deuteronomic pattern we have met before. And, as we
pointed out, Amos and Hosea show the same pattern. Isaiah merely
fills it in more thoroughly.

Another attempt against the unity of Isaiah comes from the fact
that there is a the prediction of the actions of Cyrus by name
(44: 28). But this argument is valid only if one insists there can
be no true prophecies. Actually, as we will soon see, Isaiah did
predict things about the Messiah in three passages. Micah 5:2 his
contemporary predicted by name the place of birth of the Messiah.
And someone less than a major prophet in 1 Kings 13:2 foretells
actions of King Josiah, to come about 300 years later (which are
recorded in 1 Kings 23:15). Flavius Josephus, in Antiquities XI.
1. 1-2 asserts that Cyrus before releasing the Jews from
captivity, read the prophecy about himself in Isaiah, and that
this influenced his decision.

The book opens with a denunciation of the sinfulness of the
people, with special stress on the fact that sacrifices then were
mere externalism. This thought is crystallized in a passage
farther on, in 29:13: "This people honors me with their lips, but
their hearts are far from me." Older critics used to claim that
Isaiah and other major prophets rejected sacrifices. But it was
the empty external "participation" that they denounced. Then 29:14
goes on to say that because of this defective worship, "the wisdom
of the wise will perish". This would be a punishment like that
given through Rehoboam.

Some major messianic prophecies are found in Isaiah, which the
targums recognize as messianic - except, in their present form,
for 7:14.

We will compare two texts, namely 9:5-6 and 7:14. The former says
a child is born to us, whose name will be called wonderful
counselor, God the mighty... 7:14 as St. Matthew renders it, says
the virgin will conceive and bear a son.

It is good to begin with 9:5-6 which foretells a wonderful child
who will be the wonderful counselor, and even the Mighty God. The
NAB version, "God- hero" is simply incorrect, as even modern
Jewish versions see. The Hebrew el gibbor occurs a few other times
in the OT, and always means Mighty God. Modern Jews avoid saying
the Messiah is God the Mighty by changing the structure and word
order, e.g., Samson Levey (The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation,
Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1974 p. 45) says: "The wonderful
counselor, the Mighty God... has called his name 'Prince of
Peace'." In his rendering of the Targum, Levey says his name has
been called "messiah' by the one who gives wonderful counsel, the
Mighty God, etc. We grant the structure can take this
interpretation both in the Hebrew and in the targum, but it surely
need not. To render the Hebrew of 9:5-6 as Levey does is a bit
difficult, for how can one know what titles are part of the
subject and what part of the object? We grant that the targum can
be understood as Levey does it with somewhat less difficulty. For
in the targum there is the Aramaic phrase min qedem, which can
mean either "from of old" or" by" With "by" the targum could read:
"His name shall be called by the wonderful counselor, (by) the
mighty God, (by) the one who lives forever: Messiah. It is easier
to take both targum and Hebrew to mean his name will be called
wonderful counselor, Mighty God... .

Now it is remarkable that the Targum as we have it does not mark
Isaiah 7:14, the virginal conception text, as messianic, even
though scholars generally admit that chapters 7-12 can be called
the "Book of Immanuel", with the result that the child of 9:5-6 is
the same as the child of 7:14. The reason our present targum does
not mark 7:14 as messianic is found in the fact that although
Hillel, one of the great teachers at the time of Christ, said that
Hezekiah, son of Ahaz to whom Isaiah spoke, had been the Messiah
(Cf. Jacob Neusner, Messiah in Context, Fortress, 1984, p. 174),
yet later Jews seeing the Christians using the text, began to say
that 7:14 did not speak of the Messiah (cf. Neusner, p. 190).

Who then is the child of 7:14? On the one hand, the combined
descriptions of 7:14 and 9:5-6 are much too grandiose for Hezekiah
the son of Ahaz. On the other hand, a sign given to Ahaz that
would not appear for more than 700 years would not be much of a
sign for him. We therefore conclude that we have another case of
multiple fulfillment of a divine prophecy: the child is both
Hezekiah (a sign that the line of David continued) and Jesus.

As to the fact that Isaiah used Hebrew almah in 7:14 instead of
betulah - the former meaning a girl of marriageable age who should
be a virgin, the latter being definitely a virgin - it is quite
possible Isaiah did not see as much in the line as did the Holy
Spirit, the chief author of Scripture. Vatican II seems to imply
this in LG #55.

Isaiah 11:1-3 says a shoot will sprout from the stump of David,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. If we take the opening
words to mean a shoot from the stump (some challenge the
translation "stump"), they are a remarkable prediction: that the
line of David (still reigning in the day of Isaiah) would be
reduced to a stump, but later, a shoot would come from it, the
Messiah (for the Targum does see the Messiah in these lines).

Why would the Messiah, being divine, need the Gifts of the Holy
Spirit? Because God willed that the Messiah have a full complement
of humanity and all that ideally goes with it, contrary to the
heresy of Apollinaris, who argued that not even a human rational
soul was in Christ, for the Divine Logos could do the work of a
soul. What Isaiah says is quite in line with the principle in
Summa I. 19. 5. c which says that God in His love of good order,
likes to have one thing in place to serve as a reason for giving a
second thing, even though the first did not really move Him.

Isaiah 53 according to the targum also refers to the Messiah. But
the targum as we have it is badly distorted: it changes the meek
lamb being led to the slaughter into an arrogant conqueror. At
least three very honest modern Jews: Levey (p. 152, n. 10),
Neusner (p. 190), and H. J. Schoeps (Paul. The Theology of the
Apostle, Westminster, 1961, p. 129) admit that the ancient Jews
deliberately distorted the targum to try to keep Christians from
using Isaiah 53 and similar passages. We can admit the Jews would
find that prophecy difficult, for they also generally believed
that the Messiah would live forever. Also, the leader of the
second Jewish revolt against Rome, in 132-35, Bar Kokhba, was
thought by many to be the Messiah - hence his name "Son of the
Star", in allusion to Numbers 24:17.

Chapter 53 is the fourth of the four "Servant Songs" in Isaiah.
The others are: 42:1-7; 49:1-7 and 50:4-11. The targum sees the
first and fourth as Messianic, but not the other two. The New
Testament sees 1 and 4 also as Messianic. Some think that in 49:1-
7 the servant is Israel - but in it the Servant has a mission to
Israel. However, this could be an instance of the Hebrew pattern
in which an individual stands for and is identified with a group.

In songs 2 and 3 we notice a universalism, the mission is to all
peoples: cf. 42:6 where the servant is a covenant of the people, a
light for the nations" and in 49:6 similarly it is too little for
the servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, he is to be a light
to the nations, so God's salvation may reach the ends of the
earth.

Finally, we need to note that Isaiah is a powerful poet, and as
such is given to highly colored language and idealization, e.g.,
in the images of the restoration. Also, as a Hebrew, he is more
prone to exaggeration than we are. We see an instance of this in
the passage where the wolf will be the guest of the lamb in 11:6-
9. We already saw in chapter 6 above some remarkable passages of
apocalyptic language in Isaiah.

Micah: He was a contemporary of Isaiah, and in his opening line he
asserts he worked during the reigns of Joatham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah, i.e., about 740-687. Interestingly, Jeremiah 26:18-19
says that Micah foretold that Jerusalem and its temple would
become ruins, but Hezekiah did not condemn him to death. He seems
to have been a man of the countryside, from Moresheth who was
shocked at the vices of the great cities: the rich who exploited
the poor, crooked merchants, judges who were bribed, corrupt
priests. He predicted the downfall of Jerusalem, but yet was
confident later God would deliver His people. In 5:2 he predicts
the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. When Herod consulted the
Jewish theologians (Mt. 2:6) for the Magi, they readily quoted the
prophecy of Micah.

Nahum: This very brief prophecy, probably to be dated around 612,
the fall of Nineveh, celebrates the fall of Assyria, which had
been so great a danger to Israel and to many other nations because
of its deliberate terrorism and cruelty. It depicts God as the
sovereign master of all. A unique feature of this book is that it
does not threaten punishment to Israel for its sins. This may have
been due to its composition around the time when the reforms of
Josiah (622/21) were still recent.

Jeremiah: He was born about 645 in the village of Anathoth, a few
miles to the north of Jerusalem, in the time of the evil king
Manasseh. His ministry began in 627 during the reign of Josiah
(640-609). He continued until sometime after the fall of
Jerusalem.

The arrangement of materials in this book is rather haphazard,
which makes it difficult to study. Chapter 36 reports that in 605
Jeremiah dictated the oracles he had given since 627 to Baruch,
his secretary. This was read to the people and to the king. The
king destroyed the scroll, but Jeremiah and Baruch made another
larger edition.

He was young when called to be a prophet, and was reluctant to
accept (1:6). He pleaded that he did not know how to speak. But
God promised to strengthen him. Like Hosea he pictures the people
as the bride of God, once faithful, but then turned to adultery
and harlotry by the fertility cult, idolatry, and other pagan
practices. He charges that pagan nations do not desert their gods,
but Israel does. Josiah's reform started in 628, and was
reinforced with the finding of the book, probably part of
Deuteronomy, in the temple (1 Kgs. 22-23). But the reform did not
really convert the hearts of the people, and Jeremiah became
disillusioned with the reform. He delivered a stinging address in
the Temple probably in 609 (7:1-15). He charges pagan worship,
while the people were confident God would protect them because
they were His people - even though their sacrifices were empty of
interior dispositions. In 13:23 he says that true conversion is as
unlikely as it would be for a leopard to change its spots. In
chapter 19, Jeremiah in public smashed a potter's earthen flask,
as a sign of how God would smash Jerusalem. Since symbolic acts
were thought to have power to bring about what they stood for,
Jeremiah was threatened with death (chapter 26). He contradicted
the belief that God would save them no matter how wicked they
were. But some of the princes defended Jeremiah against the
priests who called for his death, and pointed out that Micah had
foretold the same things in the days of Hezekiah, and was not put
to death. However, another prophet, Uriah was executed for a
similar prophecy (16:20-24).

Jeremiah was deeply distressed. He had no wife (16:1-4). He was
finally excluded from the Temple (36:5) and mocked by many. In his
interior torment, he even said that God had deceived him (20:7)
for Jeremiah had thought God's initial call seemed to tell him God
would protect him. Yet he was mistreated, scourged and put in the
stocks by the priest Pashur. Jeremiah did not yet know the
redemptive value of suffering, which Jesus taught by word and by
example. He was tempted to give up his mission (20:9), yet he said
when he tried to be silent, God's words burned within him. In
20:12 he even called for what the versions call "vengeance", but
in the Hebrew Jeremiah was calling for God's naqam, that is the
executive action of the supreme authority to set things right.
Whether or not Jeremiah understood it clearly, there is a great
difference between revenge - wishing evil to another so it may be
evil to him - and a desire that the objective order be rebalanced.
(Cf. our comments on objective order and sin as debt in chapter
11).

Jeremiah suffered much under King Jehoiakim - it was he who had
Jeremiah's scroll destroyed. Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim, followed
his father, but reigned only three months. The rebellion of
Jehoiakim brought on the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in
597. When Jehoaiakin capitulated he was exiled to

Babylon and the temple was plundered. He was a prisoner in Babylon
37 years. After the exile of Jehoiakin, Nebuchadnezzer installed
Mattaniah, son of Josiah as king, and changed his name to
Zedekiah. Zedekiah was rather well disposed to Jeremiah. Jeremiah
sent a letter to the exiles in Babylon (chapter 29) warning them
about false prophets who said the exile would be short. He told
them it would be 70 years, they should settle down.

In 589 Zedekiah provoked the Babylonians again, which led to the
tragedy of 587. Jeremiah was cast into a cistern, but was later
released and imprisoned in the court of the guard until the city
fell. During this time Jeremiah wrote the great prophecy of the
New Covenant (3l:3l-34). Vatican II (LG # 9) says Jesus made the
covenant at the Last Supper. The essential obedience was that of
Jesus, yet, since St. Paul makes clear we need to do all things
with Jesus - the syn Christo theme - we must join our obedience to
His. Did Jeremiah see that the essential obedience would be that
of Jesus? We do not know - Vatican II (LG # 55) seems uncertain on
the point. The Holy Spirit, the chief author, could intend more
than the human writer saw.

There are two remarkable passages in which we may perhaps see an
indication of the divinity of the Messiah. In 23:3 God said: "I
myself shall gather the remnant of my sheep", but in verse 5:" I
will raise up for David a righteous branch." The targum on verse 5
marks it as messianic. So it seems that God will be the shepherd
to rule His people, also the Messiah will rule. So the Messiah
seems to be God. In 30:11:" I am with you -oracle of the Lord - to
save you." Levey (op. cit., p. 72) notices that it seems to say
God Himself will come. Yet 30:9 is marked by the targum as
messianic.

We have also five beautiful laments over the fall of Jerusalem in
the Book of Lamentations. The text does not name the author. It
could be Jeremiah. The date is also uncertain, suggestions range
from 586 to 538, that is, the extent of the exile.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 587, Jeremiah was released from
chains (chapter 40). Before long (chapter 42), the survivors asked
Jeremiah to consult the Lord, and they would heed. He did, and
advised them to stay in their land, and not to flee to Egypt. In
spite of their promise, they went to Egypt, forcing Jeremiah and
Baruch to go with them.

The short book of Baruch pretends to be by the secretary of
Jeremiah. It may be by a pious Jews of a later time, using the
name of Baruch as a sort of pen name. It contains reflections on
the circumstances of the exiles in Babylon, and expresses
sentiments like those of Jeremiah.

Some of the objections usually made against an early date for the
book of Baruch are of no weight. Thus it is said that chapter 1
supposes the temple as still standing, while chapter 2 supposes it
is in ruins. Two dates of composition for the two chapters, not
too far apart, could account for that. In 1:11 Belshazzar is
called the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But it often happened,
especially with rulers, that they would speak of an earlier ruler
as their father. For example King Tirhakah, c. 680 B.C. speaks of
his father Sesostris III, c. 1880 B.C., and the genealogies in
Matthew contain similar gaps; and Jesus is called the son of David
- with a gap of centuries. (cf. Kitchen, op. cit., p. 39). We do
admit that an observance of the feast of booths probably could not
have happened after the fall of Jerusalem.

The contents are varied: a prayer of the exiles; a praise of the
wisdom in the law of Moses; the lament of Jerusalem over her
children; a consolation for Jerusalem, since the exile is about to
end. The sixth chapter seems to be a separate work, the Epistle of
Jeremiah against idolatry, sent to the exiles.

Zephaniah: He is one of the minor prophets, and seems to be a
contemporary of Jeremiah. He speaks at the start, of the coming
day of the Lord. That phrase meant the time when God would set
things right, whether at the end of time, or at some intermediate
points, resulting in aid to Israel, ruin to the enemies of Israel.
Early in the text the prophet speaks of the final day, for it will
strike all mankind. He threatens also Jerusalem, and the neighbors
of Jerusalem. But in the final chapter he promises restoration to
Jerusalem.

Incidentally, chapter 1 may have been the inspiration for the
liturgical sequence, Dies irae.

Habbakuk: This small book seems to have been composed between the
battle of Carchemish, when Nebuchadnezzar routed Assyrian and
Egyptian forces (605) and 597, the year when Babylon invaded Judah
and struck Jerusalem. There is an alternation - the complaints of
the prophet, and God's answer. The prophet looks to God's fidelity
to the covenant, asks why He is not helping. God predicts the fall
of Babylon, still far in the future, in 539. The prophet's
complaints seem to be based on forgetfulness that the covenant is
two-sided, it promises good things to those who obey, evil
retribution to the disobedient (cf. Dt. 11:26-28).

In 2:4 God promises that the man of faith who trusts in Him will
not perish in the calamities that are coming. St. Paul quotes this
line in Romans 1:17 and Gal 3:11, giving it a somewhat different
sense, to support his preaching of justification by faith. The
rabbis often cited the OT and did not heed the context. Paul was
trained that way. Yet there is a strong connection, for in Paul,
faith includes intellectual belief, confidence, obedience, and
love.

Jonah: This book is very different, in that it is not a collection
of utterances of the prophet; instead there is a story of a
reluctant prophet. 2 Kings 14:25 briefly mentions a prophet, Jonah
ben Amittai from the time of King Jeroboam II of Israel (786-46).
But most scholars would date him in the sixth century.

Most commentators think this work was intended as a sort of
extended parable rather than as history. There are considerable
difficulties in taking it as historical. These can be answered
(Cf. W. Most, Free From All Error, Prow, Libertyville, 1990, pp.
57-60). But to answer them does not solve the problem of genre.

Nor do the words of Benedict XV in EB 463 solve it, for they speak
of Jesus as using "views [sententias] and examples". Jesus in
referring to Jonah in Mt 12:38-42 was appealing to an example, and
it sufficed for His purpose that the narrative of Jonah was
popularly known and accepted. Similarly, St. Paul used a rabbinic
legend in 1 Cor 10:4 (cf. Jude 9).

Whatever be the genre, the lessons of Jonah are clear. Jonah tried
to run away to avoid preaching in Nineveh. The very fact God
ordered him to preach there shows God's concern or love for even
the Assyrians, the world's worst people in the eyes of people of
the region: so He must love all! It also shows, sadly, that the
People of God were so often more resistant to God's grace than
were pagans. In the Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, a late 4th century
rabbinic work, we find words put into the mouth of Jonah, saying
that since the gentiles are more inclined to repent, he, Jonah
might be causing Israel to be condemned if he went to Nineveh and
they welcomed him. Cf. also similar instances in: Ezek 3:5-7; Lk
10:30-37; 17:11-19 and Mt 11:21.

Chapter 15: Exilic and Postexilic Prophets

Ezekiel: His ministry began with the call of God to him in 593 in
Babylonia. He had been deported in 597. The date of the last of
his sayings (29:27) seems to have been 571.

In contrast to Jeremiah's book, that of Ezekiel is rather well-
ordered, in three major parts: Judgment on Judah and Jerusalem;
Judgment on the nations; Restoration of Israel.

The first of these sections is not in chronological order, for
during part of the time he seems to be in Jerusalem before its
fall, whereas at the start he was already in exile.

It is often said that Ezekiel was an ecstatic prophet. The basis
for such a claim is found in things like his dumbness in 3:22-27.
But the ecstatic prophets are out of their mind, and hardly if at
all know what they are doing. Ezekiel knew well what he was doing,
it was a symbolic act that God had ordered him to perform.

Jeremiah had spoken kindly of the first wave of exiles, who went
out in 587 (24; 29). But Ezekiel speaks of them as stubborn of
brow and obstinate in heart (2:3-8; 3:4-9 - Jeremiah did not so
much praise them as say God would help them). He tells how in
Babylonia he saw the glory of God transported there on a throne-
chariot (1:1 - 3:15). In this vision he saw the famous four living
creatures. He also is told to eat a scroll (chapter 2), which
stands for his being filled with the messages of God. This vision
appointed Ezekiel as a watchman and prophet: If the watchman does
not warn his people, he will be guilty of their ruin.

Chapter 4 seems to imply he is still in Jerusalem before its fall:
he is told to perform symbolic actions including drawing Jerusalem
on a large clay tablet, and raising a siege against it. In chapter
12 he acted out the part of an exile going into captivity.

In chapters 8-11 he is given visions as though he were transported
back to Jerusalem, to see the glory of God leaving the temple. We
cannot be sure if this was a physical transport, or a vision.
While in Jerusalem he saw the abominations committed even in the
temple precincts.

He sometimes makes use of allegory to express the sinfulness and
worthlessness of Israel. In this he at times speaks of Israel as
the spouse of God, as Hosea had done (16 & 23). Of major
importance is his teaching on individual responsibility in chapter
18: they must stop using the proverb that said the fathers have
eaten sour grapes, the teeth of the children are set on edge. Each
shall bear his own iniquity. But if the evil man repents, he is
readily forgiven; if the good man turns to sin, he will not live.

The vision of the dry bones in chapter 37 is especially famous: it
is a vivid way of saying that God can and will still restore His
people. Hence in 43:1-9 Ezekiel saw the throne-chariot return and
enter the new temple, as part of chapters 40-48 which picture an
idealized cult within an idealized temple.

Some have attempted to see a prophecy of the last times of the
world in chapters 38-39 and even to identify Russia within it.
This is quite fanciful, lacking in any solid exegetical support.

Finally, there is a fascinating possibility in 34:11: "Thus says
the Lord God: I, I myself will search out my sheep and seek them
out." We notice the repeated I, clearly standing for God, as
though He Himself intended to come in person. Yet in 34:23: "I
will set one shepherd over them, my servant David". It is possible
that this could imply the divinity of the Messiah. (cf. Jeremiah
23:3-5 and 30:11 for a similar situation. The targum marks both
passages of Jeremiah as messianic).

Obadiah: This is the shortest prophecy of the OT, only 21 verses
long. The date is uncertain, but most likely it belongs to fifth
century BC - the range of suggested dates runs from 850 to 312.
The fifth century was a time when the Edomites had left their
original home near the Gulf of Aqaba and had settled in southern
Judah. They were among the adversaries of the Jews returning from
exile. Obadiah hopes God will set things right. Please recall our
comments on Jer 20:12, on the sense of Hebrew naqam.

Haggai: Here we can date the book confidently to 520 BC, and even
become more precise in regard to each of the four pronouncements
in the book. Haggai first said God willed work to resume on the
temple - failure to do that meant that things that should
naturally have helped them did not; then Haggai urges the work to
continue even though the temple might not be as grand as Solomon's
temple; the third section has questions to the priests about
ritual cleanness; the final oracle says Zerubbabel, God's chosen
one, is to be exalted.

There is special interest in 2:6-7, where God says: "In a little
while, I will move heaven and earth and the hemdat of all the
nations will come in, and I will fill this house with glory". St.
Jerome translated: "The one desired by the nations will come in",
i.e., the Messiah. More commonly it is translated "the desired
things [or treasures] of all nations will come in." The fact that
hemdat is singular, while its verb is plural causes a problem, and
inclines many to translate "desired things, or treasures. But even
if so, the picture is that of all nations coming to Jerusalem -
which points to the messianic age. And God says He will fill the
temple with glory, and even, in verse 9, says the glory of this
new temple will be greater than that of Solomon. Materially this
did not come true - but there was greater glory, in that Jesus the
Messiah came in to the new temple. Therefore in view of the
background, even if we do translate hemdat as plural, there is at
least an implication of the messianic age in it - which is only "a
little while" - from 520 BC!

Zechariah: He was a contemporary of Haggai. There are two main
sections of this book. The first, chapters 1-8 has a series of
eight night visions, dated to 519 BC, promising the restoration of
Israel. First there are four horsemen who patrol the earth; then
there are four horns, standing for the four nations that dispersed
Judah and Israel, but they are terrified by four blacksmiths,
agents of the Lord; then there is the measuring of Jerusalem,
foretelling the restoration of Jerusalem. Next, in chapter 3, the
High priest, Joshua is made glorious and given responsibility for
both civilian and religious restoration. In the fifth vision
(chapter 4) Joshua and Zerubbabel share responsibility for the
golden lampstand, which is the restored community. In 5:21-4 there
is a flying scroll, standing for God's curse on those who swear
falsely. In chapter 5:5-11, a woman in a bushel is taken to
Babylon, to remove wickedness from Israel. In the eighth and final
vision (6:1-8), four chariots and horses patrol the earth, to
prepare restoration, as in the first vision. The remainder of the
first part of the book (6:9 - 8:23) is a series of oracles
concerning the messianic age: coronation of the messianic king,
then a stress on the ethical ideals of the prophets as more suited
for the restoration than mere external observances. Finally,
chapter 8 gives an idealized image of the messianic age in
Jerusalem.

The second part of the book, chapters 9-14 - which many scholars
assign to a later prophet - again focuses on restoration, and
humiliation of the enemies of Israel, the gathering of the
dispersed people, the power of God over nature and history.
Already in 9:9-10 Jerusalem is told to rejoice, for her King will
be righteous, coming riding on a donkey - Palm Sunday, of course.
Very impressive is the allegory of two shepherds (11:4-17): the
prophet seems to have acted out the part of a good shepherd, the
Messiah, rejected by the sheep, paid for by thirty silver pieces.
Then the Lord Himself said to the prophet who was acting for Him:
"Throw it [the price] to the potter, the fine price at which they
valued me." The me seems to refer to the Lord Himself - and since
the Messiah is in view, we can gather that the Messiah is the
Lord. It would be hard not to think of Mt. 27:3-10. Of course we
are reminded of the remarkable text of Ez. 34:11 where the Lord
says :"I, I will search out my sheep" and Jeremiah 23:3: "I myself
shall gather the remnant of my sheep (and 23:5-6 according to the
targum, speaks of the Messiah), and "this is the name they give
him: 'The Lord is our justice'." Samson Levey, op. cit., p. 70
comments that a later rabbinic document said, referring to this
text, "His name is 'the lord'"- in Hebrew Yahweh! - These texts
could give a hint that the Messiah is God Himself!). Cf. Apoc/Rev
1:7.

The final chapters 12-14 foretell the Day of the Lord. Within
them, 12:10 is striking. The Lord says He will pour upon the
people of Jerusalem a spirit of favor and supplication, of
repentance: "They will look upon me the one they have pierced, and
they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child." The
strange shift from me to him is striking. It seems that the Lord
speaks of Himself here - even as He did in 11:13 - as the pierced
Messiah - and then they will mourn for him. The targum does not
see this as Messianic, but we in the light of the later events can
easily do it. It foretells the final conversion of Jerusalem - of
which St. Paul speaks in Romans 11:25-26 - when they will be
converted and will mourn over the fact that they did pierce the
Messiah, the Lord. This understanding is helped by the words of
13:7, which Jesus Himself quoted shortly before His death: "Strike
the shepherd and the sheep will be dispersed" - we recall how the
Lord identified Himself with the good shepherd above in 11:7-13.

Altogether, Zechariah is, next to Isaiah, the most messianic of
the prophets.

Joel: Dates have been proposed for Joel from the late 9th century
to the late 4th century. From his knowledge of and interest in
cultic matters, some think Joel may have lived near Jerusalem. The
first part of the book (1:1 - 2:17) speaks of a devastating plague
of locusts - which could be taken as a literal infestation, or as
describing a foreign invasion, or as an apocalyptic account of a
divine judgment on Judah. The remainder of the book is concerned
with the Day of the Lord, a day of judgment on the nations, but
blessings for Israel. For the battle that will lead to such
blessings, they will beat their plowshares into swords - not a
contradiction of Isaiah 2:4, which speaks of the period when the
blessings are won and assured, while Joel speaks of the battle
needed to reach that day.

The language becomes heavily apocalyptic at times: in 2:10 and in
4:15 the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars do not give
their light. We saw other examples of this pattern of speech in
chapter 4 above, from Isaiah and Ezekiel.

St. Peter in his address on the first Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21)
quoted Joel 3:1-5, and said it was being fulfilled then. But there
is multiple fulfillment in some prophecies, and so the words of
Joel are to apply again before the final day of the Lord.

Malachi: We have no personal information about Malachi, and some
even doubt that Malachi - which means "my messenger" - was his
name. We gather something on the date from 1:8, which speaks of
the nation as ruled by a governor - which was true in the Persian
period (540-450).

There are six oracles in this book. It opens with the expression
of God's love for Israel/Jacob, in contrast to His anger with
Edom; secondly, God charges the priests have become careless, they
even offer defective victims, He prefers the clean oblation
offered from the rising to the setting of the sun (more on this
below); then God objects to mixed marriages. He will come in
judgment, they have wearied Him. His messenger will come first.
The Lord will refine the priesthood. In fifth place He complains
of their failure to pay the tithes, promises reward if they do.
Then, He rebukes those who question the value of obedience to God.
The faithful will be written in the Lord's book. The prophet
Elijah will come before the Day of the Lord.

We must ask about the offerings made by the gentiles in 1:11. Many
opinions have been proposed: some think the prophet means pagan
sacrifices - but, would an Israelite prophet speak that way? We
recall St. Paul who in 1 Cor 10:20 says what the pagans offer is
offered to demons - in the sense that the demons promote such
offerings. Some have suggested it refers to proselytes - but they
were not so numerous, or so widely spread, to qualify. Some
suggest it refers to the fame of the name of Yahweh. But that
would not be called a sacrifice. Some think it means prayer,
praise etc, in the days of the Messiah - Again, this is not
sacrifice.

So by elimination, we go back to an interpretation found in many
of the Fathers of the Church: this is a prophecy of the Mass. Of
course, all Protestant commentators would reject that. The Council
of Trent (DS 1742) said the Mass is the fulfillment. So did
Vatican II, LG #17.

The words of 3:1 are remarkable: "Behold, I am sending my
messenger, who will prepare a way before my face, and suddenly the
Lord will come to His temple, the messenger of the covenant whom
you are desiring." This is related to 4:5: "Behold I am sending to
you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful Day of the
Lord comes." The noted former form critic (more recently Fuller
declared form criticism bankrupt), Reginald H. Fuller (The
Foundations of New Testament Christology, Chas. Scribner's Sons,
NY, 1965, p. 48) said that 4:5 is a note commenting on 3:1:
"Elijah appears as the forerunner not of the Messiah but of Yahweh
himself... ." Of course, we know the Messiah is God, and we note
that Jesus Himself in Mt 11:3-10 (Lk 7:24-27) referred Mal 3:1 to
Himself, implying He knew His own divinity. (He used the then
current form of the words in which it was modified by similarity
of wording to Ex 23:20).

Chapter 16: The Psalms

First we must explain that there are two numbering systems for the
Psalms, one following the Hebrew numbers, the other following the
Septuagint (LXX) numbers. Both systems are the same for 1-8. But
then: 9-10 of Hebrew = 9 of the LXX. 11-113 Hebrew = 10-112 LXX;
114-15 Hebrew = 113 LXX; 116 Hebrew = 114-15 LXX; 117-146 = 116-
145 LXX; 147 Hebrew = 146-47 LXX; 148-150 = 148 - 150 LXX. Most
modern versions follow the Hebrew system, while the older Catholic
versions follow the LXX and the Vulgate.

Our present Psalter is likely to be a collection of several
earlier collections. The Psalms at present fall into five books or
groups: 1-41; 42-72; 73-89; 90-106; 107-150. Each book closes with
a shorter doxology, or praise of God. Many of the Psalms are
attributed to David. It is likely that he did compose many. At the
time of Christ it was customary to speak of all as by David.
Christ merely adopted the current way of speaking. His mission was
not to reveal the history of literature.

The Psalms are in general sacred songs, prayers. There are several
different types of Psalms: Psalms of Lament; Psalms of
Thanksgiving; Hymns; Enthronement Psalms; Royal Psalms; Liturgical
Psalms and Wisdom or Torah Psalms.

The titles at the beginning of Psalms are in general mysterious.
So also is the use of the word selah, which is frequent. Its sense
is not known. It may be a musical notation.

The Psalms are all poetry. Poetry in general requires two things:
elevation of thought and language; and some special metrical form.
The meter of Hebrew verse does not depend on rhyme or regular
meter, but on rhythmic beat and parallelism. It is necessary to
count how many stressed syllables - usually 2, 3 or 4.

Parallelism is very common. In synonymous parallelism the sense of
the first stich (group of words) is repeated in the second. There
is also antithetic parallelism, in which the repetition gives the
same idea in contrasting ways. Sometimes the second member merely
completes the thought of the first. Sometimes the parallelism is
worked out in three lines.

The parallelism of the Psalms is much influenced by that of
Ugaritic literature. Ugarit is the modern Ras Shamra. A plow of a
farmer in 1928 accidentally came upon the buried ruins of Ugarit,
which had been destroyed by fire in 1185 BC, probably in an
invasion of the Sea Peoples, who distressed many lands around that
time, including Egypt. For examples of Ugaritic texts cf. Peter C.
Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,
1983, esp. pp. 53-55, or Stories from Ancient Canaan, Edited and
Translated by Michael D. Coogan (Westminster, Phila., 1978, pp.
14-18). It is remarkable how much of the imagery of God riding
upon the clouds etc. comes from ancient Ugarit.

The targum sees Messianic texts in many Psalms: 18, 21, 45, 61, 72
(the whole Psalm), 80, 89, 132.

We will examine the most important of these, and add some that the
targum does not see as Messianic.

First, those which the targum does call messianic.

In 21:5 the Hebrew texts says "He asked for life from you." The
targum expands: "He asked eternal life of you." This reflects the
widespread view that the Messiah would live forever.

Psalm 45, many think, was written for the marriage of Joram to
Athaliah. Yet the targum takes it to refer further, to the
Messiah. References to God, the Messiah, and Israel are
interwoven. 45:7 in the Hebrew says "your divine throne is
forever;" the targum renders "your throne of glory lasts forever".
Psalm 61: 7-9 echoes the belief that the Messiah will live
forever.

Psalm 72 is entirely Messianic, and is similar to the thought of
Nathan's prophecy (of 2 Sam 7. 4-17 to David. 72:17 says "May his
name be forever", reflecting the prevalent rabbinic belief of the
preexistence of the name of the Messiah.

In Psalm 80:18 we find, "May your hand be upon the man of your
right hand, on the son of man, whom you raised up for yourself."
Levey (op. cit., pp. 119-20) notes that the targum takes the
Messiah to be the son of God. He adds that later rabbis carefully
steered clear of any messianic interpretations of it. It is
interesting to see the Messiah called "son of man" here.

Now for Psalms which the targum does not take as messianic: First,
Psalm 2 speaks of the Lord's "anointed one" who is the son of God,
and who will rule the nations, "with an iron scepter". Peter and
John in Acts 4:25-26 explicitly take Psalm 2 to refer to Jesus. So
does Revelation/Apocalypse 12:5. The targums often see messianic
indications with less reason than Psalm 2 offers. We suspect
deliberate suppression by the Jews - that this happens at times is
admitted by three major Jewish scholars today: Jacob Neusner,
Samson Levey, and H. J. Schoeps (cf. chapter 14 above).

In Acts 2:25-28 St. Peter argues from Psalm 16:8-11 in which v. 20
says: "You will not abandon me to the grave, and you will not let
your holy one see corruption." St. Peter says that the body of
David did decay - therefore this referred to Jesus.

Jesus Himself recited the opening line of Psalm 22 on the cross:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In a General Audience
of Nov 30, 1988, Pope John Paul II commented on this text:
"Dominant in His mind, Jesus has the clear vision of God... But in
the sphere bordering on the senses... Jesus' human soul is reduced
to a wasteland, and He no longer feels the presence of the
Father." Verse 17 says: "They have pierced my hands and my feet."
We think again of Zechariah 12:10: "They will look on me, the one
they have pierced." (cf. again Apoc/Rev. 1. 7) And Ps. 22:19 adds:
"They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast
lots."

Jesus Himself in Mt 22:41-46 reasoned from Psalm 110:1: "The Lord
said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies
the footstool for your feet." So, Jesus said, David calls the
Messiah Lord - a hint of divinity. Matthew 22:46 reports that the
Pharisees could not answer this reasoning.

Psalm 118:42 says: "The stone that the builders rejected has
become the cornerstone". Jesus referred that to Himself in Mt.
21:42 (cf. Eph 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:6).

There are some Psalm lines that seem to reflect a belief on the
part of the writer that he will be with God even after death, for
his union with Him has been so close in this life, that it cannot
be interrupted.

Psalm 49:16: "But God will rescue my soul from the hand of Sheol;
surely He will take me." Right after this the fate of the wicked
rich is pictured: he cannot take his riches with him.

Psalm 73:23: "But I am always with You, You hold my right hand by
Your hand; you guide me with counsel and afterwards you will take
me to glory." In the first part of the psalm, the author said he
was tempted to think God was not just. But he understood the fate
of the wicked when he went into the sanctuary. After that, he
gained the confidence he expressed in verse 23. He continued:
"Whom do I have in the heavens but you? Being with you, I desire
nothing on earth. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the
strength of my heart, and my portion forever (le olam)."

Mitchell Dahood, in the introductions to his three volume
commentary on the Psalms in Anchor Bible, proposes revised
translations of about 30 Psalm lines, in the light of Ugaritic
language discoveries. If one accepts them, there are more lines
like those we have just cited. We will see more evidence on belief
in after life and on future retribution in our consideration of
individual wisdom books in the next chapter.

There are some Psalms and parts of Psalms that call down
punishment on enemies. For example, Psalms 35, 58, 59 ask God to
punish the enemies of the Psalmist. Ps. 137:8-9 is similar.

How can we explain? Some have said these were merely predictions
of punishment without any desire. That seems unrealistic. Some
have said the morality of the Old Testament was imperfect: it was,
compared to the new, but we must not say there is something
positively immoral in it.

It is helpful to think of Revelation/Apocalypse 6:10 where the
souls of martyrs under the altar ask God: "How long, until you
will bring justice for our blood?" They are with God, so their
wills are completely aligned with His. Many versions here use the
word avenge. That is unfortunate. To will vengeance is to will
evil to another so it may be evil to him. The souls of martyrs do
not do that. But to will that the objective order be righted - we
discussed that in chapter XI - this is supremely moral, it is the
attitude of God Himself. It is a bit dangerous to indulge in that
wish, for one may slide over readily into a desire for vengeance.
Yet we must admit that in itself it is highly moral.

Chapter 17: The Wisdom Literature

It has been traditional to speak of seven books as wisdom books:
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), Song of Songs,
Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Actually, the character of these
is rather diverse. We have just commented on the Psalms. We will
hold the Song of Songs to the last place, since it is quite
different from the usual wisdom books.

We begin with Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom and Ecclesiastes since they
have strong similarities. The first three of these have deep roots
in other civilizations of the ancient Near East, especially Egypt.
The ancient Near Eastern court circles seem to have been the
source of much wisdom literature. One of the oldest works is The
Instructions of Ptahotep, a vizier, c. 2400 B.C. The Instructions
of Amenemopet, dating from around 1200 B.C. is significant for the
remarkably close similarity to the Book of Proverbs, especially to
22:17 - 24:22: compare Amenemopet III, 9-12; XI, 13f; XXVII, 16f.

Ptahotep advises that when one meets a speaker who is better at
argument, one should cut down on bad talk by not opposing him. On
meeting an equal, one should show his superiority by silence, so
that the attending official may be impressed. An inferior opponent
should be treated with indulgent disregard, so as to "smite him
with the punishment of the [truly] great." At the table of a
superior, one should keep a sedate countenance, take only what is
offered, laugh only when the host laughs. An official should
listen patiently to pleas of clients because "a petitioner wants
attention to what he says even more than the accomplishing of that
for which he came."

So, even though the Egyptian wisdom urges conformity to the virtue
of ma'at - which seems to be a complex of social justice virtues,
though the sense is unclear - yet practical advice on how to get
along is the most prominent feature.

Some of Hebrew wisdom is also merely practical advice, though the
religious element does enter often enough. Especially there is
praise of Wisdom which is often personified - cf. e.g., Proverbs
1, 8, 9; Sirach 24; Wisdom 7-9. She, Wisdom, existed before
creation, with God, and after traveling through earth and sky, has
taken up her abode with Jacob (Sirach 24:8-10). Wisdom is also
identified with the Law: Sirach 24:22-23 (cf. our remarks on Dt.
4:6-8 in chapter 11 above) She is also a communication of God, an
effusion of divine glory: Wisdom 7:25-26. So it is an easy step
from there to speak of Christ as the wisdom of the Father: 1 Cor
1:24.

Proverbs: This book is not really unified. Instead it is a
collection of short sayings, with a long poetic introduction
(chapters 1-9), and a conclusion consisting of longer sayings and
short poems (30-31).

The date is difficult to determine. Some think many of the sayings
go back to monarchic times, although the collection was made
later.

The book opens: "The proverbs of Solomon". But we know that in
that culture as pen names, the name of a famous man would often be
used, and Solomon, famous for his wisdom, was a natural choice.
There are within it two special Solomonic collections: 10:1-
24:22, and 25:1 - 29:27.

Much of the wisdom is largely practical and aimed at success in
this life. Yet there is a religious color especially in
personified Wisdom, particularly in chapters 1, 8, and 9. And "The
beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord" (9:10). A specially
beautiful passage, 8:22-31 is an optional reading for the Common
of the Blessed Virgin, the Seat of Wisdom ever most closely joined
to her Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father (1 Cor 1:24). Vatican
II, in chapter 8 of LG, beautifully develops this union, which
began in eternity, embraced every one of the mysteries of His life
and death, and will continue beyond the end of time forever.

Chapters 30 and 31 include wisdom of other nations, that of Agur,
and that of Lemuel.

The whole book closes with a beautifully ideal picture of the
perfect wife.

Sirach/Ecclesiasticus: It is remarkable that we know the name of
the author of this book, Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira. Sirach is
the Greek form of the name. His grandson wrote a preface to the
Greek translation of this book. Ben Sira was a Jerusalem sage who
passed on his reflections in a school he conducted. In time he
wrote down these teachings, probably c 190-180. The grandson
brought the book to Egypt and there translated it sometime after
132 B.C. Though the Hebrew original was long lost, starting in
1896 documents have been found, which give us about two-thirds of
the Hebrew original.

Unfortunately, not all versions use the same numbering system. The
NAB and older RSV have a system that matches neither the Greek nor
the Latin numbers. The newer RSV is better.

It is almost impossible to outline the book, because of its lack
of systematic arrangement. However, materials are often grouped
according to content - a feature lacking in Proverbs.

Ben Sira like Proverbs personifies wisdom. She is God's creature
and His gift to us, but to attain wisdom requires much discipline.
She dwells especially in the temple of Jerusalem, and is
identified with the Law.

A specially important section is the praise of the ancestors
(44:12 - 50:24) from Enoch to the high priest Simon II.

The charge is often made that Sirach denies an afterlife or
retribution in the afterlife. The chief line is 14:16-17: "Give
and take and enjoy yourself, for it is not possible in Sheol to
seek luxury. All flesh grows old as a garment. For the decree of
ages is: You must surely die."

We need to work with care and precision here. The commentators
commonly forget that before the death of Christ, heaven was closed
(cf. DS 780, 1000) even to those who were just and fully prepared.
So what was existence like in Sheol? There was no praise of God.
Psalm 6:6 asks: "Who in Sheol can give you praise?" Sirach 17:27-
28 has the same thought. Again, Isaiah 38:18-19 says: "Death
cannot praise you. Those who go down into the pit cannot hope for
your faithfulness." M. Dahood (Anchor Bible, Psalms 16, p. 38)
comments that the writer of Psalm 6 does not suffer from an
inability to remember God in Sheol, but from not being able to
share in the grand liturgical praise of God as in the public
worship, which the people of Israel sincerely loved. (They loved
the externals so much that God complained in Is 29:13: "This
people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
me"). We could add that the very Hebrew words used in Isaiah
38:18-19 for praise or thanks of God also appear in 1 Chron 16:4
and 2 Chron 5:13 and 31:2 for the liturgical praise of God.

Is 38 says they cannot hope for God's faithfulness: it is because
the covenant does not extend to Sheol - the word used is regular
for God's faithfulness to the covenant. But this does not mean
that God does not watch over Sheol: Job 26:6 says: "Sheol is naked
before God." Cf. Prov. 15:11.

Qoheleth 9:10 says: "There is no work or reason, or knowledge, or
wisdom in Sheol." Of course the dead in Sheol do not work. Nor
have they any natural means of knowing what goes on on earth -
they get this only if God chooses to reveal something to them. Cf.
Job 14:21.

We do not see in Sirach any positive indication of retribution in
Sheol. But that does not mean the dead were non-existent (these
are two separate questions: survival, and retribution in the
future life). Jesus Himself answered the Sadducees on this point
(Mt. 22:29-33) by citing from the Pentateuch - perhaps the only
part of the OT they accepted - from Ex 3:6, the words of God to
Moses: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of
Jacob" and Jesus added: "He is not the God of the dead but of the
living." The Sadducees were silenced, they could not answer His
reasoning. Further, it was necessary to give repeated commands in
the OT against necromancy, consulting the dead, which indicates it
was being done, and done persistently: e.g., Lv 19:31; 20:6, 27;
Dt. 18:11 and many more texts. Saul himself had a medium bring up
the spirit of Samuel in 1 Sam 28:8-19. Even if we say the mediums
were fakes, it remains true that there was persistent belief that
the dead did exist. (We will consider some added problem texts in
Job and Qoheleth in treating each book).

Let us recall also the Psalm lines on the future life we saw at
the end of the chapter on Psalms.

Really, it would seem strange after some centuries in Egypt, where
the concept of an afterlife was so strong and clear, if the
Hebrews had no concept of survival at all.

Many today assert the Hebrew had a unitary concept of man: a body
with breath. Then there could be no survival. But we already saw
the widespread belief of survival in the attachment to necromancy.
And we saw the answer of Jesus to the Sadducees. Some confusion
comes from the Hebrew word nefesh, which has many meanings
including soul, but those who hold for the unitary concept refuse
to accept that. meaning of soul. Really, we think the Hebrews were
acting according to proper theological method, without realizing
that technically of course. In divine matters we may meet with two
truths, which seem to clash. Even after rechecking our study they
are still there. Then we must hold both, hoping sometime to find
how to reconcile them. They saw two things: 1)Man seems to be a
unit; 2)They knew, as we saw, that there was some survival after
death (with or without retribution there). How to fit these
together they did not know, but they held both. Then in the second
century B.C. when they reached the concept of man as made of body
and soul (under stimulus of Greek thought and the horrible deaths
of the martyrs under Antiochus IV), they finally knew how to do
it. Not all Jews accepted that, but many did, especially the
Pharisees. And St. Paul was a Pharisee.

Job: Job consists of a prose introduction and conclusion - which
may have existed separately from the rest, and of a large poetic
core. Satan - who seems not to be the same as the devil, merely an
opponent - tells God that Job would not obey if he were afflicted.
God gives permission to afflict Job greatly. So Job's suffering is
permitted as a test - an idea that is a bit new, for usually
suffering had been considered as a divine punishment for sin (and
it could be that).

Three friends of Job come, but do not really console him: they say
he must have sinned or the affliction would not have come. Job
insists on his innocence. The fact that God could afflict an
innocent man disturbs Job, he almost becomes angry with God at
some points. Finally he asks the Almighty to answer him. God does
speak from a storm: Would Job condemn God so he, Job could seem
just? Job confesses he has not reacted well, he has tried to deal
with things above him, he repents in dust and ashes. God directs
Job's friends to ask Job to pray for them, so their fault may be
pardoned. In the prose conclusion Job gets back much more than
what he had lost.

Job basically wrestles with the question: Why do the just
sometimes suffer in this life. The answer is: We cannot know all
of God's ways - that is, this is the answer of the poetic core of
the book. The prose conclusion says: God repaid Job richly before
the end of his life. This is not a contradiction, but simply fails
to repeat the gain.

Did Job, as some say, deny a future life in 14:13 ff? Not at all.
Here is an outline of what Job really said in chapter 14: In
verses 10-12: Even though a tree may put forth shoots again, a man
who dies does not come back, i. e, not to this life. In verse 13:
Job indulges in a poetic fancy - he knows it is only a fancy: He
wishes God would hide him in Sheol until His anger would pass, and
then remember Job again. This is a fancy for certain, but we must
remember Job is high poetry, and such poetry can indulge in
fanciful things. Marvin Pope, In Anchor Bible, Job does take this
view of verse 13, and Pope points out that Is 26:20 indulges a
similar fancy: let the people of Judah hide in their chambers till
God's wrath passes. Amos 9:2 ff. pictures the wicked as trying in
vain to hide in Sheol, in Heaven, on Mt. Carmel or on the bottom
of the sea. Verses 14-17 continue the fancy of verse 13: "If a man
dies, will he live again? All the days of my service I would wait
until my change would come. You [God] would call, and would answer
and you would want the work of your hands. Then You would number
my steps, and not keep watch over my sin. My transgression would
be sealed up in a bag, and you would sew up my iniquity. Verses
18-22 return to reality: just as a mountain may lose strength and
a rock be moved from its place, just as waters wear away even
rock, so, in the end, God prevails, and destroys man's hope of
this life. God sends him away. In verses 21-22: Man goes to sheol,
and does not know whether his sons fare well or not,"His flesh on
him has pain, and his soul mourns over him." To sum up: Job for a
moment indulges fancy, then returns to reality: No one can win
against God, he must go to Sheol. There he will not know what goes
on earth - as we saw earlier, even the souls of the just there,
not having the vision of God before the death of Christ, have no
normal means of knowing things on earth, unless God gives a
special revelation. But Job adds that his flesh has pain and his
soul mourns over him. This at least seems to imply some awareness
after death.

We must add: Job may have seen even more about the future life.
For the much debated verses 19:25-27 read, in the NAB: "I know
that my Vindicator lives, and that he will at last stand forth
upon the dust; whom I myself shall see: my own eyes, not another's
shall behold him, and from my flesh I shall see God." Now this
could not mean a rescue in this life, for in 7:6-7 Job said: "My
days have passed more swiftly than the web is cut by the weaver,
and are consumed without any hope." So he had no hope for this
life - the hope must have been for the future life. The NRSV is
similar. So this rendering is at least not impossible. (Let us
recall our comments above on Sirach 14:16-17).

Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes: The author is unknown, he seems to have
been a rather late sage, probably about 3rd century BC. A copy of
the book was in circulation at least by 150 BC, fragments have
been found at Qumran.

Today it is often said that the author did not believe in an
afterlife - but we have already commented on such claims in
general earlier, in connection with Psalms Sirach and Job. Some
time ago many believed there must be two authors for the book, for
what they considered contrasting or incompatible statements.
However, if we recall proper theological method, we can gain some
light. In divine matters, it is not unusual to find two
conclusions which remain even after rechecking our work, but which
seem to clash. Then we need to resist any temptation to force the
meaning of either. Rather, we should accept both, and remain that
way until someone finds a solution. It is likely that Qoheleth did
precisely this.

The first set of texts do seem not to know an afterlife, though
they do not deny it:

2:14: "The eyes of a wise man are in his head; the fool walks in
darkness. I myself perceived: the same thing comes to all of
them." That is, all die and turn to dust.

3:19: "For what happens to man is the same as happens to beasts.
As one dies, the other dies".

3:20: "All are from dust and will return to dust."

3:21: "Who knows whether the spirit of the sons of man goes up and
the spirit of the beasts goes down?" Of course the sense is
debated. The word we have rendered spirit is Hebrew ruach. Its
sense is similar to that of nefesh - which is also much debated.
Both surely have a wide range of meanings. However, we notice here
that the author considers if the ruach of humans goes up, but that
of animals goes down. At least a hint of a difference.

9:5-6: "The dead know nothing. They have no more reward... their
love and their hate and their envy have perished. Nor do they have
any more forever a portion of all that is done under the sun." We
spoke of this in commenting on Sirach and Job. Yes, the dead have
no normal means of knowing what goes on on the earth. And being in
the Limbo of the Fathers, not in heaven until after the death of
Christ, their lot is indeed dim. They never will return to
ordinary earthly life - we know that after the resurrection life
will be much different. Qoheleth would not know what we know, but
what he said is not false.

Yet no one of the above really proves a denial of an afterlife.

The second set seem at least to imply a future life:

3:17: "I said in my heart: God shall judge both the just and the
wicked." But the author knew well it does not always work out so
in this life - hence an implication of a judgment beyond this
life.

8:12: "If a sinner does evil a hundred times, and prolongs his
life, yet I know surely that it will be well with those who fear
God." Again, a possible implication, especially since in 8:14 he
adds: "There are just men to who it happens according to the deeds
of the wicked; and there are wicked men to whom it happens
according to the deeds of the just."

12:14: "For God will bring every deed into judgment, every hidden
thing, whether good or evil." Again, since it often does not
happen in this life, there is an implication of retribution after
death.

So Qoheleth at least seems to give us implications of retribution
after death. He was groping, but did what he could. The fact that
he spoke so dimly of all earthly things, and yet knew God is so
good might possibly be considered as raising the question to a
higher plane, going above mere earthly reward.

Wisdom: What Qoheleth saw only dimly at best, the author of Wisdom
did see very clearly (3:1-5): "The souls of the just are in the
hands of God, and surely no torment will touch them. They seemed
to the eyes of senseless men to die, and their departure was
considered an evil... but they are in peace. And if in the eyes of
men they be punished, their hope is full of immortality. And
having been tried a little, they will be greatly blessed for God
tried them, and found them worthy of himself."

The author was a Jew, probably at Alexandria, in the first century
B.C. He was familiar with Hellenistic philosophy, culture and
rhetoric. Pagan wisdom, and especially the pagan claims of Isis,
the goddess of wisdom, would be apt to impress the Jews. Science
had been flourishing in Alexandria for some time. The writer wants
to strengthen fellow Jews against the attractions of these things.

The passage we cited above comes from the section on wisdom and
human destiny (which runs to 6:21). The wicked may persecute -
probably the memory of the persecution of Antiochus IV of Syria
was vivid. But God makes it all right in the life to come. For God
had formed man to be imperishable (1:13-14; 2:23). But death
entered by the sins of wicked people. Death cannot harm those who
are faithful to God, but it will strike those who plotted against
the just.

The second section 6:22-11:1 speaks of acquiring wisdom. It is a
gift of God, but will be given those who are just and who seek it.
Specially impressive are the words of 6:5-6 which say that the
lowly may be pardoned by mercy, but there is a stern judgment for
the powerful.

In the third section, 11:2-19:22 the author reviews the wonders of
God's works for Israel, in the Exodus and beyond. Israel
benefitted by the very things, the plagues, that struck the
Egyptians.

A special gem of wisdom appears in 4:12: "The magic spell of
worthless things obscures what is right, and the anxiousness of
desire perverts an innocent mind." This anticipates St. Paul's
plea for detachment in 1 Cor 7:29-35. It is quite possible, since
the author knew Greek culture that he has in mind too the plea of
Socrates, often repeated, that the philosopher, to find the truth,
should have as little as possible to do with the things of the
body (e.g., Phaedo 65, 66, 82-83, 114; Republic 519).

The Song of Songs: It is customary to list this work among the
wisdom books, even though it is clearly not such. The title, which
is also given as Canticle of Canticles, is merely a Hebrew form of
superlative: the greatest song.

Dates of composition have been proposed all the way from the
monarchic period to the third century B.C. The attribution to
Solomon is only a familiar literary device.

There is much disagreement on its structure: some have seen only
seven love songs in it, others as high as fifty.

If taken in the literal sense it would be an erotic composition.
In that way it could be a message that God created sexuality as a
means of spiritual growth, if used according to His plan and
within His laws. Thus Paul VI, in an address to the 13th National
Congress of the Italian Feminine Center, on Feb. 12, 1966 (cf. The
Pope Speaks 11, 1966, p. 10), said that marriage should be "a long
path to sanctification."

But at least by the 2nd century A.D. the allegorical view was. We
saw, especially in Hosea, the imagery of God as the husband of
Israel. Early Christians tended to make it refer to the relation
of Christ and His Church. cf. Eph 5:22-32.

Chapter 18: The Book of Daniel

Daniel is commonly thought of as a prophet. Really, as we saw
briefly in chapter 1, the book contains two very different genres,
edifying narrative, and apocalyptic.

The pattern of the book is clear: chapters 1-6 are the edifying
narrative type, of which we spoke in chapter 1 above. Chapters 7-
12 are apocalyptic; chapters 13-14 are narrative additions. We
recall from chapter 4: Apocalyptic is a genre or pattern of
writing in which the author describes visions and revelations. It
is not usually clear if he meant to assert they were real, and not
merely a vehicle for his message. They contain bizarre, highly
colored images. Often there are figures of animals, to represent
pagan empires, a horn to stand for a king or a power, and they
often include an angel who interprets images. Apocalyptic is
commonly a work to give consolation in time of severe trial. God
is presented as Lord of history. There may be prediction of the
future. Now if such predictions were made in a rather factual
genre, we would need to maintain that they really were made before
the events. However because of the highly colored imagery and
fanciful nature of apocalyptic, the predictions may be made after
the events pictured, without any dishonesty. It is understood such
things may happen in this genre.

The dating of the book is debated. Most scholars would give a
second century date, in the context of the terrible persecution of
the Jews by Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, of Syria; some others,
especially the evangelistic type, would hold for 6th century. The
argument for the later date depends much on the type of Hebrew
used. But there are respectable replies to the linguistic
arguments.

Most of Daniel is in Hebrew, yet chapters 2-7 are Aramaic. The
reason for this is not fully clear. The suggestion has been made
that the Hebrew chapters were for the special concerns of the
Jewish people, while the Aramaic portions were intended especially
for the gentiles - for Aramaic was the international language of
diplomacy at the time.

In chapter 1 above we described the edifying narrative genre, and
used it to explain the alleged defect in chronology in Daniel 1:1.

Otherwise, chapter 1 tells of the dedication of 4 Jewish youths in
the exile to the dietary laws. Eating nothing but vegetables made
them more healthy. We must add: If the story is factual, it will
not prove that vegetarians always get such an effect: there, God
miraculously supplied.

Chapter 2 contains the great vision of the four kingdoms,
symbolized by the kinds of metal in a huge statue, which the king
saw in a dream. Many have been tempted to see the 4th kingdom as
Rome, so it may connect in time with the messianic kingdom, which
comes after it. But we must note that the feet standing for that
kingdom are part pottery, part iron - which do not mix. This
hardly fits the strong power of Rome. Most interpreters take the
four to be: Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Hellenistic kingdoms
after the death of Alexander. We observe: if one follows that
view, then there is a Median kingdom before the Persian, which
would imply that Darius the Mede, who in 6:1 took Babylon, is a
historical figure. Most writers say Darius is fictitious, that
Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon. If so, we would say the
edifying narrative genre could account for the matter. However, we
must add that the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, in his
Antiquities, 10, 245-49 (xi. 4) does report that there was a
Darius the Mede, a kinsman, who would have ruled for Cyrus for a
time while Cyrus was occupied with other things. Such an action
would be quite in character with the known policies of Cyrus.

Other narrative incidents - the three men in the fiery furnace,
the vision of the giant tree, and the stories in the appendix
(chapters 13-14), could have served the purpose of encouraging the
Jews to perseverance in fidelity to their laws at a time of
persecution. The episode in chapter 4 of Nebuchadnezzar's
temporary insanity (boanthropy) does seem strange. Yet we notice
that the Babylonian records carry no entries of activity on his
part between 582 and 575.

An objection used to be made about chapter 5: Belshazzar is
presented as the last king of Babylon before its fall. But it was
said that the cuneiform records showed the last king was
Nabonidus. We now know that Nabonidus in the third year of his
reign, 553, made his son Belshazzar coregent, and he himself left
for Tema in Arabia, where he stayed for about ten years, and never
reassumed the throne.

With chapter 7 we enter the strongly apocalyptic portion of the
book. The four beasts rise from the sea, showing they are hostile
and chaotic forces opposed to God. They seem to represent the same
sequence of kingdoms as the vision of the great statue in chapter
2, except that here we get the detail of the small horn that spoke
arrogantly, which at least seems to many to be Antiochus IV of
Syria.

Chapter 7, verses 13-18 includes the famous vision of one like a
son of man, who receives from the Ancient of Days dominion, glory
and kingship that will never be taken away forever. Commentators
like to make this individual son of man just the "holy ones of the
most high." But this is unrealistic, the Jewish people never did
get such a kingship, one that will last forever. Nor would Jewish
thought suppose a headless kingdom. However if the figure is the
Messiah, then we do have a rational explanation. In Hebrew thought
we often meet an individual who stands for and as it were embodies
a collectivity. Jesus often used the phrase Son of Man to refer to
Himself. This was part of His deliberately gradual self-
revelation.

Chapter 8 largely repeats the thought of chapter 7, in different
imagery.

In chapter 9 we meet the famous enigmatic prophecy of 70 weeks of
years.

We begin with 9:2 in which Daniel is told that the desolation of
Jerusalem is to last 70 years.

First, we notice that the number 70 is normally round, as is 40.
How free this can be can be seen from a comparison of the Hebrew
text of Jonah 3:4 where Jonah says Nineveh will be destroyed in 40
days - along side of the Septuagint translation of the same line,
where it is not 40 but 3 days. The 70 years to Jeremiah 25:11 were
the length of the exile - very roundly, 70 years. But Daniel by
inspiration sees that there is a further fulfillment of the 70.

The Fathers of the Church commonly understood chapter 9 as a
prophecy of the Messiah - a view now usually dropped. Modern
scholars want to make it fit the events of the time of Antiochus
IV who persecuted the Jews, and desecrated the temple.

We can make it fit rather well with the time of Antiochus, thus:

1) Start with 605, the message to Jeremiah (25:11 - for 70 years
they will be enslaved to the king of Babylon. In one sense, which
Jeremiah saw, this meant the length of captivity - Daniel does not
contradict, but extends the prophecy by taking weeks of years
instead of single years, about 70 weeks of years.

2) 605 BC minus 62 weeks (434 years) extends to 171 BC, the death
of Onias, the High Priest, the anointed one (9:26).

3) Persecution for one week = 7 years, goes from 171-164 (death of
Onias to death of Antiochus). Antiochus makes the compact with
many, the fallen Jews (v. 27).

4) The half week in v. 27 is 167-65, the time of desecration of
the Temple.

But, there must be a reference to Christ also. We note that 9:24
is too grand - there was no everlasting justice, nor expiation of
guilt after end of Antiochus. Now, St. Augustine wisely noted in
City of God 17. 3, that some prophecies refer partly to OT events,
partly to Christ - we know this when they do not fit either one
perfectly. So 9:24 refers to Christ. "A most holy" could hardly
refer to Onias - it does refer to Christ.

We add two details to the interpretation that takes the prophecy
to refer to the period up to Antiochus:

1) The he in v. 27 may mean Antiochus making a deal with fallen
Jews - but it might also vaguely refer to Jesus making the eternal
covenant. After half a week Jesus abolishes the sacrifices of the
old law, and starts the new regime.

2) V. 25 says seven weeks of years remain until Cyrus, God's
anointed (as Isaiah 45:12 said, in the sense that God empowered
him to crush Babylon and so to liberate the Jewish captives in
539). Jeremiah twice (25:11, dated in 605 BC, and 29:10, dated
between 597 and 587, probably in 594) foretold the exile would
last 70 years. From 594 to 539 is 55 years, not precisely seven
weeks or 49 years. However, in this sort of prophecy that is a
good enough approximation - we recall the case of Jonah 3:4
mentioned above.

We conclude: the prophecy of the seventy weeks works out rather
well - with allowance for some approximation - in reference to the
times leading up to Antiochus, yet verse 24 refers entirely to the
time of Christ, and there may be vague allusions to that same time
in verse 26.

From 10:1 to 11: 35 it is not hard to see a picture of the
Hellenistic wars. But from 11:36 to the end of that chapter we
meet many things that hardly fit Antiochus IV. The evil ruler in
this passage magnifies himself above every god - this does not fit
Antiochus, who put not a statue of himself but of Zeus in the
Jerusalem temple. Verse 37 says he pays no attention to any god -
again, this does not fit Antiochus. St. Jerome in his commentary
on this passage thinks the figure is the Antichrist. Already in
8:17 the angel-interpreter told Daniel that the vision referred to
the end- time. But we could make Antiochus a weak prefiguration of
the horror of the Antichrist. In 11:45 the evil ruler will come to
a sudden end, with no one to help him, seemingly at the beautiful
holy mountain, which probably means Zion. But Antiochus met his
end in Persia.

Some fanciful interpretations would make the "King of the North"
in 11:40ff to be Russia.

Chapter 12 opens with a prediction of a great tribulation such as
has never been before. This would fit with the time of the great
Antichrist. Mt 24:21 speaks similarly of the tribulation at the
end. There seems to a conflict between the angels in charge of
various places, with Michael victorious.

In 12:2-3 a resurrection is clearly predicted. It is not clear if
the "many" means the whole human race (cf. Hebrew rabbim), or only
the just. We recall a similar prophecy in Isaiah 26:19. Chapter
12:4 tells Daniel to seal the prophecy, and says many will fall
away and evil will increase: Again we are reminded of Mat 24:12,
Lk 18. 8, and 2 Tim 3. ff.

Especially puzzling are the words of 12:7. Daniel in verse 6 had
asked how long it would be until these things would happen. The
angel said it would be a time, and times, and half a time, which
seems to stand for three and a half - a frequent symbolic number
in the Book of Revelation. And then, still in v. 7, come words
whose translation has caused problems: The things will happen,
"when the scattering of the power (hand) of the holy people has
been completed [i.e., has come to an end]." Anchor Bible Daniel
suggests that the line was mistranslated from an Aramaic original,
and wants to read: "When the power of the desecrator of the holy
people is brought to an end." But there is no need to suppose a
mistranslation - Hebrew klh can mean to complete, to finish. Hence
it is quite possible to render as we did above. Then the sense
will be that the things predicted are to happen when the
dispersion of the Jews finally comes to an end, before the end of
time. This brings to mind the odd incident in 2 Macc. 2:4-8.

Of course, we are not certain, but this is an interesting
speculation. The original RSV substantially agreed with our
translation. NRSV "when the shattering of the power of the holy
people comes to an end... ."

Besides the chapters 13-14 which were added to the book of Daniel,
there were two other additions: the prayer of Azariah and the
canticle of the three young men in the furnace, inserted in the
Greek text after 3:23. They were probably written separately from
the book of Daniel towards the end of the 2nd century B.C. and
were not accepted into the Hebrew text. But the Council of Trent
has declared them inspired, and so part of Scripture.

Chapter 19: The Two Books of Maccabees

Both books are named after Judas Maccabeus, the third son of the
priest Mattathias who began the revolt against Antiochus IV in
167. Antiochus, as a means of unifying his sprawling empire, tried
to spread Greek culture. This entailed, for the Jews, apostasy
from their faith. Many Jews did give up their faith and took up
Greek ways, even building a gymnasium in Jerusalem; many became
martyrs, but many others, led by the Maccabees, resisted with an
army, and made possible the survival of Judaism until the time of
Christ, being the root of the Hasmonean dynasty (which later
proved that power corrupts).

Mattathias was so bold as to kill the king's agent who came to
force Jews to sacrifice to the gods in Modein, his city. Then they
fled to the hills, and other loyal Jews joined them (1 Macc 2:1-
28).

Second Maccabees is not a continuation of First Maccabees. Both
cover much of the same period. First Maccabees tells the history,
beginning with Alexander the Great, and from the accession of
Antiochus IV in 175, to the death of Simon Maccabeus in 134.

Second Maccabees covers the same period, but closes with a crucial
victory won by Judas in 165.

First Maccabees relies at least in part on the recollections of
those who had been witnesses of the events. The idea of the genre
of history seen in it is closer to ours than are the books of
Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Its message is that keeping the law
brings blessings and divine support.

Second Maccabees, after an introduction by the author, explicitly
says that it is summarizing a five volume work of Jason of Cyrene
(mentioned in 2:23). The author refers us to the fuller work of
Jason for more details (2:28). Here the genre is also history, but
closer to the rhetorical type of history which permits perhaps a
bit of freedom at times.

First Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew, and shows Hebrew
style by the frequent use of and to connect sentences. We have
only the Greek text. The Hebrew was probably written near the
start of the first century B.C. Second Maccabees is earlier,
probably written in Egypt, most likely around the end of the
second century B.C. Its Greek is of good literary quality.

Second Maccabees shows a deep religious spirit. God is given all
the titles form the older books of the Old Testament, with the
addition of ho epiphanes kyrios - the Lord who appears - in
contrast to Antiochus Epiphanes.

A belief in the future life, or at least, resurrection, is
entirely clear, especially in chapter 7, in the narrative of the
martyrdom of the mother and her seven sons, and also in 14:46.

There is more testimony to the same belief in the account in
12:38-46, of the fallen Jewish soldiers who had pagan amulets on
them. Judas took up a collection to have sacrifice offered in the
Temple for their souls - thus giving a testimony to a belief in
purgatory.

In the same spirit, we see the dream of Maccabeus showing that the
deceased Jeremiah and Onias were praying for the living: 15:11-16.

Of especial interest is the account in 2:1-8 of Jeremiah hiding
the ark, and telling his followers later it was to be hidden until
God gathers his people together again and shows mercy. (Let us
recall the translation we proposed above for Daniel 12:7). But we
must not overlook the fact that 2:1 says we will "find this
incident in the records". So inspiration merely guarantees that
the story was in some records - it does not guarantee that the
episode is true in itself.

The death of Antiochus is told in chapter 9, out of sequence, for
the sake of grouping of material.

Finally in 6:13-16 we read the fullest account of the frequent
Scriptural theme of filling up the measure of sins. The author is
meditating on the fact that they are so afflicted by the
persecution, and says: "It is a sign of great kindness not to let
the irreverent run a long time, but to punish them at once. In
handling other peoples, the Lord in long-suffering waits until
they reach the full measure of their sins before He punishes them.
But with us He acts differently, so that He may not have to punish
us more severely later when our sins would reach their fullness".
This same theme appears many other times in Scripture: cf. Genesis
15:16; Mt. 24:12; 1 Cor 11:32; 1 Ths 2:15-16.

Chapter 20: The Books of Judith, Esther, and Tobit

In Daniel we saw two genres, one of which was the edifying
narrative type. Now we have a large example of this type in the
story of Judith, and perhaps in Esther and Tobit.

Judith: Nebuchadnezzar, "King of the Assyrians" declares war on
the Medes, ruled by King Arphaxad. The Persians and western
nations, including the Jews, refuse to aid in the attack.
Nebuchadnezzar does defeat the Medes, and then is angry with the
west even though many did not fight against him. He sends his
general Holofernes to take revenge. Holofernes quickly conquers
Damascus, and is about to attack the Jewish city of Bethulia and
cut off the water supply. The citizens urge their leaders to
surrender, Uzziah, the chief elder, calls for a delay of five
days.

Judith, an extremely beautiful widow calls the elders to hear her
plan. Counting on God, she adorns herself, goes to the enemy camp,
and is taken before Holofernes. She told him the Jews can easily
be conquered since they were about to sin by eating consecrated
food. Holofernes invites her to a private banquet. There he
becomes very drunk. Judith beheads him while he is in the drunken
stupor. She takes his head back to Bethulia. She then is led in
triumph to Jerusalem, and composes a hymn of thanksgiving, and
lives to a great age.

It is obvious that the story is fictional, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar
(605-562) was king of Babylon, not Assyria, and is pictured as
reigning from Nineveh, which fell in 612. Also, the Jews are said
to have just come back from exile and to have rebuilt the temple -
all impossible.

The text exists only in Greek.

Esther: Ahasuerus, King of Persia - probably the same as Xerxes
(485-65) at a banquet tells his queen Vasthi to come with her
royal robes so he may display her beauty to the guests. She
refuses. The king is angry and she is deposed. He then orders a
search for the most beautiful successor to her. Esther, a Jewess
is chosen. Mordecai, her cousin and former guardian, learns of a
plot to kill the king and informs him through Esther. Soon after
this, Haman, the prime minister, is angered at Mordecai's refusal
to pay him homage. He obtains an edict for the extermination of
the Jews, but Esther invites him to a banquet with the king, and
there reveals what Haman plans. The king is furious, Haman is
executed. Mordecai is made prime minister, and all the Jews are
authorized to defend themselves - for the order, a decree of the
Medes and Persians, which the King had given, cannot be undone.

The feast of Purim commemorates the rescue. Pur means "lot". Haman
had cast lots to determine the day for the slaughter of the Jews.

Is this another fictional story? It is more difficult to say. Most
scholars today would say it is fictional. Yet the story shows good
knowledge of Persian customs. Archaeological evidence shows there
was a prime minister Mordecai at about the supposed time of the
story. And there are references to official documents in 2:23;
6:1; and 10:2.

It exists in a shorter Hebrew form, and a Greek form with
additions of 107 more verses telling the dream of Mordecai, the
prayer of Mordecai, edicts of the king, a second account of
Esther's appeal to the king, the prayer of Esther. The Hebrew form
does not mention God, the Greek makes divine intervention the key
to the solution. And the existence of the Feast of Purim is some
evidence for historicity.

Tobit: The devout man Tobit is in exile "in the days of
Shalmaneser, King of the Assyrians". He has to flee from Nineveh
because, contrary to edict, he has buried the bodies of slain
Jews. He returns, but becomes blind from bird dung falling on his
eyes while he was asleep.

Meanwhile at Ecbatana in Media, Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, a
kinsman of Tobit is sad since the demon Asmodeus killed four
husbands of hers successively, each on the wedding night.

God sent the Archangel Raphael help Tobiah, son of Tobit, to get
funds Tobit had left in trust in Media. Raphael escorts Tobiah
there and back. He enables him to marry Sarah without dying.
Tobiah uses the heart and liver of a great fish to rout the demon.
He also takes back the gall of the fish to heal his father's eyes.
When that is done, Raphael reveals his identity, most
dramatically.

The text survives in two, rather different recensions. The
original language may have been Hebrew or Aramaic. St. Jerome said
he used a "Chaldaic" text for his Vulgate version.

The date of composition has been estimated as early as 6th
century, as late as 70 AD. Second century B.C. is most probable.

The character of Tobit as edifying narrative is obvious from the
confusion of 7th century Assyrian history.

Chapter 22: The Gospels

We already saw, in chapter 2, how we can find out for certain
which books are inspired: for that we use apologetics. It would be
good to reread that section now.

Authors' Names: Even though we do not really need to know the
names of the authors of the Gospels - it is enough to know that
they had access to the facts (which we showed in chapter 2 above)
and were concerned for their own eternity, and so would use the
facts carefully. But it is interesting to review what early
writers say abut the authors of the Gospels.

The earliest testimony comes from Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis.
Around 130 AD he wrote Exegesis of the Lord's Sayings. We depend
on Eusebius (3. 39), the first Church historian, writing around
the year 300, for several quotations from it. Papias says he
inquired from those who had heard the Apostles and disciples of
the Lord. St. Irenaeus, who wrote around 200 AD, in his work
Against Heresies (5. 33. 4), tells us that Papias was a companion
of St. Polycarp, who had known St. John the Apostle personally.

Papias tells us about Mark: "Mark became the interpreter of Peter,
and wrote accurately the doings and sayings of the Lord, not in
sequence, but all that he remembered. For he [Mark] had not heard
the Lord, or followed Him, but, as I said, followed Peter later
on, who, as needed, gave teaching, but did not make an arrangement
of the sayings of the Lord. He gave attention to one thing, to
leave nothing out of what he had heard, and to make no false
statements about them."

Some question the value of Papias' testimony, since Eusebius (3.
39) said Papias was a man of small intelligence. But they did not
notice the matter about which Eusebius was speaking: He objected
that Papias believed in a 1000 years reign of Christ on earth
between two resurrections. That error is one many picked up from
the difficult chapter 20 of Apocalypse/Revelation. So it really is
not anything against the intelligence of Papias if he made the
same mistake many others (including St. Justin and St. Irenaeus)
also did. Really, not much intelligence is needed to report what
ancient witnesses said about the authorship of the Gospels. So
many do recognize the value of Papias. In fact, Martin Hengel,
Professor at the University of Tubingen, the fountainhead of so
many leftist views about Scripture, wrote that he does believe
that Mark wrote from the preaching of Peter (In: Studies in the
Gospel of Mark, Fortress, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 107).

The so-called AntiMarcionite Prologue to Mark, dating perhaps from
around 160 AD, repeats that Mark wrote from the preaching of
Peter, and adds the odd detail that Mark was "stumpfingered" - an
uncomplimentary detail not likely to have been invented.

Papias also said that, "Matthew collected the sayings [of Jesus]
in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he could." We
do not know the relation of this (now lost) Hebrew Matthew to our
present Greek Matthew.

St. Irenaeus (3. 1. 1) gives us similar testimony about Mark, and
adds that Luke was a follower of Paul, and wrote from his
preaching.

In chapter 3 above we answered the chief reasons given for a late
date for Matthew and Luke.

Synoptic Problem: The synoptics are Matthew, Mark and Luke. The
problem is this: there seem to be considerable similarities in
them, even in wording. How can we account for that? For centuries
everyone had assumed that the traditional order, which we have
just given, was the order of composition.

How great are these similarities? They are considerable. One can
get a good look that at them by using a harmony of the Gospels, in
which all four Gospels are printed in parallel columns, so that
similar items in each are printed on the same level of lines. The
most useful of these works is: Alan Kurt, (ed.) Synopsis of the
Four Gospels. Greek-English Edition of Synopsis Quattuor
Evangeliorum, with the text of the Revised Standard version,
London: United Bible Societies, 1979. To be certain of what
similarities there are, of course one should use the Greek.

We do find great similarities in content, and even some
similarities in wording. Yet the wording is not always as close as
one might suppose. A study of that Synopsis or a similar work will
make that clear.

The question is: How do we account for the similarities? The most
favored solution for long as been the Two Source Theory. It
supposes that Mark wrote first, that Matthew and Luke used his
Gospel much of the time, but when Matthew and Luke run largely
together, without Mark, there was another source, which has been
called Q (for German Quelle, Source).

Out of 661 verses in Mark, about 600 are found substantially in
Matthew, and about 350 in Luke. Also, Matthew and Luke have about
236 verses in common that are not found in Mark, but Matthew has
about 330 verses not found in the other two.

If we look for verses found in all three: Mark as 330 such verses
out of 661; Matthew has 330 out of 1068 and Luke has 330 out of
1150. There are 230 verses common to Matthew and Luke.

But there are also some verses special to each Gospel, which the
others do not have: Mark has 50, Matthew has over 315, Luke has
over 500 special to himself.

The arguments for and against the Two Source Theory are very
technical. Let us comment on the first step, the belief that Mark
wrote first. The chief arguments in favor of that view are these:
1)Mark has kept 3 Aramaic expressions, as against one in Matthew;
2)Matthew and Luke seem to speak more reverentially about Jesus
than does Mark, in whose Gospel only once is Jesus addressed as
Lord. These arguments are interesting, but hardly enough to prove
anything.

One of the chief proofs of the Two Source theory is the presence
of doublets, i.e., instances where one Gospel gives the same
saying twice. It is suggested that this indicates copying -not too
intelligently - from two sources. But these are not too
impressive. For example in chapter 9, Luke reports a trial mission
of the twelve, then in chapter 10 he reports the Lord sent out
seventy others. But these are different groups. Further, Jesus was
a traveling speaker. As such He would often repeat things,
probably in slightly different forms.

There are some impressive arguments against thinking Mark wrote
first. A study by this author, "Did St. Luke Imitate the
Septuagint?" in Journal for the Study of the New Testament (15,
1982, pp. 30-41) shows many cases in which Luke uses a very odd
Semitic structure that in no case at all is found in the parallel
passages in Mark. It is the apodotic kai. Here is an example, from
Lk 5:1: "And it happened, when the crowd pressed on Him to hear
the word of God, and He stood by the lake of Gennesaret." The and
does not fit in English, Latin, Greek or even Aramaic. But it is
common in Hebrew. Now Luke in his opening verses said he consulted
eyewitnesses and written accounts. It is likely he would have met
written accounts in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. So we suggest Luke
meant what he said, and he was translating, at some points, Hebrew
documents in a slavish fashion, i.e., he brought a Hebrew
structure into Greek, where it does not belong. The fact that Luke
uses this structure only from 20 to 25% of the time he would have
used it if he were translating an all Hebrew document, shows he
was using Hebrew only at points. At other points, he writes a good
quality of Greek.

Still further, there are various points where Luke adds other
Semitisms which are not found in Mark. H. F. D. Sparks comments
("The Semitisms of St. Luke's Gospel," in Journal of Theological
Studies, 44, 1943, p. 130) that Luke is notable for a "continual
rephrasing of St. Mark, in order to add Semitisms." An example is
in the parable of the wicked husbandmen. When Mark tells it in
12:1-12, after the first servants are mistreated the master "sent
another". But Luke (20:9-19) says "And he added to send another...
And he added to send a third." The added reflects the Hebrew
idiomatic use of ysf, which Mark, a Hebrew did not use. M. Zerwick
(Graecitas Biblica, ed. 4, Romae, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,
1960, #361) shows that Luke often uses an Aramaic pattern, a form
of the verb to be plus a participle, instead of an imperfect
indicative. Luke has 50% of all instances of this in the whole New
Testament. Yet, where Mark does have the structure, Luke usually
avoids it, but does use it in places parallel to Mark, but where
Mark does not have it.

Also, there is the case of the so-called minor agreements of
Matthew and Luke against Mark, i.e., in some passages found in all
three Gospels, Matthew and Luke agree in differing from Mark in
small points, e.g., in Mt 21:1-9 and Luke 19:28-37 there are 17
points on which Matthew and Luke agree, but disagree with Mark.

There is much more. As a result, a good number of modern scholars
no longer think Mark wrote first.

Some scholars today, e.g., W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann (Anchor
Bible, Matthew, p. li) say it is easier to suppose that Matthew
and Luke each used their own sources than to suppose one
evangelist saw the other's work, and went in for some radical
editorial revision - without the help of a computer.

Genre of the Gospels: It is sometimes said that the Gospels are
just "documents of faith." The expression is not wrong, but can be
quite misleading. It could imply that we have no proof that the
Gospels contain the truth about Jesus, they are just a description
of the faith of His followers. We saw in our sketch of apologetics
in chapter 2 above that we can get the solid truth about Jesus
from them. That truth was and is wanted for the sake of faith, so
we may have faith in Him and in His Church. But first, without
calling on faith, we showed, in apologetics, that we can get the
facts. Only then is there place for faith. So we are far from the
really irrational notion that we just decide to believe, with no
foundation.

The background helps us: the ancient historians of Greece and Rome
were concerned to get the facts. They added interpretations, but
did not let them interfere with the facts. Now the tradition of
writing among the Hebrews was in a way even more concerned about
getting facts. So many Greeks and Romans held cyclic ideas -
everything goes in cycles, and then starts all over again. But the
Hebrews did not believe in such cycles: history was marching ahead
to a goal, the coming of the Messiah. And Christians recognize a
central event, the redemption, to which everything else leads up,
on which all else depends.

So the Gospels basically belong to the historical genre. We saw
this was true because the writers believed their eternity depended
on the facts about Jesus, and they had ample opportunity to get
the facts. They do at times add interpretations for the sake of
faith. But as we saw in chapter 2 above, we can tell the
difference. As to the saying," There is no such thing as an
uninterpreted report," i.e., one not colored by the subjectivity
of the one who reports - that coloring does occur often. But we
saw there are some things so directly and simply picked up by eyes
and ears that there is no room for distortion, e.g., if a leper
stands before Jesus asking to be healed, and He says: "I will it.
Be healed," anyone present could see it happen. There could be
total fakery, but no other change. And fakery is, as we said,
ruled out by the writers' concern for eternity.

The Evangelists did not, however, always present the facts in
chronological sequence. They often grouped things, for their own
special purposes, e.g., the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is
likely to be a grouping of things Jesus said on several different
occasions. And parables are often put in groups. Obviously, such
things do not at all affect the truth.

Further, as we can learn from Form and Redaction Criticism, which
we saw in Chapter 6 above, the way the Apostles and others in the
primitive Church reported the saying of Jesus - and the way the
Evangelists wrote them down - might not always keep the same
wording. It is normal and good for a writer or speaker to adapt
the presentation to the current audience. But they would keep the
same sense - again, concern for their eternal fate.

The 1964 Instruction, as we saw in chapter 6 above, adds that the
Evangelists wrote in the light of their better understanding which
they had later. This is obvious. But it would not lead them to
falsify anything, e.g., they still portray the Apostles as dull,
selfish, slow to catch on. Cf. Jn 2:19-21; 3:22; 6:6; 12;16; 20:9.

Genre of the Infancy Gospels: Some today say that there is little
factual content in chapters 1-2 of Matthew and Luke. Especially,
Luke just built up a very few facts by using parallels from the
Old Testament. A very good answer to this claim comes from John L.
McKenzie, far from a conservative, who wrote a review of R.
Brown's, The Birth of the Messiah, which makes such claims. Even
though McKenzie was a friend of Brown's he wrote in a review of
the book (National Catholic Reporter, Dec. 2, 1977, p. 10), "One
wonders how a gentile convert [Luke]... could have acquired so
quickly the mastery of the Greek Old Testament shown in the use of
the Old Testament in Luke's infancy narratives... . Luke must have
had a source... and as it is hard to think of such a collection of
texts without a narrative for them to illustrate, a pre-Lucan
infancy narrative is suggested, I beg to submit."

Pope Paul VI spoke strongly on the historicity of these chapters
(Allocution of Dec. 28, 1966, Insegnamenti di Paolo VI. IV. pp.
678-79, Vatican Press, 1966). He complained that some "try to
diminish the historical value of the Gospels... especially those
that refer to the birth of Jesus and His infancy... these pages
are not inventions of people's fancy, but ... they speak the
truth... . The authority of the Council has not pronounced
differently on this: 'The Sacred Authors wrote... always in such a
way that they reported on Jesus with sincerity and truth
[Constitution on Divine Revelation # 19]. '" LG # 57 speaks in a
most factual way on these events. Pope John Paul II in a General
Audience of January 18, 1988 said: "To identify the source of the
infancy narrative, one must go back to St. Luke's remark: 'Mary
kept all these things pondering them in her heart. '... Mary...
could bear witness after Christ's death and resurrection, in
regard to what concerned herself and her role as Mother, precisely
in the apostolic period when the New Testament texts were being
written... ." It is quite obvious that she would be the prime
source. Yet some today say, without foundation, that she was not.

The study mentioned of apodotic kai in Luke shows his extreme care
for accuracy: how then could he, right after saying he consulted
eyewitnesses and written accounts, go into something so loose and
fanciful as the objectors would claim?

The objections raised against the historicity of the infancy
narratives are mostly inane. They say that according to Matthew,
Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem and had their home there. But
Luke said they were visitors to Bethlehem without a place to stay.
The basis for this strange remark is that in Mt 2:11, the Magi
found Mary and Joseph and Jesus in a house. But: would Joseph stay
in a stable long? Of courses not, he would soon find lodging.

It is also said that the flight into Egypt cannot be fitted with
Luke's account. But it can easily fit: First, the Magi did not
come on the day of Jesus' birth - the fact that Herod ordered a
slaughter of babies 2 yrs old and under suppose quite a bit of
time even though he would play it safe and kill with a margin. So
before the Magi came there was time for the circumcision and
presentation in the temple, then the flight to Egypt, and after
some time, the return.

The only objection worth considering is about the "census" at the
time of the birth of Jesus. However, new research by E. L. Martin
(The Birth of Christ Recalculated, Academy for Scriptural
Knowledge, Box 5000, Portland, Or. 97225) provides the solution.
All estimates of the date of Jesus' birth depend on a statement by
the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, that Herod died just after
an eclipse of the moon. Martin shows that only if we pick the
eclipse of Jan 10, 1 BC will there be enough time for all the
events Josephus describes between the death of Herod and the next
Passover. Further, Emperor Augustus was to get the great title,
Father of His Country, in 2 B.C. That was known far in advance, so
the actual governor of the Holy Land would have gone to Rome for
the celebration, probably in the fall of 3 BC. (sailing on the
Mediterranean was too dangerous in the winter, after Nov. 1). We
know from secular sources that in 3 BC people were taking an oath
of allegiance to Augustus, in preparation for the great event. So
that was the apographe - a broad word, which can mean census, or
any sort of registration. The governor needed to have a competent
man to manage affairs in his absence. Quirinius had just before
that time finished a successful war up north. So he was put in
charge. St. Luke's Greek does not call him governor, but says he
was governing. So the problem is easily solved.

The genealogies in the infancy Gospels have caused much
discussion, since they seem not to agree. One can bring about
agreement by supposing a number of Levirate marriages - that is
marriages following the Old Testament law that if a married man
died with no children, his brother should take his wife to raise
up children to continue his line. But this is not really
necessary. We now know that ancient genealogies are often
constructed not as family trees, but were artificial structure, to
bring out something else: Cf. R. Wilson, in Biblical
Archaeologist, 42, Winter, 1979, pp. 11- 22.

Jesus chose to remain in a hidden life with His Mother, the Mother
of God, until about age 30. His conduct then was so unobtrusive
that when He finally did begin to display His power, the
townspeople found it hard to accept. He wanted to show the value
our Father attaches to a good family life lived in even an
ordinary way.

Faith Holding on in the Dark: At age 12 He caused grief to Mary
and Joseph by remaining behind in the Temple without telling them.
They did not understand His response - that need not mean they did
not know who He was. No, it was the departure from the compliant
way of life He had been living. He did this as part of a divine
pattern, in which God puts people into situations in which it
seems impossible to believe or to hold on to His will, such as He
did to Abraham, when He ordered him to sacrifice Isaac, even
though He had promised Abraham would be the father of a great
nation by Isaac. Another instance was His promise of the Eucharist
in John 6 - He could have easily explained He would change bread
and wine into His body and blood, so there would be no
cannabilism. But He wanted them to hold on in the dark. If a
person does that, his/her will must adhere powerfully to the
divine will - and in that lies perfection. The same pattern is
found in His reply to His Mother at Cana, when He seemed to reject
her request. She understood, however, in faith, and the result was
that in response to her intercession, He worked His first miracle,
advancing the hour. And the pattern appeared again when in a crowd
He said that he who does the will of His Father is Father, Mother,
and brother to Him (Mk 3:31-35 - in this incident He was teaching
dramatically that out of two great dignities, to hear the word of
God and keep it is even greater than to be the physical Mother of
God. Of course, she was at the peak in both categories).

Problem of Mark 3:20-35: The entire passage in which this last
incident lies, Mk 3:20-35, has been the occasion of some really
outrageous comments. There are three segments to this passage: 1)
20-21: The hoi par' autou (could be His relatives, friends, those
about Him) see He is preaching so intently to the crowds that He
does not take time to eat. They go out to grab (kratesai) him, by
force it seems. 2)22-30: Scribes from Jerusalem say that He casts
out devils by the prince of devils. He answers them, says that is
the unforgivable sin; 3)31-35: His Mother and "brothers" come to a
crowd to which He is speaking. Their presence is announced to Him.
He replies: Who is my Mother and my brothers?... He who does the
will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother."

Some incredibly outrageous comments have been made in print about
these three passages. The commentators in question assume that the
group in segment 1 is the same as that in segment 3. That may be
true, but cannot be proved. Form Criticism shows us that Gospel
passages may be put together out of originally separate units. The
second segment is a strange interlude, and makes it not at all
certain it is the same group with segments 1 and 3. But, some
commentators insist, it is the same group, and so His Mother did
not believe in Him! One commentator even said she was outside the
sphere of salvation!

As we said, it is not certain she was in the group of segment 1 -
the hoi par autou is not very definite. Even if she were, could we
be sure she did not believe in Him? Very ordinary Mothers stand up
for their sons even when they are clearly guilty. She would be
less than ordinary! Could she not have gone along - if indeed she
did - to hold down the others? That is quite plausible.

But most of all, St. Luke's Gospel presents her, in the
annunciation passage, as the first believer. Vatican II endorses
this in LG # 56 and says that even at the start, "she totally
dedicated herself to the person and work of her Son." The blind
commentators ignore the Council, about which they speak so
favorably otherwise. They say each Evangelist may have his own
scope and approach. True. But they cannot make one Evangelist
contradict another, for the chief author of all Scripture is the
one Holy Spirit: cf. Vatican II, DV # 12. Of course when many
today attribute all kinds of errors to Scripture, perhaps this is
not too strange.

We already explained above, that His words about who are His
mother and His brothers were just a dramatic way of teaching that
out of two dignities - that of Mother of God, and that of hearing
the word and keeping it - the second is the greater. She was at
the peak in both classes: LG # 58.

Our Lady's Knowledge about Jesus: Still further, when did she come
to know who He was? At the annunciation itself, as soon as the
angel said her Son would reign over the house of Jacob forever,
any ordinary Jew - not just the one full of grace - would know
that it was the Messiah, for only He was to reign forever,
according to the usual Jewish belief of the day. Then all the
Messianic prophecies - which even the Targums understood - would
come to her mind, if not at the same moment, yet surely in a short
while, as she was "pondering in her heart."

Brothers of Jesus: As to His "brothers" in Mk 3:31, any competent
scholar knows that Hebrew ah means more than blood brothers -
almost any relative can be meant. Lot, nephew of Abraham (Gen
11:27-31), is called his brother in Gen 13:8 and 14:14-16, Really,
Hebrew had no word for cousin, indeed was very poor in words for
specific relationships of any kind. Further, Mk 6:3 names the
following as "brothers" of Jesus: James, Joses, Judas and Simon.
Mt. 13:55 gives the same names. But we see from Mk 15:40 that at
the cross was Mary the Mother of James and Joseph (Joses). From
which we gather that James and Joses had a different Mother, not
Mary the Mother of Jesus (cf. also Mt 27:56. Of course, the
decision of the Church is the most basic reason for knowing they
were not sons of Mary the Mother of Jesus, for the Church teaches
she was aeiparthenos, ever-virgin, in conceiving, in giving birth,
in the time after His birth.

A further objection: Greek did have words for cousins etc? So
adelphos in the Greek Gospels must mean blood brother. Reply: The
LXX was written in Greek, yet it uses calls Lot a brother of
Abraham. Often in reading St. Paul we must look to the underlying
Hebrew word in his mind in order to understand the Greek, e.g.,
Paul in Romans 9 cites Malachi: "I have loved Jacob and hated
Esau." We must see the Hebrew lack of degrees of comparison here,
even though Paul wrote Greek, which did have them, and the LXX for
Malachi also was in Greek. (The expression means: love one more,
the other less). Paul often uses the word know in the sense of
Hebrew yada. And there are numerous other examples.

Parables and Blinding: It is right after this incident that Mark
narrates the beginning of His parables, and says He began to teach
this way "so that seeing they might look and not see, and hearing
they might hear and not understand." These words are from Isaiah
6:9-10. They have been much discussed of course. St. Mark quotes
them in the form found in the Targum. St. Matthew quotes Isaiah in
softer form (13:13-15): "Therefore do I speak to them in parables,
because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear."
Isaiah had used imperative forms: "Hearing hear, but do not
understand, seeing see, but do not perceive... ."

First, we need to note that it is well known that the Hebrews
often attributed to positive direct action of God what He only
permits, e.g., in 1 Sam 4:3, after a defeat by the Philistines,
the Hebrew text has them saying: "Why did the Lord strike us today
before the face of the Philistines?"' And often during the plagues
before the Exodus, the text says that God hardened the heart of
Pharaoh.

But Jesus did not really want to blind them. In Mt 23;37 He wept
over Jerusalem because they would not listen.

So we need a different way to understand the purpose of parables.
It is this: We might think of two spirals in the reactions of
people to parables - and other things too. Let us imagine a man
who has never been drunk before, but tonight he gets very drunk.
The next day there will be guilt feelings - we specified it was
the first time. Over time, something must give: either he will
align his actions with his beliefs, or his beliefs will be pulled
to match his actions. In other words, if he continues to get
drunk, he will lose the ability to see there is anything wrong
with getting drunk. But other beliefs are interconnected, and so
his ability to see spiritual things becomes more and more dull.

In the other direction, if one lives vigorously in accord with
faith, which tells us the things of this world are hardly worth a
mention compared to the things of eternity (cf. Phil 3:7-8), such
a one grows gradually more and more in understanding of spiritual
things; he is on the good spiral. So the parables are a
magnificent device of our Father, showing both mercy and justice
simultaneously. To one who goes on the bad spiral, the blindness
is due in justice, yet it is also mercy, for the more one
realizes, the greater his responsibility. On the good spiral, the
growing light is in a sense justice for good living; yet more
basically it is mercy, for no creature by its own power can
establish a claim on God. So in both directions, mercy and justice
are identified, even as they are in the divine essence, where all
attributes are identified with each other.

Rather similarly, Pius XII said (Divino afflante Spiritu: EB 563)
that God deliberately sprinkled Scripture with difficulties to
cause us to work harder and so get more out of them.

Nature of Parable: There has been much discussion about parables
in general: A. Julicher in 1888 made the mistake of starting with
the concept of a parable in Greek rhetoric - and insisted there
must be only one point to a parable, or it would be an allegory.
But this view has been largely abandoned thanks to a study of
rabbinic parables, which, although they are quite different from
those of Jesus, yet did help us to see Julicher was wrong. (For a
collection of rabbinic parables, cf. H. K. McArthur & Robert M.
Johnston, They Also Taught in Parables, Zondervan, 1990 - it
contains 115 actual rabbinic parables plus related items and
studies of similarities and differences).

Explanations of Parables and Retrojection: Most scholars today
think the explanations of parables given in the Gospels are not by
Jesus, but came later from the Church. But this would attribute
falsity to the Gospel statements that Jesus said these things. Now
there is such a thing as retrojection - a process in which
something Jesus actually said after Easter is presented as if said
before Easter. As long as He really said it, this is not really
deceptive. But to say He said something He did not say at all,
that would be deception.

Gradual Self-revelation:The same lack of complete clarity of His
teaching was part of His deliberately gradual self-revelation.
What would have happened had He opened His public life by saying:
"Before Abraham came to be, I AM"?

We can see this gradual character from an examination of the
titles given Jesus. He called Himself often "Son of Man." Some
claim He meant some other person. But it is clear that He is the
earthly Son of Man when He says the Son of Man is Lord even of the
Sabbath (Mk 2:28) or when in Lk 9:58 He says, "Foxes have their
holes... but the Son of Man has nowhere to recline His head." He
is also the suffering Son of Man, for He predicted at least three
times that the Son of Man would suffer and rise (e.g., Mk 8:31)
and then He did precisely that. He is clearly the Son of Man to
come at the end - from the parable of the weeds in Mt 13:26-41 and
from Lk 17:24-26 which equates the suffering and the
eschatological Son of Man.

Was there a current Aramaic expression, bar ('e) nasha to mean
merely "I" or "a man in my situation"? This is much debated.

In Mt 24:30 He said, "they will see the Son of Man coming on the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Which ties clearly
to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14: "Behold with the clouds of
heaven there came one like a son of Man. He came to the Ancient of
Days and was presented to Him. He was given dominion and glory and
kingdom so that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve
Him. His dominion is everlasting." Many think that the Son of Man
in Daniel means the "holy ones of the Most High." But it does not
fit. (We spoke of this in our comments on Daniel). They, whether
we take them to be the ancient Jews or the Christians later, never
did get an everlasting kingdom. Nor would the Jews ever think of a
Messianic kingdom as headless - the head was the Messiah. We note
Jesus spoke Mt 24:38 late, towards the end of His earthly life, so
the revelation by this title was indeed gradual.

So here would be something for people to ponder, so that the good
would get more and more clarity, the evil would lose all. We need
not suppose Daniel saw all this. That is not necessary, for the
chief author the Holy Spirit, could see it. We have cases where
this sort of thing seems to have happened in Genesis 3:15 and
Isaiah 7:14 (identified as such by LG # 55).

Without using the title Son of Man, Jesus in Mt 7:22-23 indicates
He is the judge at the end.

Many follow W. Wrede's book, The Messianic Secret (first appeared
in German in 1901). Wrede said Jesus did not call Himself Messiah:
The Church was embarrassed, faked incidents where it would come
up, where He would enjoin silence, e.g., after raising the
daughter of Jairus, He called for silence. Wrede said this is
foolish, fakery. Anyone could see the girl was alive. But Jesus
was alone in the house with the parents, Peter, James and John. He
needed quiet only long enough to slip out and get on the way to
the next town - so people would not seize Him and proclaim Him
King Messiah if they knew what He had done. (in Chapter 6 we
examined R. H. Fuller's analysis of Mark 8:29 ff. and saw it was
faulty).

Jesus often spoke of God as His Father, and carefully avoided
saying Our Father (except to teach them the prayer) - otherwise He
said My Father, Your Father. In the parable of the wicked tenants
(Mk 12:6; Lk 20:13) Jesus clearly meant Himself by the "beloved
son" - the Pharisees present grasped that. But the Greek is
agapeton, which the Septuagint uses to translate Hebrew yahid,
only son.

He also said He was greater than Jonah, claimed authority over the
Torah, said He could forgive sins, and as we saw, said He was the
eschatological judge. When asked about John the Baptist, Jesus
said John was Elijah (Mt 11: 9-15), of whom it was written,
"Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare
your way before you." - Jesus used the then current adaptation of
Mal 3:1, made by combining it with Ex 23:20. But Mal 3:1 in the
Hebrew said: "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the
way before my face." So Elijah at the end will be the forerunner
of the coming of God Himself. This seems to imply Jesus is Yahweh
Himself!

As to the clear texts in John: Before Abraham came to be, I am"
and "I and the Father are one". - It is likely these were spoken
only shortly before His death, when there was no more reason for a
gradual character to His self-revelation. The time had passed for
that, and the hardness of His enemies was complete.

The Consciousness of Christ: Even without using the strong texts
from John, we can see how He understood His own self. In his
Encyclical on the Mystical Body (DS 3812) Pius XII taught that
from the first instant of conception, the human soul of Jesus saw
the vision of God, in which all knowledge is available. in
Sempiternus rex (DS 3905) Pius XII complained people were not
accepting this teaching. He repeated the teaching in Haurietis
aquas (DS 3924). The Holy Office under Paul VI (July 24, 1966)
complained of non-acceptance. Yet Pius XII, in 1950, in Humani
generis (DS 3885) said such Encyclical texts fall under the
promise of Christ, "He who hears you, hears me"(Lk 10:16) and
added that when a Pope in his Acta expressly takes a stand on a
point currently debated, it is removed from debate. The debate was
current already when Pius XII wrote the Encyclical on the Mystical
Body in 1943, because a book by P. Galtier in 1939 had started the
modern discussion.

Theological reasoning by itself shows He must have had that
vision. For any soul has the vision if the divinity joins itself
directly to the human mind/soul, without even an image in between
(no image could represent the infinite God). But in Jesus this was
more true than in other souls that have the vision, for not just
His human mind/soul, but His entire humanity was joined to the
divinity in the unity of one Person.

This knowledge caused Him suffering in anticipation of His
passion, even from the start of His life. A long running stress
would become even more severe. His divine power could have
prevented the anxiety, but He had decided (Phil 2:7) not to use
His power for Himself. Unprotected humanity would have to feel
anxiety in such a situation. He admitted this interior distress to
us in Lk 12:50 and John 12:27. His Mother too knew, since as we
saw, she beginning at the annunciation, understood the prophecies
of His passion. So, she suffered long years. Then at the cross she
was asked - for all holiness lies in willing what God wills - to
even will His death, so dreadful a death, in spite of her love,
which was so great that "none greater under God can be thought of,
and only God can comprehend it" (Pius IX, in Ineffabilis Deus,
1854. He was speaking of her holiness, but that word is
interchangeable with love).

Luke 2:52 says He advanced in wisdom. The Fathers wrestled with
this text, St. Athanasius solved it: There was no real growth in
wisdom, but growth in what He manifested at each point. If He had
shown His knowledge at for example age 3 it would have been
shocking. Similarly in Mk 13:32 He says He does not know the day
of the end. Pope St. Gregory the Great solved this saying that "He
knew it in His humanity, but not from His humanity, i.e., it
registered on His human mind, but His humanity was not the source
of the information.

A full treatment of His knowledge is found in Wm. G. Most, The
Consciousness of Christ, Christendom, Front Royal VA 1980).

The Kingdom and the Church: He often spoke of the coming of the
Kingdom. We can see from such texts as the parables of the net and
the weeds in the wheat, and from Mt 21:43 that the Kingdom often
means the Church in this world and/or the next. Even many
nonconservative scholars see this, e.g., John L. McKenzie, in his
Dictionary of the Bible, p. 480, or R. Brown in The Churches the
Apostles Left Behind (Paulist, pp. 51-52), cf. his Responses to
101 Questions on the Bible, p. 12 (Paulist, 1990). The Revised NAB
has adopted "Kingdom of God" where it formerly had "Reign of God."
(We grant that "kingdom" does at times have other senses, but it
often, especially in the passages cited above, does refer to the
Church).

Jesus and the Law: He reaffirmed the law (Mt. 5:17): "I am come
not to destroy but to fulfill."

Yet His enemies accused Him of breaking the law. The key to the
answer is in Mk 7:1-13. The Pharisees had just rebuked Jesus'
followers for eating with unwashed hands - the Pharisees and
others frequently washed hands, and observed baptisms of various
utensils. So Jesus answered them in the words of Isaiah 29:13:
"This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far
from me." And He added: "They leave aside the command of God and
hold to the tradition of men." They made void God's own
commandment to honor Father and Mother, and instead said that if a
man says to his Father or Mother, Corban - the money I would have
given you is dedicated to God - then they are free of the fourth
commandment!

A major Jewish scholar of today, Jacob Neusner (Torah, Fortress,
Phila., 1985, p. 75) reports that the Mishnah, which was
considered a codification of oral traditions, said that part of
the law given to Moses was written, part was transmitted orally.
There were 613 precepts in the written law, but many more than
that in the oral law. Neusner cites the Talmud (Torah, p. 78)
saying that the oral part is greater than the written part, and
that the things handed on orally are "more precious." Neusner also
says (Invitation to the Talmud, Harper & Row, NY, 2d ed. 1989, p.
23) that the Pharisees extended the levitical purity rules even
beyond the Temple to their own homes. After 70 AD they extended
these rules to all Jews.

In the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 11. 3) we read: "It is a worse
thing to go against the words of the scribes than the words of the
[written] law."

Their esteem for the law was so extreme that they thought God
Himself spends three hours per day in studying the Law
(Palestinian Targum on Dt 32:4, and Babylonian, Talmud, Aboda Zara
3. b).

Some of the things the Jewish teachers disputed were pitiful.
Studying law meant largely just solving cases. Thus the Babylonian
Talmud (Beza 1. 1) tells us that the schools of Shammai and
Hillel, at the time of Christ, debated whether it was permissible
to eat an egg laid by a hen on a feast day coming after the
Sabbath. The hen had been working illegally!. The school of
Shammai said it was permissible; Hillel said no. The Talmud
(Sabbath 6. 65-66) tells us that Rabbi Meir said a cripple with a
wooden leg could walk on the Sabbath - but Rabbi Jose said it was
forbidden!

Yigal Yadin, the chief researcher of the Qumran Temple Scroll,
reports (Biblical Archaeology Review, Sept-Oct., 1984, p. 45) that
since Dt 23:12-14 ordered the latrine to be made outside the camp
in the period of desert wandering, some Essenes took this to apply
literally to all of Jerusalem, and so made a latrine outside the
city at a distance of 3000 cubits - which was too far for anyone
to be permitted to walk there on the Sabbath! (A cubit was about
17.5 inches).

We see there was ample reason, admitted by the Jewish sources
themselves, for Jesus to rebuke the Pharisees. At the same time,
we can admit that they also held some highly moral ideals along
with foolish things (cf. J. Bonsirven Palestinian Judaism in the
Time of Christ, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1965, tr. W. Wolf, pp. 21-32).

Very many today say that the conflicts of Jesus with the Pharisees
did not take place in His time, but that later the Christians came
into conflict, and then retrojected these things to His time. But
that would be sheer falsification of Scripture. One could
retroject an actual saying of Jesus, given after Easter, to the
time before Easter - but this proposed retrojection would be of
things He never said at all. Further, as we have just seen, the
Pharisees did commit dreadful excesses.

Jesus not only did not violate the real law of God, but He even
extended and perfected it. Especially, although Leviticus 19:18
had commanded love of neighbor, when the Jews took that to mean
only fellow Jews, Jesus in the parable of the good Samaritan made
clear it applies to all. He also extended the precepts in Matthew
5:21-48: "You have heard it was said to them of old... but I say
to you...

He distinguished clearly what is required for salvation from what
is needed for perfection. Thus He said in Mt 19:21: "If you would
be perfect, go sell all you have... ." And He proposed
celibacy/virginity for those who could take it: Mt 19:12.

He also added ideals in the Sermon on the Mount in Mt 5-7. St.
Thomas explained well (II. II. 40. 1 ad 2, citing Augustine De
Sermone in monte 1. 19): "These precepts are always to be observed
in attitude of mind, namely, that a man should always be prepared
not to resist... But at times one must act otherwise, because of
the common good [referring chiefly to public authority]... Hence
Augustine says:... nothing is more unhappy than the happiness of
sinners, in that impunity is nourished and an evil will is
strengthened." Jesus Himself when slapped on the face by a guard
at His trial did not turn the other cheek, but rebuked them (John
18:23).

Incidentally, only four of the early Christian writers were
clearly absolute pacifists: Marcion, Tatian, Tertullian and
Lactantius. But each passage involves heresy and so the testimony
is voided. Marcion and Tatian were major heretics. Tertullian by
the time he wrote a pacifist text had fallen into Montanism.

Jesus and St. Paul on the Law: There seems to be a conflict: Jesus
said He came not to destroy but to fulfill; St. Paul said we are
free from the law. But if we study carefully, there is no conflict
at all, but perfect agreement. (2 Peter 3:15-16 comments that St.
Paul is hard to understand. Anyone who has studied Paul says
loudly: Amen).

St. Paul was in a running fight with the Judaizers. They said:
Christ is not enough, we must have the law too. The natural
response for Paul was: We are free from the law. That was rather
misleading language. He meant: 1)Jesus is enough; 2)Keeping the
law does not earn salvation. For Paul, like Jesus, taught that God
is our Father, and so we get our salvation as His children. We
inherit: cf. Gal 3:15-18; 4:5-7; Rom 8:16-17; 6:23. (It is true
that Greek kleronomein) can mean merely get, need not always mean
inherit. But the contexts of the verses referred to show Paul does
mean inherit). Even as children, however, we could earn to lose
salvation, to be disinherited: Rom 6:23.

(Incidentally, we can see from the above the correct solution to
the question of predestination: 1)Our Father wills all to be
saved; 2)He looks to see who rejects His grace so gravely and
persistently that he cannot be saved - sadly, He decides to let
those go, negative reprobation; 3)All others He predestines, not
because of merits, which have not appeared yet, but because that
is what He wanted to do in the first place, and they are not
blocking Him. So, as with inheriting, one does not earn the
positive reward, but can earn to lose it, that is, can earn the
negative, reprobation).

Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes: Earlier in this chapter we saw
with the help of Jewish sources, that the Pharisees really were
guilty of the faults with which Jesus charged them. So it is not
correct to say the Gospel strictures on them really belong to a
period later in the first century. The fact that they had some
beliefs in common with Jesus, e.g., the resurrection, does not
change this fact. Nor does the fact that some few Pharisees were
friendly to Jesus change it. Rather their extreme hatred is shown
by their obtaining His condemnation to a death so horrible that a
decent person would not treat a dog that way. Later in the first
century a curse against Christians was inserted into their
liturgy.

Some today try to say that it was not the Jews that brought the
condemnation of Jesus, it was the Romans, on a charge of
insurrection. To say this means the Gospels are telling a lie. It
is painfully clear that Pilate tried to dismiss the charge. The
Jews, especially the Pharisees pressed on, and asked to have
Barabbas, a real murderer released instead of Jesus. The Acts of
the Apostles present the same picture of their attitude.

We grant, as Vatican II said (Declaration on NonChristian
Religions #4), that the special guilt for His death does not fall
on Jews today, or even on all Jews in the country at that time -it
falls only on those who were before Pilate's tribunal screaming
for His blood. But we cannot escape charging those who were there
with incredible hardness and blindness. And most of the others
failed in faith in not accepting Him.

Flavius Josephus in Antiquities I. 3, says the Pharisees lived an
austere form of life, and that they believed in the immortality of
the soul, rewards and punishments in the life to come. They had
great influence among the people of the time of Jesus, especially
through the scribes. St. Paul tells us that he had been a
Pharisees before his conversion (Phil 3:6; Acts 23:6, 26:5).

The Pharisees may have developed from the Hasidim, a religious
reform movement at the time of the Maccabees. They became
prominent as an opposition party during the reign of the Hasmonean
rulers, John Hyrcanus (134-04 BC) and Alexander Jannaeus) 103-76
BC), and had much influence over Alexandra Salome (76-67 BC). With
the reign of Herod their political influence seems to have
declined, but their influence with the people was great.

The Sadducees seem to have originated in the 2nd century BC, and
to have had much influence up to the first Jewish revolt, 66-70
AD. The name most likely comes from Zadok, high priest at the time
of David. The Sadducees did favor the priests and their
interpretation of the law. By the time of Jesus they included the
families from whom the high priests came, and also other wealthy
aristocrats of Jerusalem. Most members of the Sanhedrin, the
highest judicial authority of the Jews, were Sadducees. The
Sadducees allied themselves with those who had political power.
Their influence among the people was much less. The Sadducees
accepted only the written law, not the oral law which was so
important to the Pharisees as we saw above in this chapter. It
used to be thought that they accepted only the Pentateuch and
rejected the rest of the Old Testament. This seems not so likely
now. Josephus in Antiquities I. 4 says the Sadducees believed
souls die with bodies. They tried to trap Jesus with their
imaginary case of a woman who had seven husbands: whose wife would
she be at the resurrection?

The Essenes are first mentioned at the time of Jonathan Maccabeus,
around 150 B.C. They probably stemmed from the Hasidim, like the
Pharisees. They emerged as a major theocratic party after the
Maccabean revolt. They were prominent in Jerusalem politics
through the reign of Aristobulus I, c 104 BC Then they became
increasingly opposed to the Zadokite priests. Hence they withdrew
into separatist enclaves in Jerusalem and other cities. It is
likely, though debated, that the Qumran sectaries were part of
this Essene movement.

When an earthquake destroyed Qumran in 31 BC. the sectaries there
may have moved to the southwest corner of Jerusalem. After the
death of Herod, they went back to Qumran where they stayed until
the Romans captured the place in 68 AD.

They considered themselves as the faithful remnant of Israel and
the chief part of an eschatological community. Their discipline
and lifestyle was severe: meals, study, and property were in
common. It seems some Essenes practiced celibacy (cf. Josephus
Jewish War II. 8. 13).

They considered the Jerusalem temple decadent, yet at least for a
time they seem to have sent offerings there.

The Miracles of Jesus: Rationalists attack the very possibility of
miracles. Some, who consider themselves scientific, say the
universe is a closed system of laws, so miracles are impossible.
R. Bultmann was so foolish as to say that, "Conclusive knowledge
is impossible in any science or philosophy (Kerygma & Myth, tr.
Reginald Fuller, ed. H. W. Bartsch, Harper & Row Torchbooks, NY,
1961, 2d ed. I. p. 195). Yet he was certain that if one has seen
"electric light and wireless" he cannot believe in spirits and
miracles. And he adds that if natural science can explain
something, we could call it a miracle, but if it cannot, it would
be superstition to call it a miracle (ibid., pp. 197, 199)!

Some homilists today, to seem up to date, give foolish
explanations of some miracles, e.g., the miracle of the loaves
happened when Jesus induced people who had been selfishly hiding
loaves under their cloaks to get them out and share them!.

But even the NJBC (pp. 1320-21) says that His exorcisms and cures
were never denied in antiquity, even by His enemies - who referred
His miracles to magic or the power of satan. But some who accept
exorcisms and cures balk at nature miracles, such as calming the
storm. But the power needed is the same in both types of miracles.

Were some cases called exorcisms in the Gospels really cases of
epilepsy? Perhaps. The mission of Jesus was not to teach
scientific points, but to cure the sick for the sake of His
mission. He knew, had no need to explain. Whatever was the
trouble, He cured it by a word.

Some try to say the miracles of Jesus were just the same as those
of pagans or rabbis. But the parallels are far from parallel. Cf.
L. J. McGinley, "Hellenic Analogies and the Typical Healing
Narrative", in Theological Studies 4, 1942, pp. 385-419. Attempts
to find parallels in the life of Apollonius of Tyana by
Philostratus are shockingly inane. Apollonius finds a satyr
annoying women, he quiets the satyr with wine (6:27). He writes a
threatening letter to a ghost (3:38). He finds dragons 60 feet
long (3:7). He sees robot tripods that serve meals (3:27). And
more nonsense.

Some also claim the miracles were not intended to prove anything,
they were just signs. The NJBC says Jesus is shown as consistently
refusing to work miracles to show His power. The five texts cited
are all in special situations which prove nothing. Really, He
often did work miracles for proof, e.g., Mk 2:1-12; Lk 8:. 41-56;
John 5:36; 14:10.

The Church: Even though the word church does not occur often in
the Gospels, yet the reality is there. We already saw earlier in
this chapter that the phrase "Kingdom of God" commonly means the
Church. And in our summary of apologetics in chapter 2 above we
saw that He did gather a group, commissioned them to teach in His
name, and promised God's protection on their teaching. Once we
reach that point, that group, or Church, can assure us of many
things.

Did He intend that Church to last more than one generation? The
very question is foolish. Would God become man, suffer so much,
teach and do so much for just one generation? Many parables make
His intention clear. e. g, the parable of the weeds, (Mt 13:24-43)
pictures the Kingdom of Heaven as a field in which the master
sowed good seed, but an enemy came and sowed weeds.

The servants wanted to pull out the weeds, but the master told
them to wait: "The harvest is the end of the world, and the
reapers are the angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned
with fire, so will it be at the end of the world." So the Church,
with both good and bad people in it, will last to the end. The
parable of the net (Mt 13:47-50) brings out the same thing. The
fishers will sort out the good and bad fish: "So it will be at the
end of the world." And He told them very explicitly in Mt 28:18-
20: "All power is given me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore,
and teach all nations... behold I am with you all days, even to
the consummation of the world." The Acts of Apostles reveal the
Apostles were slow to catch on to this last item. But eventually,
with some divine prodding (Acts Chapters 10-11) they did. Their
slowness is not surprising - it appeared so much in the Gospels
too. It would not do to say Jesus used only interior locutions -
no speaking at all - after the resurrection. Really, when there is
such a locution, the soul must understand at once. Later,
certitude over it may fade (cf. St. Teresa of Avila, Life 24, and
Interior Castle 6. 3. 7). This is the reverse of the pattern shown
by Peter in Acts 10-11).

Matthew 16: 13-20: Is there a Pope, and what authority does he
have? There are two ways to answer:

a)We study the passage in Matthew 16. It is clear enough in
itself, even though some Protestants try to say the rock is the
faith of Peter. But a distinguished Protestant W. F. Albright, who
in his day was often called the Dean of American Scripture
scholars", along with C. S. Mann, wrote in the commentary in the
Anchor Bible, Matthew (pp. 195-98) that it is mere denominational
prejudice to say that the rock means Peter's faith or Peter's
Messianic confession. He adds that Peter's authority to bind or
loose "will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven."

b)We really do not have to labor thus on the exegesis of Matthew
16. For in apologetics in chapter 2 we proved that there is a
group or church commissioned to teach by the messenger sent from
God, Jesus, and promised God's protection on its teaching. All we
need to do then is to see if the Church did teach there is a Pope,
and what his authority is. That is abundantly clear. Already in
about 95 AD, Pope Clement I intervened in a schism in Corinth.
Early in the letter he said: "Because of the sudden and repeated
calamities and misfortunes, we think our attention has been slow
in turning to the things debated among you." If someone without
authority spoke that way, the recipients would respond: "Who does
he think he is anyway?" The Council of Ephesus in 431 was dealing
with an Eastern error, yet St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria,
went to Pope Celestine for a decision. The Pope's delegates said,
without contradiction at the Council (DB 112, cf. DS 3056): "The
holy and blessed Apostle Peter... received the keys of the kingdom
from our Lord Jesus Christ... He [Peter] lives even to this time,
and always in his successors gives judgment." There are many more
such texts. Very important is the testimony of St. Irenaeus
(Against Heresies 3. 3. 2), who even though he had heard St.
Polycarp of Smyrna tell what he had heard from the Apostle St.
John, yet calls Rome the principal church with which others must
agree.

The Church, then, which speaks with the protection promised by
Christ, tells us there is a Pope, and that He can even define
doctrines infallibly without consulting the Bishops - though as a
matter of fact he does consult) and that he has absolute and
immediate authority over everyone in the Church, even the Bishops.

Passover, Eucharist, Sacrifice: There is a question of the date of
the Last Supper. On the one hand, the Synoptics suppose it was a
Passover meal: Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7 & 15, while John 13:1 seems to
say it came before the Passover.

Of course, we must not say there is a contradiction of one Gospel
against another. There are several solutions that are plausible.

In that year, when the Passover fell on a Sabbath, at least some
of the Passover lambs were sacrificed on Thursday afternoon to
prevent possible violation of the Sabbath rest by running into
Friday evening because of the large number of lambs. Hence two
possible dates for the Supper.

Or: When the Passover fell on a Sabbath, as it was that year, it
seems the Pharisees held the Passover meal on Thursday evening, to
avoid any danger of violation of the Sabbath rest on Friday
evening. But the Sadducees, staying closer to the letter of the
law, held the Passover meal on Friday evening. So the Synoptics
would follow the one system, John the other.

The Eucharist was a sacrifice. For a sacrifice includes two
elements: the outward sign (which is to express and perhaps even
promote the interior) and the inner dispositions. The essential
inner disposition on His part was obedience to the will of the
Father. (The dispositions often mentioned in the catechetical
memory word ACTS: adoration, contrition, thanksgiving,
supplication) are not wrong, but omit this essential). Cf. Romans
5:19 and LG #3. The outward sign at the supper was the seeming
separation of body and blood, standing for death. Thereby He said
to the Father: I know the command you have given me. I am to die
tomorrow. I turn myself over to death (expressed in the seeming
separation). I accept. I obey. He made the pledge that evening,
carried it out the next day. Then the outward sign became the
physical separation of body and blood. In the Mass the outward
sign is the same as that of the Last Supper. His interior
disposition then and now is the same attitude continued, it is not
a repetition. For death makes permanent the attitude towards God
with which one leaves this world.

He commanded: "Do this in memory of me" so that we might join our
obedience to the will of the Father to His, so that there might be
an offering of the whole Christ, Head and members. His Mother
moreover was there when He died, and she did join her offering
with His, to such an extent that Pius XII, in the document
defining the assumption, spoke of "the struggle [Calvary] which
was common to the Blessed Virgin and Her Son". Really it all was
the making of the New Covenant. In the covenant, the essential
condition is obedience. Vatican II says in LG #61: "In suffering
with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of
the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience (the very
covenant condition), faith, hope and burning love, to restore
supernatural life to souls."

How the Redemption Operates: Jesus said (Mt 20:28 and Mk 10:45)
"The Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many."
Similarly 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23 speak of the price of redemption.
Many other times St. Paul speaks of buying.

Many today despair of understanding these words about the price or
ransom. They notice that the captor was satan: we do not want to
say the blood of Christ was paid to satan. Nor was it paid to the
Father: He was not the captor. But it can be understood readily if
we recall what we saw in chapters 5 and 11 above on the concept of
sin as a debt, and of the fact that the Holiness of God wants the
scales of the objective order rebalanced after they have been put
out of balance by sin. The sinner takes from the scale what he has
no right to have: Jesus by His life and death put back infinitely
more than all sinners took. We stress it is primarily the Holiness
of God, in which He loves all that is good that is central here,
even though in a way justice is involved.

His death, if we use the contractual language of covenant,
generated an infinite objective title to forgiveness and grace for
the world as a whole, and even for each individual person (cf. Gal
2:20). Yet someone can be lost if he makes himself incapable to
taking in what the Father so generously wants to give.

The concept that sin is a debt is abundant in OT and NT, and in
Intertestamental literature, in the Rabbis, and in the Fathers. It
shows especially in the Our Father: Forgive us our debts.

The Sequence of Resurrection Events: At first sight, the various
accounts seem irreconcilable. But it can be done, and in more than
one way. Here is a very plausible sequence: a)Magdalen and other
women come to the tomb about dawn, and see it empty; b)In their
excitement, she or they run to the Apostles (Mt here, between 20:8
& 9) omits the visit of Peter and John, our item c); c)Peter and
John refuse to believe, but do run to the tomb, and find it empty.
They are amazed, but do not see Jesus; d)Peter and John leave.
Magdalen stays, sees Him, at first takes Him for the gardener. He
soon makes Himself known. Magdalen and others make a second visit
to the Apostles to say they have seen Him; e)Jesus appears to
Peter; f)Jesus appears to two men on the road to Emmaus; g)They go
back to the Apostles, and hear Peter had already seen Jesus;
h)Jesus appears to the Eleven; h) Thomas was absent before, so
Jesus comes again when Thomas is there; j)further appearances at
the Lake of Galilee.

A few comments: 1)As often, the Gospels do not keep chronological
order, and there is even telescoping by Luke - as he did with the
account of the return to Nazareth after the presentation. Now Luke
tells that Jesus said stay until the Holy Spirit comes. Then he
tells of the Ascension, with no mention of an interval; 2)Matthew
at times uses what is called the "plural of category" i.e.,
speaking of a group when it was really an individual, e.g., 28:1-
10 compared to John 20:11-18. (Only Magdalen in John); 3)Matthew
and Mark, in view of their own scope, prefer to stress the
Galilean appearances, which were more frequent, and completed the
instruction of the Apostles. But both do add some appearances in
Jerusalem: Mt 28:9-10 has the appearances to the women, and Mk
16:9-11 has an appearance to Mary Magdalen.

Special Emphases of the Several Evangelists:

Matthew seems to write especially for Jewish Christians. Hence so
many OT quotes, showing fulfillment of prophecies in Jesus, to
demonstrate that He is the expected Messiah. For this very reason
it is very hard to suppose Matthew wrote after the fall of
Jerusalem in 70 A.D. How could he have refrained from pointing out
the fulfillment of that prophecy of Jesus? Matthew gives us more
sayings of Jesus than the other Gospels do. However, it seems
clear that he has often grouped them, especially in the Sermon on
the Mount, which is probably put together out of several
discourses of Jesus. Matthew also shows special interest in the
Church, and its universal mission. He reports many strictures on
the Pharisees and also the Sadducees. As we saw before, it is not
permissible to say these things were never said by Jesus, that a
later generation invented them, and projected them back into the
mouth of Jesus. Rather, we saw that Jewish sources themselves give
the same picture of the Pharisees as does Matthew.

Mark shows more of the narrative style than the other Gospels.
Central to this Gospel is the question of who Jesus is. As we saw,
it is a very respectable position to hold the ancient tradition is
true that Mark wrote from the preaching of St. Peter. There is
much discussion of the audience intended by Mark - some think it
was written to confirm the Roman community in its outlook - or -
to correct that community and help it change its mind. There is an
enormous range of disagreement among scholars about Mark. The
picture is complicated by the fact that many Form Critics admit
they cannot be sure what belongs to the tradition that came down
to him, and what pertains to Mark's editing. Mark is also noted
for his portrayal of the human features in Jesus: Jesus shows
apprehension or even fear in the Garden, sadness, sympathy,
admiration and indignation.

Mark as a whole is shorter than Matthew and Luke. R. Bultmann
thought (in: "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels" in Form
Criticism, tr. F. C. Grant, Harper & Row Torchbooks, N. Y. 1962,
pp. 32, 34-35) that was a sign Mark was the earliest form of the
Gospel. But that claim does not stand up. We have all heard people
trying to tell a story - if they are not skilled at storytelling,
they are apt to insert needless details, which mar the effect of
the story. Bultmann thought Matthew and Luke added details. But
this is not generally the case. Mark 9:14-29 is much longer than
the parallel in Lk 9:37-42. Again, Mark 6:32-44 is more detailed
that Mt 14:13-21 and Lk 8:40- 56. Leslie R. Keylock studied this
matter (in: "Bultmann's Law of Increasing Distinctness" in:
Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. G. F.
Hawthorne, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1975, pp. 196- 210) by
examining a large number of parallels. He found Luke is more
precise than Mark 47 times, but less precise 37 times. Matthew is
more precise than Mark 58 times, but less precise 54 times. So
there is no "law" of increasing detail added by fancy.

Luke's preface shows his great care in getting the facts and
presenting them. (Please recall our report on a study of the
Semitisms in Luke, in our treatment of the genre of the Infancy
Gospels. Even though Luke is the only writer of a book of
Scripture who is not a Semite, his language shows more Semitisms
than do the Semites - an indication of his meticulous concern for
accuracy). So he opens by situating events in the framework of the
history of the time. The tradition that he was often a traveling
companion of St. Paul is quite credible - more on this in our
treatment of the Acts of the Apostles.

It has been noted that Luke's style varies - at times he is quite
Semitic, at other times, he writes a good quality of literary
Greek. This is the result of his meticulous translation of Semitic
sources, as we saw in the study just mentioned above.

John's Gospel is clearly of a somewhat different tone than the
Synoptics. In John, Jesus often speaks in long discourses, instead
of short sayings. The disciples recognize Him at once as the
Messiah (1:41-49), while in Mark, the recognition is the climax of
the Gospel( Mk 8:31). However, the contradiction is only apparent.
In John they do at once suspect Jesus is the Messiah - Messianic
expectation was high at that time, as we know from history. But to
recognize what sort of Messiah is something else. In Mk 8:29 and
Mt. 16:16 there is a somewhat deeper perception, especially since
in Mt. Jesus says Peter had a revelation from the Father. Even so,
this would not necessarily be a full understanding of His
divinity, but only something on the way to that perception.

Today it is the fashion to strain to find "contradictions", which
formerly scholars would try to resolve, e.g., NJBC (p. 943) says
that John 16:5 contradicts 14:4. Now 16:5 says: "Now I am going to
Him who sent me, and no one of you asks me: Where are you going?"
In 14:4 Jesus had said: "And where I am going, you know the way."
But the Apostles clearly did not understand 14:4, as shown by the
next lines in which Thomas says he does not know where He is going
nor does he know the way. Jesus often spoke cryptically to provoke
thought. So there is no contradiction.

Another inane objection concerns chapter 21, saying it could not
be by John. But in commenting on Deuteronomy we met the objection
that Moses could not have described his own death. Of course. But
someone else could have added it later. Similarly, it is obvious
that another hand added chapter 21 of John. Knowing how authorship
was handled in those times makes these thing quite possible.
Really, only the last few words of chapter 21 would need another
author.

It is also noted that Jesus speaks quite openly of His divinity in
John: "I and the Father are one" (10:30) and "Before Abraham was,
I AM" (8:58). This is true, but if we note that Jesus engaged in
gradual self-revelation, these lines could have been spoken close
to the end, when the malice of his enemies was complete and
hardened.

The Gospel seems to have been written by "the Beloved Disciple".
Formerly it was thought clear that that disciple was John. Today
the tendency is to deny it was.

Very tempting is the testimony of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies
3. 1. 1): "Then John the disciple of the Lord, who reclined on His
bosom, also put forth a Gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia."
Irenaeus also tells us (Letter to Florinus) that he had listened,
when young to St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (not far from
Ephesus) telling his recollections of the Apostle John.

However, there is a cloud, for Eusebius (History 3. 39) quotes
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, c. 130 AD who seems to distinguish
two Johns, the Apostle and the Presbyter. So it is just possible -
not certain - that Irenaeus confused the two. Yet since he heard
Polycarp who knew John, this is very unlikely. There are other
ancient writers who seem to say the Gospel was by John the
Apostle.

We should note too that the beloved disciple reclined on the chest
of Jesus at the Last Supper, was present at the cross, went to the
tomb with Peter, had Mary the Mother of Jesus entrusted to His
care. So it seems he was one of the inner three, Peter, James, and
John. Now the beloved disciple is not Peter, is clearly distinct
from him. Nor could it be James, who was a martyr in 44 AD, too
early to write the Gospel. So it almost certainly should be John
the Apostle.

Many today think the Gospel was the product of a Johannine
community, and went through more than one revision. This is not
impossible. In such a case, however, the data at least for the
most part would have come from the Apostle.

The Gospel often speaks of "the Jews" without further
identification. We gather that the enemies of Jesus are meant,
i.e., Pharisees, Sadducees and others.

Chapter 22: The Acts of the Apostles

It is clear that Acts has the same author as the Gospel of Luke.
But when was the work written? Current estimates are apt to run
between 80 and 90 A.D. The reasons: It is clear that Acts follows
on the Gospel, which so many think, without valid reason, belongs
to that decade. Second, it is commonly thought that Luke did not
know Paul.

The chief reasons are the following:

1)It is said that Acts 15:1-35 clashes with Gal 2:1-10. In
Galatians Paul tells of the meeting with the Apostles, and says he
compared notes with them and they "added nothing to me." But in
Acts 15:29 the letter of the Council tells gentile converts to
"abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and
from what is strangled and from unchastity."

Now of the four items from the letter, one repeats the basic
commandment against loose sex. Paul of course speaks against loose
sex too. The other three items are taken from the old law, and are
just a sop, a concession to the feelings of Jews. But Paul in
Galatians refers to basic doctrine. The 3 items in Acts 15:29 are
not basic doctrine at all, they are, as we said, a sop to the
feelings of the Jews. Paul did preach the three points where they
applied, as we see from Acts 16:4. Further, the letter of the
Council was addressed only to gentiles in Syria and Cilicia - that
did not include Galatia. If the Vatican today sends a letter to
the bishops of one region, it does not affect bishops of a
different region.

2) It is said that Acts does not mention Paul's Epistles. True,
but the purpose of Acts was to show how the Church finally reached
Rome, the center of the world. Acts does show Paul presenting the
most basic doctrines of the Epistles, namely, justification by
faith, the divinity and resurrection of Christ, and baptism and
repentance. In Acts 15:9 Peter says that God "cleansed their
hearts by faith." In 16:30 the jailer at Philippi asks Paul what
to do and Paul replies: "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall
be saved". [Here as often saved, means entry into the Church]. At
Miletus in Acts 20:21 Paul says he has been "testifying to both
Jews and Greeks of repentance to God and of faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ. In Acts 13:39 at Antioch in Pisidia Paul says,
speaking in a synagogue: "Everyone who believes in Him is made
just." In Acts 17:3 Paul explains and proves, "that it was
necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead" and so
to atone for sins.

In Acts Paul also does preach that Jesus is the Son of God: Acts
9:20 shows Paul preaching this right after his conversion. A Greek
concordance under the word Kyrios, Lord, shows numerous other
times Paul called Him Lord, the title Paul also uses for Jesus in
his Epistles.

In both Acts and the Epistles Paul does speaks of the need of
baptism: cf. 1 Cor 1:14-17; Romans 6:3-8; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12)

3)It is said that only in Acts does Paul preach the need of
repentance. But Paul does preach repentance elsewhere, e.g.,
Romans 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9-10; 1 Cor 5:3-5. The objection is like the
foolish idea that Jesus Himself did not require repentance for
forgiveness.

4)In Acts 21:20-26 at the suggestion of James, Paul goes through
the Nazarite ceremony in Jerusalem. Some say this was hypocrisy.
But it was not, Paul was just following his own principle of 1 Cor
9:20-22 in which he expresses his standing policy of being all
things to all men: "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win
Jews; to those under the law, I became as one under the law."
There was nothing wrong in the rite itself. It would have been
wrong if Paul meant thereby to earn salvation. 5)In 2 Cor 11:23-
29 Paul speaks at length of his sufferings in preaching Christ. In
Acts he is pictured going through the sufferings mentioned in 2
Corinthians: persecutions from Jews: 14:2 17:1-10; stoning at
Lystra (14:19); scourging at Philippi: 16:22-23.

Neither in Acts nor in the Epistles does Paul think the end is
close at hand: we will see the critical passage of 1 Ths 4:15 & 17
later.

So we can believe the testimony of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies
3. 1. 1) that "Luke the follower of Paul, set down in a book the
Gospel preached by him [Paul]," and of the Anti-Marcionite
Prologue to Luke which says: "Luke of Antioch in Syria, a
physician, having become a disciple of the Apostles, and later
followed Paul until his martyrdom... after the Gospels had been
written - by Matthew in Judea, by Mark in Italy - moved by the
Holy Spirit, wrote this Gospel in Achaia... with great care, for
gentile believers.

Sometimes appeal is made to the "we" passages to show that at
those points, chiefly in the 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys and
on the trip to Rome, Luke traveled with Paul. This is likely, but
not conclusive, for there is a problem of literary genre. Some
travel accounts of the times used a similar alternation of first
and third person forms.

About the speeches recorded in Acts, since Luke was an educated
Greek, we would expect him to follow the policy of the classic
Greek historians. We know what that was, thanks to Thucydides, who
tells us (1. 22) that he would try to get the actual text if
possible, but would not try to keep the same words. If he could
get only the content, he would put it in his own words. If he
could get none of these, he would write a speech suitable for the
occasion. Luke did travel much with Paul, and so could have gotten
at least the content of the speeches easily. Further, Paul, like
other traveling speakers, would use much repetition, with some
variation in wording. He had a typical approach to the Jews, and
another for gentiles.

Peter's speech on Pentecost was of such great moment that we would
expect it would be easy to get the content of it. The speech of
Stephen would also be likely to be remembered. On the other hand,
the speech of Gamaliel in the Sanhedrin (5:34-39) might have been
harder to get, and this fact could account for some of the
historical problems about the false Messiahs.

In all, many have noted that Luke's introductions to both his
Gospel and to Acts show the intent to write careful history, in
the pattern of the pagan Greek historians.

Why does Acts break off with Paul in house arrest in Rome?
Probably, as we said, the intention was to show how the Gospel
reached the center of the world, Rome. When that was done, no more
was needed. It is also possible Luke intended to write still
another volume, and somehow never did so.

Chapter 23: St. Paul's Epistles

We will examine the chief difficulties in each Epistle, taking
them up in the probable order of composition.

First Thessalonians: Both Epistles to Thessalonica probably were
written from Corinth in 51 AD.

2:14-16: These are terrible lines. St. Paul says that the Jews who
are persecuting him so often and so severely are "filling up the
measure of their sins." Compare 2 Maccabees 6:13-16 for the theme:
Some, God lets have their fill of sin, then comes final ruin;
others, He punishes them on the way, to bring them to their
senses, so they may not have to be in final ruin.

4:13-17: Some of the Ths were fearful: It would be sad if I died
before Christ returns, then others would see Him before I. Paul
tells them Christ will come down, the dead will rise first, then
the risen dead and those who remained alive (who never will die)
will be taken together in the air to meet Christ.

Because Paul twice says "we the living", it is charged he thought
he would see the end. It does not follow. Good teachers often say
I or we to make things concrete and vivid. In 2 Ths 2 Paul makes
clear that he does not expect to be around at the end. So the
dissenters deny he wrote 2 Ths - even though the ancient witnesses
for both are equally strong.

Some also take this passage to mean a rapture: suddenly Christ
will take all the good people out of the world, leaving only the
wicked. The good will reign with Him on earth for 1000 years.
Dissenters argue that this passage says the living will be taken
in the air to meet Christ - in the Gospel account of the Last
Judgment, all are on the earth. - They overlook genre. Both
passages have strong apocalyptic color. With apocalyptic, one
should not press details.

5:23-25: Paul assures them God will keep them without blame until
the end - that is, if they do not reject that special grace. But
it is clear: God will offer the grace of final perseverance,
contrary to old theologians who thought He might not give it even
if the person was not guilty of mortal sin.

Second Thessalonians: Here, as we said, Paul makes clear in
chapter 2 he does not think he will live to the end. He says first
must come the Antichrist, and the great apostasy - on it cf. Luke
18:8, Mt 24:12 and 2 Tim 3. 1-7.

Galatians: If Paul wrote to the north Galatians, he wrote from
Ephesus in 54. If to the south Galatians, it would be 48 AD.

He wrote first, to answer charges he was not sent out by Christ,
was only a second stringer. He insists he did have the mission
from Christ, received on the road to Damascus.

The second reason: to combat the Judaizers, who said Christ was
not enough, we must keep the Mosaic law too.

Paul would call that a different Gospel, in chapter 1. He says
vehemently: even if an angel came down and preached a different
Gospel, let the angel be cursed.

Paul reacted against the claim of the Judaizers in language that
is potentially quite misleading (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16 on Paul's
obscure language) by saying: We are free from the law. If we study
carefully other passages, especially 1 Cor 6:9-10, we see we will
be lost if we break the law. So Paul really meant this: To keep
the law does not earn salvation; but one could earn to lose it by
grave sin.

2:15: a)Justification by faith: This is a central theme for Paul,
especially in Galatians and Romans. By justification he means
getting right with God, but that is no mere extrinsic, forensic
thing as Luther thought, so that even after justification one is
totally corrupt. No, Paul often speaks of the Christian as "a new
creation" (Gal 6:15;2 Cor 5:17). Creation, making out of nothing,
is different from the same old corruption. He also says the Holy
Spirit dwells in the souls of the just as in a temple (1 Cor 3:16-
17;6:19). He will not dwell in total corruption. That would not be
a temple.

Further, we must understand faith as Paul means it. It is not, as
Luther thought, just confidence that the merits of Christ apply to
me, or taking Christ as your personal Savior, so that after that
one can sin freely and it will not hurt him. If we read all places
where Paul speaks of faith, keep notes, add them up, the result is
this: 1)If God speaks a truth, in faith we believe it in our
minds; 2)If God makes a promise, in faith we are certain He will
keep it; 3)If God tells us to do something, we do it, we obey.
Paul thus speaks (Rom 1:5) of the "obedience of faith", the
obedience that faith is; 4)all is to be done in love. (A standard
Protestant reference work, Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
Supplement, p. 333, gives the same picture of faith as we have
just done). This is vastly different from Luther's mistake. He
thought after getting faith, one can sin freely. He told his
lieutenant Melanchton (Epistle 501): "Even if you sin greatly,
believe still more greatly." No, faith includes obedience. So it
does not exempt from obedience. In Gal 5:19-21 (cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10;
Eph 5:5) Paul gives a list of the most important great sins, and
adds that those who do these will not inherit the kingdom of God.
When we inherit from parents, we have not earned it, but we could
have earned to lose it, to be disinherited.

b)Paul on the Law: Paul makes two kinds of statements about the
law. (1) Focused view: At times he says no one keeps it, even can
keep it (Rom 3:19- 20). Gal 3:10-11 says that those who depend on
works of the law are under a curse. For the law curses (Dt. 27:26)
those who do not keep it. Yet the law gives no strength, it only
gives knowledge of what is right or wrong (Rom 3:20). Gal 3:22
says all are locked up under sin. Romans 7:9-10 says: "I [any
person] was alive [spiritually] once without the law [before the
law came]. But when the command came, I died." In Romans 8:7-8 we
read that the flesh is intent on death: "The flesh is not subject
to God, neither can it be. Those in the flesh cannot please God."

(2)To have the law was a great privilege of the People of God:
Paul says this in Romans 3:3; 9:4. And in Romans 7:14-16 he says
the law is holy and good.

Solution by focused vs factual views: It is clear that Paul has
two different ways of looking at the law. In the focused view, as
he says in Romans 3:20, "through the law comes knowledge of sin" -
but that is all that comes. The law as such gives no strength.
Now, evidently, to be under a heavy demand, with no strength,
means a fall is inevitable. Then the law curses the one who falls.
(We name this perspective "focused" since the view is limited, as
if looking through a tube, one sees only what is within the circle
formed by the tube).

In the factual view, that limit is removed, one sees the whole
horizon, and sees that even before Christ came, divine help,
grace, was available (in anticipation of the merits of Christ). If
a person uses it, he will not fall, not be dead and cursed. So the
law then is a privilege, for it points out the things that are
harmful to us. Augustine said well (Confessions 1. 12): "Every
disordered soul is its own punishment." In focused view Paul says
we cannot keep the law, yet in a factual view he says in Phil 3:6
that he, before knowing Christ, kept the law without blame.

If only we keep in mind these two ways Paul uses, we can solve
many difficult problems in Paul which commentators in general fail
to solve. As we go through his Epistles, we will point out these
passages.

2:11-14: Paul corrects Peter for being weak-kneed at Antioch, for
going back on the decree he himself had helped make in the Council
of Jerusalem. There is no hint Peter broke with Paul over this.
Then the first Pope would have reversed his own doctrinal
decision. Paul's rebuke bore on weak conduct, which would give
scandal, not on doctrine. (This was not the first time Peter was
weak).

2:20: "He loved ME and gave Himself for ME." Beautiful: The death
of Christ was offered for each individual, so that the Father
pledges an inexhaustible treasury of grace and forgiveness in
favor of each one (cf. Vatican II, Church in Modern World # 22).
One could be lost by resisting grace, and if he becomes blind
through repeated sin, he will be incapable of receiving the grace
the Father offers.

3:28: Paul says it makes no difference if one is slave or free,
male or female. But he is speaking of gaining justification by
faith. We cannot say: Therefore it makes no difference in all
other things - such as women's ordination. Paul is talking about
only the one thing, considering context.

5:16-25: Paul had told them: You are free from the law. They were
exultant: They could sin as much as they wanted! Paul of course
has to correct it, but he does not want to take back his words, so
he shows that if one follows the Spirit, He will not break the law
as a matter of fact. He gives two check lists, to see if one is
following the Spirit or the flesh.

Philippians: We do not know the date and place of composition of
Philippians. Best prospects are: from Rome (61-63), or Ephesus (c.
56), or Caesarea (c. 58).

1:6. Paul promises that God who has begun a good work in them will
bring it to completion, assuming they do not reject His grace.
This means God surely offers the grace of final perseverance.

1:21-24: Paul knows he may be killed. He cannot decide if he would
rather die and be with Christ, or live to work for Christ -
marvelously selfless attitude! It is clear that Paul knows he
could be with Christ even in the interval between death and
resurrection. Really, Paul says he was a Pharisee, and they
definitely did hold for the survival of souls. Some today deny
Paul saw this, appealing to an alleged Hebrew unitary concept of
man: he is only a body with breath. Then there could be no
survival. We saw the answer to this error in Chapters 16 & 17 on
the Psalms and Wisdom literature.

2:6-11: This is a beautiful hymn, it may or may not have been
composed (or revised) by Paul himself. He urges them to imitate
the ways of Christ who did not hold on to the privileges He could
have claimed from being divine, instead, He took the form of a
slave, became obedient even to death. For this the Father exalted
Him above all. "Form of God. . form of slave" could mean either
divine nature... human nature, or the external glory of each -
which would imply the reality of the natures. Jesus in v. 7 made
it a policy not to use His divine power for Himself - so His
humanity was unprotected against the anxiety of knowing what lay
ahead of Him.

2:12-13: This is a text of great importance. Paul tells us to
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling [really: with
great respect] for it is God who works [produces] in you both the
will and the doing." This translation follows the definition of
the Council of Orange (DS 374 - by special approbation of Pope

Boniface II, its canons are equal to those of a General Council).
In 2 Cor 3:5 Paul says (again translating according to the
definition of DS 377): "We are not sufficient to think anything of
ourselves as from ourselves: our sufficiency is from God." These
mean the same as 1 Cor 4:7. We cannot get a good thought, make a
good decision, or carry it out without God. We might seem to be
puppets then, but in 2 Cor 6:1: "We urge you not to receive the
grace of God in vain." So in some way we do control the outcome.
The Church has not told us how. But in 1607 Pope Paul V followed
the advice of St. Francis De Sales, refused to approve either the
so-called Thomist, or the Molinist explanations of how these texts
fit together (DS 1997). Here is a newer proposal (W. Most, New
Answers to Old Questions, St. Paul Publications, London, 1971):
God sends an actual grace to me. With no help from me it causes my
mind to see something as good (2 Cor 3:5), and makes me favorably
disposed (almost automatic). At that juncture when I could reject,
if I merely make no decision against it, do nothing, grace moves
into phase two, and works in me both the will and the doing (Phil
2:13) while I cooperate by power being currently received from
grace.

This shows us our utter dependence on God, so that when I do
something good, my contribution at the basic level, at the point
which decides the outcome, is a zero, the lack of a bad decision.
Also: in doing good or evil, I use the ontological power God
supplies. So I should work, "with fear and trembling", or, very
respectfully (cf. Wm. Most, Our Father's Plan, Manassas, VA, 1988,
chapter 18).

3:8: Paul says he has gladly taken the loss of all things, and
considers them as dung or rubbish, to gain Christ. - He does not
mean, on the absolute scale, that creatures are not good - God
made them good, Christ used created things, took on a created
nature - but, on the relative scale, comparing things now to those
of eternity, present things are of no import. So there is a
benefit in giving things up for Christ - contrary to the false
notion of the GUN (Give -up-nothing) Spirituality which says there
is no benefit in that - leading to loss of vocations, and many
failed marriages (cf. again Our Father's Plan, chapter 20).

First Corinthians: Corinth was the most licentious city in Greece.
And Paul had more trouble with the Corinthians, to judge by his
letters, than with any other place. Population was about a half
million in his day. He wrote the first Epistle probably in 57. We
gather from 5:9 that there was another letter to Corinth before
our First Corinthians. And from 2 Cor 2:3-4, 7-9 we gather he
wrote still another letter between our First and Second letters.

Chapters 1-4: Messengers form Chloe tell Paul of factionalism in
Corinth: they are proud of the group to which they belong. Paul
spends four chapters to work against such pride. In contrast, he
preaches (1:22),"Christ crucified, a scandal to the Jews, and
foolishness to the gentiles." Plato had said (Symposium 203) that
no god associates with men. Aristotle had said (Ethics 8:7) that
friendship between a god and a man was impossible. What would they
say if told that God became man - and that He willed to die a
horrid and shameful death for man? This did seem to be
foolishness. And it was scandal to the Jews for in Deuteronomy
21:23 they read, "cursed be anyone who hangs on the wood." So Paul
said in Gal 3:13 that Christ "became a curse for us." In 1:26-29
he points out they have no church members of worldly repute: why
be proud? He seems to imply they got into the Church because they
were more in need of help, weaker. In 4:4 he says he has no sin on
his conscience that he knows of, but he may have done something
wrong without realizing it. That would not be a mortal sin, yet
Scripture calls for reparation for such things: cf. Leviticus,
chapter 4; Gen 12:17; Lk 12:47-48, and many more passages.

6:9-11: Paul lists the chief mortal sins, and says those who do
such things "will not inherit the kingdom of God." Please recall
comments on Gal 2:15: as to salvation, you cannot earn it, you
inherit it, but you could earn to forfeit it, to be disinherited.
6:11 says only some of the Corinthians - even in a licentious city
- were guilty of such great sins. This makes a question about
Romans, chapter 1, where it seems all are guilty of all sins. Our
approach by seeing two ways Paul looks at the law - focused and
factual, which we saw at Galatians 2:15 - will solve the problem
when we get to Romans.

6:15: Points out that to become one flesh with a harlot is to make
a member of Christ a member of a harlot.

Chapter 7: Paul here says that in virginity/celibacy objectively
there is a help to spiritual growth which is not found in
marriage. We add: subjectively, that is, considering the
individuals, God does not intend all to be virginal or celibate.
So for those for whom He does not plan it, it would not be a help,
but a danger. Hence they are not lacking in generosity to God if
they follow the path He has designed for them. Paul VI (To 13th
National Congress of Italian Feminine Center, Feb. 12, 1966) said:
"Marriage is a long path toward sanctification." This is true, if
one uses it according to our Father's plan. Love is not a feeling,
but a will for the well-being of another for the other's sake.
Feelings tend to lead into this, if one stays within God's plan -
otherwise, true love hardly can develop, for premarital sex is not
being concerned about the well-being of another, it is using
another, putting the other into a state of danger of eternal
suffering instead of well-being. In such a context, love can
hardly develop - but it will feel like it, the feelings will be
the same. But if one works according to our Father's plan,
unselfish, generous love will develop, which will pass on to the
children, leading to very generous sacrifices for their well-
being. And the need to get along with a partner whose psychology
is so very different - male and female psychology are very
different - calls for development of unselfishness. If done with
the intention of following the Father's plan, this is highly
sanctifying.

The reason why virginity/celibacy offers an advantage for those
for whom God plans it, is that it helps one become free of a most
powerful pull of creatures: cf. Mt 6:21: "Where your treasure is,
there is your heart also." One can put his treasure in anything
and can be held in varying degrees by the object. The less such
pulls, the more free is the heart to rise to the divine level. Of
course, for the real effect, it is not enough to get detached only
from sex: general detachment is needed.

8:1 - 11:1: Paul says that an idol is nothing, so food offered to
idols is not changed. However, he argues eloquently and at length
against scandal, leading another, who cannot understand the meat
is not changed, into sin by forcing him (social pressure) into
doing what he cannot help thinking is wrong. As part of this plea,
in 9:24-27, he points out that he - even with his heroic work for
Christ - feels the need of mortification to tame the flesh:
otherwise, he might become a reject, even after such work for
Christ. It is evident: Paul does not believe that just once
"taking Christ as one's personal Savior" makes him infallibly
saved, no matter what sins he would commit. Paul here, in context,
is talking about losing heaven itself, not just about losing some
additional thing. In the next chapter, chapter 10, he gives many
examples from OT to show that the original People of God did not
have assurance of salvation from being God's people.

14:34: He says women must be silent in church. Is this basically
social custom, or a doctrinal statement? Most likely it is
doctrinal. At any rate, Paul VI and John Paul II gave many
statements against women's ordination. Most significant is the
letter of Paul VI to Archbishop Coggan, Nov 30, 1975: "She [the
Catholic Church] holds it is not admissible to ordain women to the
priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include:
the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing
his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the
Church... and her living teaching authority which has consistently
held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in
accordance with God's plan for his Church."

Chapter 15: Many Greeks, especially Platonists, did not like the
idea of a bodily resurrection for all. They hoped, rather, to
escape reincarnation in time. Paul insists that if we deny the
resurrection of members of Christ, it implies denial of His
resurrection, for Head and members must both rise. He says the
risen body will be "spiritual". This does not mean it will not be
flesh - the Greeks would not mind if it were only spiritual - but
that it is controlled by the spirit, the soul, and so operates
according to the principles of spirits. Jesus after resurrection,
1)proved He had flesh, He let them touch Him, ate with them; 2)
came through closed doors without bothering to open them.

Second Corinthians: It is hard to reconstruct the picture. It
seems Paul's first letter was not well received, and relations got
worse. He probably made a hasty visit to Corinth (2 Cor 12:14;
13:1-2; 2:1) which also accomplished little if anything. When he
got back to Ephesus, he wrote a third letter, which we do not
have. Finally, he sent Titus to try to smooth things out. While
Titus was absent, there was the riot of the silversmiths at
Ephesus told in Acts 19:23 - 20:1. Paul left for safety, for
Macedonia. There, perhaps at Philippi, he met Titus, found a
reconciliation had been made. From Macedonia he wrote Second
Corinthians, probably in the fall of 57.

This is a very human document, Paul does much pleading to the
Corinthians. So there are few difficulties that need explanation.

3:5: The correct translation, following the definition of the
Second Council of Orange (529 AD. By special approbation of Pope
Boniface II, its canons are equivalent to those of a General
Council: DS 377) is this: "Not that we are sufficient to think
anything of ourselves, as from ourselves; our sufficiency is from
God." (Other versions speak of taking credit instead of thinking.
Greek logizomai has both senses. But we follow the council). It
means that by our own power we cannot even get a good thought. On
this please see the comments above on Phil 2:13.

3:6: "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life." This is often
misunderstood. In context, it means that the old law brings only
death (please recall the focused way of speaking, explained at Gal
2:15), while the new regime of the Spirit brings life. In the same
vein, in 3:7 Paul speaks of the old law as "the ministry of
death," and in v. 9, "the ministry of condemnation".

5:1-10: Paul speaks in a very human way here: He would like to
have the glorified body put on on top of his present body, without
dying. He knows that is not possible, so he gets up his confidence
or nerve and says he would like to be away from the body and be
with Christ: 5:6-8. Some commentators here want to say Paul thinks
he could have a resurrection body in this life without dying. Paul
has no such thought. In 1 Cor 15:51-52 it is clear the change
comes after death. And 2 Tim 2:17-18 complains against some who
thought the resurrection had already taken place. - Please see
again our comments on Phil. chapter 1.

5:21: "The one who did not know sin, He made Him to be sin for our
sakes." Similarly in Gal. 3:13 Paul said Christ became a curse--
for Deuteronomy said that anyone who hangs on the wood is cursed.
He seemed to be cursed, so as to overcome that curse that we might
escape eternal death. (Note that Hebrew sometime uses a noun for
an adjective- it had few adjectives. So curse means cursed).

Chapters 10 - 11: Paul here begins to speak somewhat clearly about
opponents in Corinth. We are not sure precisely what sort they
were, except that they called themselves Superhebrews and
Superapostles, and said they had great credentials, Paul had none.
Paul in 11:13-14 says these men "transform themselves into angels
of light. That is, they take on the appearance of good to deceive
people. Satan himself does that, in all centuries, including our
own, where he distorts the true concept of love for his purpose,
at times wiping out direct relation to God: "We can have that only
through people."

Paul hates to "boast", to rehearse his own credentials, but when
the good of souls demands, he will do it. After several delays he
says he is a Hebrew of the Hebrews. But more important, he has
suffered so much for Christ: he enumerates his hardships. And
remarkably, he says in 11:27 that even with these, even though his
travels sometimes made him short on food, he added fastings.

Chapter 12: Continuing his reluctant "boasting", he finally admits
that he is the one who was taken to the third heaven. But then, to
keep him from pride, he was given "a sting of the flesh, an angel
of satan to buffet him." He prayed earnestly to get rid of it. God
told him: "Power is made perfect in weakness."

What was the sting? Some think persecutions - but Paul considered
them a privilege, not something to pray against. Others say
sickness - Paul likely would say: May His will be done. Others
think violent sex temptations. Many Saints especially in the Dark
Night of the Spirit have experienced these, without falling at
all. Yet after a siege, a good person may feel uneasy: "Did I
really hold out?" So this is a great help to humility, this
experience of weakness, in which power is made perfect.

Romans: It seems Paul had written Second Corinthians from
Macedonia, in the fall of 57. He went to Corinth, perhaps
directly, perhaps by way of Illyricum. He came to Corinth, his
third visit, in the winter of 57, and stayed three months in
Achaia. During this period, probably at Corinth, he wrote Romans.

We do not know when Christianity first came to Rome. Some Jews
from Rome were at the first Pentecost, and became converts. We do
not know if they went back to Rome - some Jews may have stayed to
live out their last years in the Holy Land.

All admit Paul wrote Romans, but there is a problem over 16:1-12,
which seems to be an unrelated letter of recommendation for
Phoebe, who has worked for the church at Cenchrae. Most admit it
is by Paul, but it is not clear if it was part of Romans. Also
there is a problem about the doxology in 16:25-27. Is it part of
the original letter? The Council of Trent declared all these part
of inspired Scripture, regardless of the question of authorship
and place.

1:1 - 2:17: The great thrust of the first three chapters is to
show first that Gentiles are all hopeless if they try for
justification by keeping the law, then to show, starting at 2:17,
that the Jews are also hopeless. Finally in chapter 3 he sums up:
all are hopeless, and so all must turn to faith for justification.
It is very important to keep this picture in mind. Many
commentators today overlook this. In dealing with chapter 1 where
Paul makes so great an accusation against the gentiles, many say
that this applied only to some of them, or expressed just
tendencies. But to say that ruins Paul's great argument. Then some
could achieve justification by law, not by faith.

Before looking at that problem in detail, we see Paul opens by
saying atheists are inexcusable. That is true of real atheists.
But we know St. Justin Martyr (First Apology 46) said that some in
the past, such as Socrates, who were considered atheists, were
really Christians, because they followed the divine Logos, the
Word. Justin also said (Second Apology 10:8) that the Logos is in
everyone. What does He do there? In Romans 2:14- 16 we will see
that He writes the law on the hearts of every one, i.e., tells
them what is morally required. So if Socrates obeys that, as he
did, he is accepting the Spirit of Christ, not knowing that is
what he is accepting. Now we learn from Romans 8.9 that if one has
and follows the Spirit of Christ, he belongs to Christ. So
Socrates belonged to Christ. Hence he was Christian, not by
formally joining the Church, but substantially. We add this: to
belong to Christ means to be a member of Christ, which is also a
member of the Church. Vatican II wrote in LG #49: "All who belong
to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church."

In 1:17-18 we meet the words "the justice, or righteousness of
God." Many commentators think this means God's action to save His
people. But this view neglects the normal usage of Hebrew sedaqah
as revealed by a concordance, and by a study of the same concept
in intertestamental literature, in the New Testament, in the
Rabbis, in the Fathers. Rather: God in His Holiness loves
everything that is good (please recall our comments on sin as a
debt in chapters 5 and 11). So He will act accordingly, will
reward those who keep His covenant, punish those who do not (this
is simply the Deuteronomic theme we saw widely in the Old
Testament). So in this light we will be able to understand the
words of Romans 2:6-13 where Paul says that "God will repay each
one according to his works." If we look at the fundamental sense,
no creature by its own power can generate a claim on God - all is
mercy. But in the secondary sense, given the fact that God freely
made a covenant, then if people obey, He owes it to Himself to
reward or repay; but He also pledged to punish disobedience.
Actually, in 2:6 Paul is quoting Psalm 62:12 which in the Hebrew
says: "You O Lord, observe the covenant bond (hesed) - for you
will repay each one according to his works."

But so many did not observe the covenant, they took the opposite
path, and went lower and lower, as if on a spiral, became more and
more corrupted and blind. At the end of chapter 1 Paul says that
they, "having known (exact translation of aorist participle
epignontes) that these things deserve death, not only do them, but
approve of doing them." It is bad enough to sin - but to call sin
good is the lowest degradation.

It is widely admitted that the picture in Chapter 1 is too strong.
And Paul himself knew it, as we said before, in 1 Cor 6:11 he
said: "Certain ones of you were these", great sinners. The
solution is simple: in Romans 1 he uses a focused picture; in 1
Cor 6:11, a factual picture. Paul can move from one perspective to
another as his argument requires. In 2:14-16 he turns to a factual
picture, then in 2:17 goes back to a focused picture.

Now we must add something even more striking. At the start of
chapter 2 (we recall the chapter and verse numbers were not by
Paul, were added long after), Paul says that anyone who condemns
another, "for this reason... he is guilty of the very same sins."

Commentators do miserably at this point. They do not know what to
do with the opening word of chapter 1, dio, "for which reason".
They try to say it is a Greek particle with hardly any meaning. -
There are such words, but dio is not one of them. It is a
preposition dia with the relative pronoun: "For which reason." It
ties the thought to what was said in chapter 1 of the vices of the
gentiles. And soon it adds that all who condemn another are not
just sinners in general - commentators try to get off by saying
that - but are guilty of the very same sins. We can solve this if
we use our focusing technique strenuously: The law in general
makes heavy demands - gives no strength - so one must fall. But we
must add: Each large precept in the law is a heavy demand - it
gives no strength - so each one is guilty of each thing, that is,
of "the very same sins."

2:17-24: Here Paul makes great charges against the Jews.
Commentators know they are not realistic. So they try to soften by
adding question marks (Paul's manuscripts used no punctuation at
all). But if we see that it is a focused picture, there is no
problem at all. At the end, in verse 25, we read "circumcision
does help". If Paul had quote marks, he would have used them here
to quote a Jewish claim against Paul. Paul at once adds: If you
break the law, you might as well not be circumcised.

Chapter 3: Paul, after accusing Jew and Gentile, concludes: "The
whole world is found guilty before God, for, on the basis of works
of the law, all flesh will not be justified before Him. For
through the law, [comes only] knowledge of sin." But no strength
was given, so, as we said, all go down. This is a focused picture.
Vv. 24-26 are beautiful if read correctly, so as to understand
what we saw at 1:17, that "justice of God" means His love or
concern for all that is right, that is, for rectifying or
rebalancing the objective moral order put out of line by sin. (We
recall the words of Pope Paul VI, and of Simeon ben Eleazar in
chapters 5 and 11, on this rebalance of the objective order).
Without filling in this concept, then Christ would be merely the
new propitiatory, with no more visible reason than to be smeared
with blood like the old propitiatory. Then: Why such suffering for
a mere ceremony?

6:23: Paul says the wages - what one earns - of sin is death, but
the free gift - what one does not earn - of God is eternal life.
This is the same as our saying about justification or salvation:
You can't earn it, but you can blow it.

7:7-13: Paul keeps saying I. It means not himself alone, but any
human. In 7:9-10 he implies two periods: 1) from Adam to Moses,
when there was no revealed law, "I was alive at one time" having
no revealed law to break; 2) from Moses to Christ, when there is a
law. About the first period, as we noted, he says was he was
spiritually alive. For there can be no violation of a revealed
command when there is no revealed command. He is focusing on that
kind of sin, leaving out of the picture the sin which can be
committed by violating what the Spirit writes on hearts (2:14-16).
In the second period, we have basically our familiar focused
picture: the law makes heavy demands, gives no strength, so one
must fall.

7:14-25: Paul repeats the ideas of 7-13, but in a psychological
presentation. Within a focused picture, he can see what is right,
but has no strength. So he is wretched. But Jesus, in chapter 8,
will rescue him.

If we did not understand the focusing here, we would seem to see
the total corruption Luther imagined: we can see what is good, but
cannot do it.

8:1-17: Here, in another focused picture, the regime of the
Spirit, as such, can bring nothing but good. However, now Paul
breaks his focus a few times, chiefly in verses 9 and 17. Terrible
misunderstanding would follow otherwise, that of Luther, who
thought if one takes Christ as his personal Savior, he can sin as
much as he wants. We answered this earlier, especially by noting
that Pauline faith includes obedience (cf. Rom 1:5) and so, faith
which includes obedience cannot justify disobedience.

8:29-39: Paul speaks here of predestination. But we must watch the
context, it is not a predestination to heaven (or hell) but a
predestination to (full) membership in the Church - e.g., he
speaks of the "call". Predestination is an arrangement made by
Divine Providence to see that someone gets either that membership,
or gets to heaven. We mentioned full membership, because there is
a lesser, but substantial membership possible, as we saw above in
comments on 2:14-16.

Scripture never speaks explicitly of a predestination to heaven.
Earlier centuries thought it did, hence many terrible fears, and
much confusion. Pope Clement VIII in 1597 summoned representatives
of the "Thomist" and the Molinist schools to Rome to debate
predestination and human interaction with grace. It ran for ten
years, until Paul V in 1607 decided to approve neither side - a
sign of Divine Providence protecting the Church. Both sides
misused Scripture, taking things out of context, not seeing Paul
spoke not of predestination to heaven, but of predestination to
(full) membership in the Church. Hence, no good result.

Paul here and in chapters 9-11 says God predestines to this full
membership without regard to merits.

If we may fill in on what Paul does not say, a new solution to the
problem of predestination to heaven is this (cf. Wm. Most, New
Answers to Old Questions, London, 1971): There are three logical
steps in God's decisions: 1)He wills all men to be saved (1 Tim.
2:4--the founder of the "Thomist" school, Domingo Banez, said God
did not will all to be saved); 2)God looks to see who rejects His
grace gravely and persistently - so that he throws away the one
thing that could save him. With regrets God decrees to let those
go, to hell; 3)All others not discarded in step 2 are predestined
to heaven - but not because of merits, which have not yet come on
the scene, nor even because of the lack of resistance, but because
in step 1, He wanted to do so, and they are not blocking Him. (The
same conclusion can be reached by the Father analogy: 1)Parents
want all to turn out well; 2) the children do not have to earn
love and care (parallel to predestination without merits); 3)but
children could earn to be disinherited, rejected, let go to ruin.

11:25-27: Paul foretells the conversion of the Jews. He says they
will be "saved". This means entering the Church. He cannot mean
reaching heaven, for he knows that can happen even without formal
entry into the Church, as we saw at 2:14-16. Paul does not say
when this will be, but we get the impression it will be shortly
before the end. Since Scripture also foretells the return of
Elijah the prophet (Sirach 48:10; Malachi 3:23-24), we may wonder
if he is to be the agent of their conversion. We note too the
similarity in wording: in 11:25, a blindness has come in part on
Israel "until the fullness of the gentiles enters"; in Luke 21:24:
"Jerusalem will be trodden by the gentiles, until the times of the
gentiles are fulfilled."

13:4: Writing in the time of Nero, Paul calls for obedience to the
civil authority, unless of course it orders what is immoral. He
said: "It [the civil authority] is a minister of God for good to
you. But if you do evil, be afraid. For not without reason does it
bear the sword. For it is the minister of God and avenger for
[God's] wrath on the one who does evil." Therefore, to say capital
punishment is wrong is to contradict St. Paul. One could, however,
ask whether it is expedient or beneficial. (Nero was not at his
worst in this period. But Titus 3:1 also calls for obedience, and
was written probably in 65, when Nero was a wild tyrant).

14:1 - 15:3: Paul is urging avoiding scandal to some - we do not
know their exact trouble - who are weak in understanding that no
foods are wrong by nature. The thought is quite similar to what we
saw in his treatment of scandal in 1 Cor 8 - 10 in connection with
eating food sacrificed to idols.

16:1: Paul speaks of Phoebe who is a deaconess (diakonon) of the
church of Cenchrae. The Council of Nicea, in Canon 19, explained
about such women: "We have spoken of the deaconesses, who have
been enrolled in this position, even though they have not been in
any way ordained. They are surely to be counted among the laity."

Philemon: Paul sends Onesimus, a runaway slave whom he converted,
back to his master, Philemon, asking him to take him back as a
brother. Here we should recall the comments made on slaves at 1
Cor 7:21.

Colossians: Until the commentary of Meyerhoff in 1838, no one
doubted Colossians was by Paul. Now it is very fashionable to say
he did not write it.

There are two kinds of arguments: 1)External witnesses who says it
is by Paul - an impressive list: Tertullian, the Muratorian Canon,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, plus heterodox authors Marcion and
Valentinus. Colossians is at least probably mentioned in the works
of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, and
the Epistle to Diognetus. No ancient author contradicts or doubts.

The arguments against Paul's authorship are internal: 1)Vocabulary
and style are somewhat different from other Epistles - but we
reply that here he has a new kind of opponent, which calls for new
words. Anyone who knows that the pagan historian Tacitus wrote
both his four historical works (very pungent and distinctive
style), and the Dialogue on Orators, so different in style, will
not be impressed. 2)Theological considerations: a)Paul speaks
little here of justification by faith, salvation, law. - But he
has little occasion here. His purpose is different. b)Christology:
he does not speak of Christ as the Son who died, was buried, who
is at the right hand of the Father. - Again, Paul has a different
purpose. He does say that we have been raised with Christ, and sit
in heavenly places with Him: 3:1-4. c)Eschatology: Paul does not
here expect the end soon. - Nor does he elsewhere, as we showed in
detail in commenting on 1 Thes 4:13 ff. d)Ecclesiology is more
advanced. - Any live person should develop over a period of time.
Paul now speaks explicitly of Christ as our Head - it was implied
before in saying we are His members. Other developments are to
meet the new opponents.

Who are the opponents? Two chief possibilities: 1)Gnostics. At
least a start of Gnosticism was around then. Gnostics spoke of
many intermediate aeons between God and the world, used terms such
as pleroma (fullness), principalities and powers. 2)Jewish
Apocalyptic speculators. They too used similar language. Hence we
are not certain. It is clear Paul often uses the language of his
opponents to meet them. And by 2:15 it is clear that the spirit
powers these opponents say we must worship along with Christ are
really, in Paul's mind, evil spirits. (Paul surely does not speak
of nine choirs of angels).

Date and place of composition are uncertain. It could be Ephesus
or Caesarea. Rome, 61-63, seems somewhat more likely. The advanced
doctrine on the Church means it should be relatively later in
Paul's life.

1:15-20: may be a hymn. It surely speaks of Christ as the head,
the firstborn etc. over all principalities and powers. So we need
not worship them: in Christ all fullness (pleroma) of divinity
dwells in bodily form.

1:24: Paul is pleased to fill up what is lacking of the sufferings
of Christ in himself, for His body, which is the Church. Christ
the Head lacked no suffering - but the whole Christ, including His
members, may lack. Paul knows that since we all are part of the
one Mystical Body, one can make up for another. He does that,
heroically. Please recall our comments in chapters 5 and 11 on sin
as a debt.

1:26: He begins to speak, not too clearly, of a mystery hidden
from the ages. In Ephesians 3:6 it will come out more clearly. It
is this: God calls the gentiles to be part of the People of God
along with the Jews who accept Christ.

2:15: Christ despoiled the principalities and powers. So they are
evil spirits, not angels.

2:16-23: Paul attacks the rules given by opponents who think they
must have certain ascetic practices. Paul does not object to
mortification in itself (cf. 1 Cor 9:26; 2 Cor 11), only to their
reasons for demanding it. It seems they worship angels or spirit
powers.

3:18 - 4:1 This is a picture of the ideal household. The husband
has authority in matters pertaining to the household. Cf. Pius XI
(DS 3709): "This order includes both the primacy of the husband in
relation to the wife and children, and the ready and willing
obedience that St. Paul commands [Eph 5:22-23]. This obedience
does not deny or take away the freedom which fully belongs to the
woman, both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view
of her most noble position as wife and mother and companion. Nor
does it direct her to obey her husband's every request if it is
not in harmony with right reason, or with the dignity due to a
wife, nor finally, does it imply the wife should be on a level
with those who are legally minors." It is merely that a committee
of two can be deadlocked much of the time.

Ephesians: Again, as with Colossians, many think Paul did not
write Ephesians. The arguments used against his authorship are
much the same as for Colossians, and the answers are the same.
Here are a few differences: in 2:11-22 Paul speaks of both Jew and
Gentile being made one in Christ. They say this differs from Acts
28:24-28 where Paul speaks dimly of the fact the Jews will not
accept Christ. - But the objectors miss something obvious: In
Acts, Paul speaks of the Jews who still rejected Christ; in
Ephesians he speaks of Jews who have accepted Christ. Further, the
objectors say Paul took a dim view of marriage in 1 Cor 7; while
here he is more optimistic. But in 1 Cor 7 Paul spoke of marriage
and virginity/celibacy as both being graces. He was contrasting
the different spiritual possibilities in 1 Cor. Here he is giving
an ideal picture of the family, much like that of Colossians.

We said that the ancient witnesses who say Ephesians is by Paul
are just as strong as they were for other Epistles of his,
chiefly: St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the
Muratorian Fragment, plus heretical authors: Marcion, Basilides,
and Valentinus.

We conclude that the external evidence easily outweighs the very
weak internal evidence against Pauline authorship.

The opponents here seem to be the same as in Colossians, because
of several mentions of principalities and powers: 1:21; 3:10.

There is a different problem here. The opening line is usually
rendered: "Paul, an Apostle... to the holy ones who are at
Ephesus... ." But several major manuscripts omit the words "at
Ephesus. Further, in 1:15 and 3:1 Paul speaks as if he had not
been to Ephesus. Yet we know he spent several years there.

The probable explanation is this: Ephesians was really sort of
circular letter, and a blank was left, for the reader to fill in
the name of the church where it was being read. The fact that
circular letters are not known to have existed in that day proves
nothing: Paul could still have gotten the idea.

Ephesians was probably written after Colossians. Paul is in prison
- he was in several prisons. The traditional view is Rome, 61-63,
but Caesarea is also possible.

Chapter 1: Here Paul speaks of predestination, but just as in
Romans, it is a predestination to (full) membership in the Church.

2:8-9: Paul says that even faith, the condition for justification,
is a gift of God. This does not imply a blind predestination: God
offers faith to all; those who do not reject it get it. The
process we explained in connection with Romans 2:14-16 is the
explanation of how this works.

4:7: Here Paul speaks of grace given "according to the measure of
the giving of Christ." We need to notice from the context, vv. 8-
13, that Paul speaks here of charismatic graces, not of the graces
essential for salvation. These latter He offers most abundantly,
without measure, since the price of redemption earned an infinite
objective title for each person (cf. Gal 2:20). But charismatic
graces are given without regard to merit (cf. Mt 7:21-23)
according to what the Spirit wills to give (1 Cor 12:11).

5:21- 6:1: Here we have the Haustafel, the ideal picture of the
family, much like that in Colossians, except here Paul adds that
the union of husband and wife is like that of Christ and the
Church. In v. 33 the wife should "fear" her husband. It means
respect rather than fear.

The Pastoral Epistles: Denials of the Pauline authorship of these
three Epistles are even more insistent than they were for
Colossians and Ephesians. But the reasons given for denial are not
really stronger.

The ancient witnesses to his authorship are very similar to those
for many other NT works. The Muratorian Canon, from the second
half of the 2nd century lists them as Scripture, seems to mean
they are by Paul. St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus, and
Origen cite lines from these and explicitly attribute them to
Paul. Eusebius, the first Church historian, says the 14 Epistles,
including the Pastorals and Hebrews, are clearly by Paul (3. 3.
5). Still earlier, they seem to have been used by St. Clement (in
2. 7, citing an expression used in Titus 3:1; 2 Tim 2:21 & 3:17),
and St. Polycarp (4.1 citing from 1 Tim 6:7).

The objections against Paul's authorship are not very strong, all
are merely internal evidence:

1)Style and vocabulary. - We have already seen that such evidence
is never conclusive, surely not here.

2) The errors described seem to be Gnostic - but at least the
beginnings of Gnosticism were around in the first century. 3)The
organization of the Church seems more advanced - not surprising,
these are later than other Pauline letters. In fact, in
Philippians 1:1 we find mention of Bishops and deacons. And in the
letters of St. Ignatius (died between 107 & 110), we see a well
developed hierarchy.

4)There is stress on keeping the deposit of faith - not strange,
for these letters are to two major Pastors, Timothy, in charge of
Ephesus, and Titus in charge of Crete. We find Paul stressing
tradition elsewhere: 1 Cor 11:2 & 23; 15:1 & 3; Gal 1:8-9; Phil
4:9; Col 2:6-7; 1 Ths 2:13; 4:1; 2 Ths 3:6.

5)Paul's travels after 63 AD hard to fit in. - Really, we have
little definite about his movements after release in Rome in 63,
since Acts breaks off then. Here is a possible reconstruction:
soon after release, Paul did go to Spain, then came back to Rome.
In July 64 came the fire, with persecution following. Paul soon
left Rome, hiding from imperial police. Early in 65 he was in
Ephesus with Timothy (1 Tm 1:3). After some time, he set out for
Macedonia, where he wrote First Timothy. From there he may have
gone to Corinth, then with Titus to preach in Crete. After a good
start, he left Titus on Crete, went elsewhere, we known not where.
Decided to spend winter in Nicopolis (prob. of 65-66 - several
cities of that name, probably the one in Epirus), wrote to Titus
to join him there. Must have worked hard in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12)
and nearby. Later sent Titus to Dalmatia (2 Tim 4:10). - Next we
find he has been arrested, is prisoner at Rome. Probably left in
hurry when arrested, for he left cloak and parchments at Troas (2
Tim 4:13). From there to capital of the province. Had few
defenders. Probably in prison in Rome in c 67 and wrote 2 Timothy
there. Then a second hearing, and death sentence, flogged,
beheaded probably outside the city. Second century tradition says
it was at Aquas Salvias, about 3 miles from Rome on road to Ardea.
Buried at once nearer Rome, along Ostian way.

There is no doubt at all these Epistles are part of inspired
Scripture.

If one denies Paul as author, the dates suggested would be quite
late. If Paul did write them, they must be before his death, of
course.

First Timothy:

1:18: This seems to refer to Timothy's ordination: cf. 4:14.

2:15: One of the errors Paul opposes here is opposed to marriage.
Here he says marriage is good, and the function of the mother is a
very means of salvation. In general, to take the role God has
intended for each one and to do it for that reason is very
sanctifying.

4:1-5: Here are the errors against which Paul writes. In 1 Cor 7,
Col 3:18ff and Eph 5:21 ff Paul presented Marriage as good; in Col
2:16 ff he spoke against errors in regard to food, as also in
Romans 12. So these ideas in 1 Timothy are not strange, they are
Pauline.

5:11ff: Paul does not contradict his advice in 1 Cor 7:40 where he
advised it is better not to marry again. That is true unless the
widows are misbehaving as those pictured here.

Titus:

1:12: The prophet quoted here is probably Epimenides, 6th century
B.C. Polybius, in second century B.C. in 6. 46-47 gives a
similarly bad portrait of them.

3:1: Paul reminds themselves to obey the government - of course,
not in immoral things. This was probably written in 65 AD when
Nero was at about his worst.

3:9-11: Paul believes that if a man in error cannot be corrected
in a few attempts, it is no use. He is right.

Second Timothy:

1:6: Again, urges him to renew the grace of ordination.

1:13-14: An exhortation to hold to the true doctrine. Paul always
would urge that, but now, speaking to a Pastor in charge of the
Ephesus region, he has reason to repeat, especially since he knows
he himself is about to die. And in Acts 20:29-30, at Miletus, he
predicted after his death savage wolves would come among them, and
false doctrine.

2:2: Paul makes provision for oral transmission. Jesus never told
the Apostles: Write some books, get copies made, pass them out,
tell the people to figure them out for themselves. There are over
7000 Protestant sects today, each thinking they can figure it out
for themselves. As we saw with the help of Form and Redaction
Criticism, in chapter 6 above, the Church has something more basic
that Scripture: its own ongoing teaching.

2:11: A most basic Pauline theme: we are saved and made holy if
and to the extent that we are not only members of Christ, but like
Him in phase one (hard life suffering and death) so we may be like
Him in phase two, glory.

2:18: Some already then were into the error of thinking the
resurrection had already taken place. Cf. some modern commentators
on 2 Cor 5.

3:1-7: "The last days" can mean all the time from the ascension to
the parousia, and also more specially, the time shortly before the
end. The picture here is the very opposite of that given by
Teilhard de Chardin on that period. Cf. also Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12.

4:3-4: More on the picture of the time before the end: false
doctrine will reign. There can be as it were dress rehearsals for
this even before the final time.

4:7-8: Paul speaks of having merited a crown. This fits with his
theme of not having to earn justification. The acceptance and
possession of first grace is a merit of heaven in the sense that
it makes us children of God, who as such, have a claim - a merit -
to inherit the kingdom. We get that not as individuals, but
inasmuch as we are members of Christ and like Him, we come to
share in His claim. Cf. DS 1532, 1548, 1582. From another
perspective, within the covenant, good things are given basically
without merit, from the unmeritable generosity of God; in a
secondary sense, in that He made a covenant, if we fulfill the
covenant condition, obedience, we have a claim. Cf. comments on
Romans 2:6.

Epistle to the Hebrews: In the first centuries there were doubts
and hesitations: 1) Was it by St. Paul? 2) Was it inspired? The
Church has made the definitive decision that it is inspired.

About the question of Pauline authorship, the churches of
Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cappadocia considered it Pauline. But
there were doubts in the Latin church. The Muratorian Canon, St.
Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus and Gaius of Rome did not consider it
Pauline. Eusebius says it is clearly by Paul. A bit later,
Ambrosiaster did not include Hebrews among the Pauline Epistles on
which he wrote commentaries, though he did consider it canonical.
Sts. Jerome and Augustine seem to have swayed opinion in the west
to considering it by Paul. Augustine said he was moved by the
prestige of the Eastern Churches. After the 6th Synod of Carthage
(419) it became traditional in the west to consider it Pauline.

Many today would favor the opinion of Origen, who notes that the
Greek is more idiomatic than Paul's, and the style and composition
differ from that of Paul, though the teaching is his. Paul could
have given his ideas to someone else, asking the other to write it
up. Popes in our time often act that way, then sign a document as
their own. Who did write it? The names of Jude, Luke, Silvanus
(Silas), Barnabas and Apollo have been proposed. If really
originally intended for Hebrew Christians, it must have been
written before the fall of Jerusalem, especially because the
author speaks of Temple rituals as though still in effect. Since
13:24 says those in Italy greet you, it may have been written in
Rome.

There are constant explanations of the superiority of Christ and
His Church to the organization of the Hebrew religion, and
comparing His priesthood and that of Aaron, and comparing His
sacrifice and the Old Testament sacrifices: Now that we have such
a high priest as Christ, mediator of a better covenant, it would
be foolish to go back to the shadows of the Old Testament.

It is generally admitted that the genre is, except for the
introduction, homiletic. As a result one may find some things
handled more freely than otherwise.

4:15: Says Jesus was "tried [pepeirasmenos] in all things like us,
yet without sin." Even without noting that the genre is homiletic,
one should know enough not to press this to extremes: we must not
say He experienced disorderly passions - the Second Council of
Constantinople, in 553, condemned "wicked Theodore of Mopsuestia"
for "insanely" saying this: DS 424. Nor are we allowed to say
Jesus was ignorant in His human mind: cf. especially DS 3812,
3905, 3924, and AAS 58 (1966) 659-60.

5:8: "He learned obedience from the things He suffered." This
cannot mean He was formerly deficient in obedience, for the same
Epistle in 10:7 says that on entering into the world He said:
"Behold, I come to do your will." But if we think of someone who
has always been devoted to the will of God, but yet had never
experienced any notable illness - but now he does fall into severe
illness, it will take a bit of adjusting for him to as it were
settle down in, and acquiesce on his bodily side in this
suffering. To use a term from modern psychology, his somatic
resonance needs to grow. Cf. Wm. G. Most, "On Jesus Learning
Obedience: Hebrews 5:8" in Faith & Reason, III. 2 (1977), pp. 6-
16.

9:28: "Christ was offered up once." This does not of course rule
out what He Himself called for when He said at the Last Supper:
"Do this in memory of me." The Cross earned an infinite title to
all forgiveness and grace for the whole human race, and for each
individual person (Gal 2:20). But God in His love of good order
(cf. Summa I. 19. 5. c) wills to have a title for giving out this
treasury: it is the Mass, which repeats the sacrifice of the
Cross. In a sacrifice, as we know, there are two elements, the
external sign, and the interior dispositions. At the Last Supper,
and in each Mass, that outward sign is the seeming separation of
His body and blood. On the cross the outward sign was the actual
separation. In all, the interior is the obedience of His Heart
which is not repeated now, but rather, continued, for death makes
permanent the attitude of soul with which one leaves the world.

We were not there when He pledged His obedience to the Father at
the Last Supper, or when He carried out that obedience the next
day. But St. Paul teaches that we are saved and made holy to the
extent that we are members of Christ and like Him. We must suffer
with Him, die with Him, be buried with Him, rise with Him, ascend
with Him, both sacramentally and also in our way of life. Hence He
commanded: "Do this in memory of me.". Thus He ordered the
sacrifice of the Last Supper to be continued and repeated so we
could join our obedience to His, to form the obedience of the
whole Christ, Head and Members.

10:26: If we sin after receiving the truth, there is no further
sacrifice for us. - The sense is that one who has once come to the
truth of faith, and then falls away, is very unlikely to ever
repent and return, for such a one is apt to be hardened. Today
things might be a bit different, since although in itself there is
no valid reason for leaving the Church, so that in the past one
would sin mortally either against faith or other virtues leading
to blindness. But today with the immense confusion in the Church,
there may be cases in which someone slips off the edge without
having been hardened.

Chapter 24: The Catholic Epistles

The Epistles we have seen were addressed to special churches or
groups. There are others, most of them addressed to the whole
Church, hence the general name "Catholic". These are: James, 1 & 2
Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, and Jude.

James: It is not clear who is this James. James the Apostle, son
of Zebedee, was martyred in 62. If by him, this Epistle would be
very early. Another James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus was not
prominent, and so may not be the author. There was a James, who
seems to have been an administrator in Jerusalem, whom Paul calls
(Gal 1:19) "brother of the Lord." Since Hebrew ah was used so
broadly of any sort of relative, there is no shred of evidence for
saying he was a son of the Mother of Jesus, or even for saying he
was a son of Joseph before his marriage to Mary.

The opening line is addressed to "the twelve tribes in the
dispersion." This might mean Jews away from Jerusalem - but there
would not be 12 tribes any more since the Babylonian captivity.
for only 2 tribes returned. So it may be addressed to all
Christians. Writers of the first centuries wavered about accepting
this Epistle as part of inspired Scripture. Not cited as Scripture
until Origen in the third century. Luther in his first edition of
his German Bible (not in later editions) called it an Epistle of
straw, since it seems to contradict his ideas.

The ideas are very simple on the whole. We mention a few special
texts:

2:10: If a persons violates one commandment, he is guilty of all.
This is true on the assumption that the person is logical: he has
then denied the authority of the lawgiver, and in that sense has
broken all commandments. In a somewhat similar way we might ask if
someone who accepts all but a few of the teachings of the Church
has any faith at all: for, his reason might be not that the Church
so teaches - it might be just inveterate stubbornness. However,
people are not nearly always logical.

2:14-26: Faith without works is dead. We must notice that James
uses the word faith in a much narrower sense than Paul does. Paul
means a faith that believes what God says, has confidence in His
promises, obeys His commands, does all in love. For James it is
merely intellectual belief.

3:2 If someone does not sin by the tongue, he is perfect. The
reason is that sins of the tongue are so common, so hard to avoid,
that if one succeeds in avoiding these, probably he avoids all
others.

5:14-15: The Council of Trent defined (DS 1716) that here the
Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is "promulgated" in James.

5:20: If someone saves another's soul from spiritual death, he
will save his soul. Does it mean the other's soul, or is it an
assurance he will save his own? Either interpretation is possible.

First Peter: Many think it was not really by Peter. The chief
reasons advanced against his authorship are these: Its similarity
at times in content and even language to some things in Paul's
letters. - But this hardly proves anything. Peter may well have
been familiar with them, and he surely knew Paul personally.
Further, it seems from 5:12 that Silvanus drafted this letter for
Peter: "I am writing this through Silvanus". This is likely to
have been the Silvanus who was St. Paul's companion at times: cf.
2 Cor 1:19; 1 Ths 1:1. Just as modern Popes do, Peter could have
given his thoughts to Silvanus, and asked him to write them up.
The second reason is the good quality of the Greek: could a
Galilean fisherman have written such Greek? - Again, Silvanus
could account for that.

Early tradition, beginning with Irenaeus, without hesitation said
it was by Peter. Oddly, the Muratorian Canon omits this Epistle.
However, it mentions as Scripture an "apocalypse of Peter". Some
scholars think a line had fallen out of the Muratorian Canon, so
that really this Epistle was meant.

The chief themes in the Epistle are the dignity of the Christian
vocation, and the value of sharing in Christ's suffering. This of
course accords with the great Pauline theme: We are saved and made
holy if and to the extent that we are members of Christ, and like
Him.

1:17: "You sojourn in a strange land". This is like the line of
Hebrews 13:14: "We have not here a lasting city." We are headed
elsewhere.

2:5-9: We are a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices, a
chosen race. - Pius XII in Mediator Dei, the basic liturgy
Encyclical, explains well that at Mass the people (AAS 39. 555-
56),"offer through the hands of the priest from the fact that the
priest at the altar in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His
members, does so in the person of Christ, the Head [of the
Mystical Body]. In that sense the ordained priests acts for them.
Secondly they offer in that they join their interior dispositions
of obedience, praise, petition, expiation and thanks along with
those of the ordained priest, even of the High Priest Himself.

Vatican II, LG # 34, explains "spiritual sacrifices", saying:

"All their works, prayers, and apostolic endeavors, their married
and family life, their daily work, their relaxation of mind and
body, if they are carried out in the Spirit, even the hardships of
life, if they are patiently borne, become spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ which are offered devotedly
to the Father in the celebration of the Eucharist, along with the
offering of the Lord's Body."

2:10: Once they were without mercy. Mercy here, as in Romans 9,
has the special sense of a particular favor in the external order,
i.e., here, of full membership in the People of God.

3:3-4: Here Peter seems to have in mind the wives of pagan
husbands: he asks them to win them not by cosmetics, but by
interior character and virtue.

3:15: Here Peter wants them to be able to give a rational account
of why they believe: they should not just jump up onto Cloud 9 and
believe with no basis. What is needed is apologetics.

3:19-20: Jesus went to preach to the spirits. The thought is not
fully clear. We do know that the souls of the just who died before
Christ, were not given the vision of God until after His death. He
must have gone to announce to them that now they could come.

4:18: The verse cites Proverbs 11:31, as in the Septuagint. It
means that since we must even give an account for every idle word
(Mt 12:36) we must work. Yet, His yoke is easy and His burden
light (Mt 11:30).

5:13: Greetings from Mark "my son". This agrees with the tradition
we saw in commenting on the Gospels that Mark wrote from the
preaching of Peter.

Second Peter: There is greater doubt about authorship here than
about any other NT book. We do not have here the strong testimony
of ancient witnesses we have for other books. The first explicit
testimony comes from Origen, who admits its authorship, but says
there are others who do not. St. Athanasius cites it without
question, as does Didymus. Eusebius lists it among the disputed
works, and he himself does not think it by Peter. St. Jerome
accepted it, but admitted not all did.

The internal arguments are more difficult to deal with here. Some
say it depends on an apocryphal work, The Apocalypse of Peter
(probably written 110-140 AD); but others say it depends on the
Epistle of Jude. Really, the similarities are not so close as to
strictly prove dependence at all (e.g., compare 2 Pet 2:1-5 with
Jude 4-7). In speaking of the return of Christ, it says that the
ancestors have been laid to rest, and still it does not come. This
implies a later generation of Christians, after the death of
Peter.

1:4: Christians are sharers in the divine nature, by grace, which
gives them the radical capability - to bear fruit only in the next
life -- of taking part in the vision of God, a thing beyond the
powers of any conceivable creature. Only one partly divine could
do that.

3:12-13: Some translations here are too strong, speaking of the
present skies as going to be "destroyed." It really means only
loosed. The fire is taken from apocalyptic language. We need to
compare these words with St. Paul, Romans 8:19-22 where we learn
that creation will be renewed and delivered from its present
"slavery to corruption." The "fire" will bring this about.

3:15-16: The writer says Paul's Epistles contain many things hard
to understand. Anyone who has studied them carefully will say a
loud Amen. Yet, in spite of the claims of some commentators, it is
possible to make sense of everything in St. Paul, as we have seen
in our comments above, especially on Romans. This remark of the
author need not mean he had a full collection of all of St. Paul -
Romans and Galatians alone would be enough to justify the comment.

First Epistle of John: The author is probably John the son of
Zebedee. There are explicit testimonies to his authorship from
Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Dionysius of
Alexandria, and probably also the Muratorian Canon (not fully
clear). There are numerous allusions earlier: Shepherd of Hermas,
St. Polycarp, St. Justin and the Epistle to Diognetus.

Some today deny John's authorship, chiefly on the ground of style,
which is never conclusive, and not enough to outweigh the many
explicit external testimonies. In this respect, we observe there
is a striking similarity and parallel between the opening lines of
1 John and those of John's Gospel.

2:18: This verse speaks of both Antichrist, and Antichrists. Mt.
4:5: "Many will come in my name, saying, I am the Christ." There
is a well-known Hebrew pattern in which an individual stands for
and embodies a collectivity. So there is to be a great, chief
Antichrist, shortly before the end, but before that, many smaller
figures.

3:2: "We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." Only a
soul partly divine (cf. 2 Peter 1:4) can see God directly. Cf. Mt
11:27 (Lk 10:22): "No one knows the Father but the Son and no one
knows the Son but the Father."

3:9: "Every one who is begotten of God does not sin, for His seed
is in him, and he cannot sin because he is begotten of God." This
is much like the pattern of focusing we saw in St. Paul (in
commenting on Gal 2:15): The state of being a son of God, as such,
cannot bring forth anything but good, cannot bring forth sin.

3:19: "In this we have known love, that He laid down His life for
us." As we gather from John's Gospel 3:16, to love is to will good
to another for the other's sake. Jesus so greatly willed our good,
eternal life, that He died to make that possible for us. Thus He
proved His love: cf. Rom 5:8, and our comments on the redemption
in chapters 21 & 23 above.

3:19-22: Just as He proved His loves by His action of dying for
us, so we prove our love for God by our actions. If we do that, we
need not have worries about our love of God. Although love in
general consists in willing good to another for the other's sake,
yet we cannot will good to God, who can lack nothing. So the word
love needs to be used in a somewhat different sense (analogical)
when we love God: Scripture pictures Him as pleased when we obey,
displeased when we do not. It is not that He gains anything from
our obedience, yet His Holiness wants it: 1) He loves everything
that is objectively good; that means creatures should obey their
Creator, children their Father; 2)He wants to give His benefits to
us and steer us away from things harmful to us: we become open to
Him, and avoid harmful things by keeping His commandments. So in
practice, love of God = obedience to God, as 5:32 says: "This is
love of God, [namely] that we keep His commandments."

4:8: "God is love." Being utterly One, there are no real
distinctions in God. So we should not say that He has love - that
would be a duality, He and His love. We say He is love. Similarly,
He is goodness, mercy, justice, etc.

Within the Most Holy Trinity, the Father loves in willing the
infinite Good of the divine nature to His Son who is constituted
by that Love. Father and Son will the infinite good of divine
nature to the Holy Spirit, who is constituted thereby and is
therefore the love of the Father and the Son. And the Spirit wills
that good to Father and Son, and so all is love: God is love (cf.
Rom 5:5).

5:16: Here John says we should not pray for one whose sin is to
death. This does not mean just any mortal sin - the precise terms
we now enjoy took long to develop. St. Augustine thought this was
the sin of apostasy (De Sermone Domini 1. 22. 73). The Roman
Synod, under Pope Gelasius I, on May 13, 495 (DS 349) said the sin
to death is seen in the case of those who remain in the same sin.
It is not to death if they give up the sin."

Second and Third Epistles of John: In favor of Johannine
authorship we find: St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, St.
Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzen,
St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian and probably
the Muratorian Canon (unclear). However, we meet with silence on
authorship in St. Cyprian, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. John
Chrysostom. Origen says some doubt, but he does not share the
doubts. St. Jerome seems to accept them himself, but reports
others doubt. Eusebius lists them among the debated Epistles.

Style seems to indicate the same author for both (an inconclusive
point). The fact that the writer calls himself "the Elder" is a
bit puzzling. Why not Apostle? We think of the fact that Papias
distinguishes two Johns, the Apostle, and the Elder.

2 Jn 1: We are not sure who the "elect Lady" is. It may be
Christians in general: that name is applied to Christians in 1 Pet
1:1 and Tit 1:1.

2 Jn 6: "This is love, [namely] that we walk according to His
commandments." This is the same thought we commented on above in 1
John 3:19-22.

2 Jn 10: Urges avoidance of false teachers, the same thought we
saw in Titus 3:10.

3 Jn 9-10: Diotrephes the leader of the church to which the author
writes rejects the author. If this is the Apostle John, we have a
strong case of rebellion very early.

The Epistle of Jude: There were various persons in the early
Church named Jude. But the writer says he is the brother of James.
Since he gives no other information, it seems this is a well known
James, and that should be James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the
"brother" of the Lord. Ancient tradition for the most part
believed he was the Apostle Jude.

Ancient witnesses to authorship by Jude include: Muratorian Canon,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others.

The chief message is a warning against false teachers.

7 and 14-15: Verse 7 seems to use The First Book of Enoch 9. 8;
10. 11; 12. 4. Verses 14-15 clearly cite First Enoch 1. 9. St.
Jerome (De viris illustribus 4) says this citation caused some to
reject the book. However, for Jude to cite an apocryphal work need
not mean he believed it himself. Similarly, St. Paul seems to use
a rabbinic legend in 1 Cor 10:4. A person today could use a line
from Alice in Wonderland, without believing the story was real.

Apocalypse/Revelation: Greek apocalypsis means revelation.

Early tradition was unanimous in saying this work was by John the
Apostle the author of the Gospel and the three Epistles. However,
in the third century some began to think it was John the
Presbyter, in line with the remark of Papias about two Johns, an
Apostle and a Presbyter.

The genre is at once apocalyptic and prophetic.

Interpretations proposed are almost countless. We could summarize
the chief tendencies thus:

Historicist position: This finds references to later developments
in Church history, e.g., the command to use the open scroll to
prophesy in 10:8-11 was used by some Protestants to refer to
Luther's break, using Scripture alone.

Futurist position: This takes the seven letters to the seven
churches as standing for seven ages of Church history to follow.
But these writers usually take everything from 4:1 on to refer to
the last few years of the history of the world, recalling the
prophecy in Mt 24:21 of the great tribulation. Some fanciful
theories often result, with no solid support at all: mere guesses.
In line with this some would take the first plague, 16:1-2 to
foretell the epidemic of AIDS. Reasonable people do debate whether
or not it is a divinely sent punishment. But it would be something
else to say it was foretold in 16:1-2.

First century position: This is a common view today, and it sees
the book as a response to first century conditions, to give
consolation in the face of persecution, by predicting the final
victory of the divine over the human power.

Achronological position: The events of chapters 4-20 are not
events in chronological sequence but overlapping pictures of human
pride and the sufferings of the Church such as it is found in any
period of history In view of such diversities, it is hard to speak
with confidence on individual things in the book. But we will make
a few attempts:

Chapter 12: Here is the vision of the woman clothed with the sun.
We are fortunate to have several Magisterium texts on this. St.
Pius X (Ad diem illum. ASS 36. 458-59): "No one of us does not
know that that woman signifies the Virgin Mary... yet laboring
from some hidden birth... ours, we who... are still to be brought
forth to the perfect love of God and eternal happiness." Pius XII
(Munificentissimus Deus, AAS 42. 762-63) says the Fathers and
Scholastic doctors "have considered the assumption of the Virgin
Mother of God as signified... in that woman clothed with the sun."
Paul VI (Signum magnum, May 13, 1967) said "the sacred liturgy,
not without foundation," saw this as referring to the most Blessed
Mary." John Paul II (Redemptoris Mater, # 24) says she was "the
woman spoken of by the book of Genesis (3;15) at the beginning and
by the Apocalypse (12:1) at the end of the history of salvation."

We gather, the image refers to the Blessed Virgin and to the
Church. This is a well known Hebrew pattern, in which an
individual stands for and embodies a group. B. J. Le Frois, in a
dissertation presented to the Pontifical Biblical Institute of
Rome in 1954 suggested that if this is a prophecy of the end time,
it could mean that then the Church will take on a specially Marian
character, in a sort of Age of Mary. St. Louis De Montfort (True
Devotion ## 51-59) foretold such an age.

Chapter 13: This chapter gives a picture of two beasts coming out
of the sea and the earth. It is possible that they stand for two
aspects of the Antichrist, and say that in the last age when the
Antichrist appears, he will gain power over the earth, and prevent
anyone from buying or selling without credentials from him.
Interestingly, the New Age Movement according to Constance Cumbey,
Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, (Huntington House, Shreveport, 2d
ed. 1983) seems to plan to carry out precisely this scenario. As
to the number 666, it is surely symbolic. Greek and Hebrew reuse
the letters of the alphabet for numbers. In that way, the number
could stand for Nero. According to some, the title of Christ who
slays the Beast has the value of 777 - so, if we take something
away from the perfect number at all points, it will stand for all
evil.

Chapter 20: If read superficially, it seems to foretell two
resurrections. First the just would rise, and reign with Christ on
earth for 1000 years. Then the others would rise. Taken crudely
this would be millenarianism (from Latin mille, 1000, or Chiliasm,
from Greek chilioi, 1000). A fair number of the early writers held
some form of this view: 1)Gross and extreme form: Life would be
coarse unrestrained sensual pleasure. Eusebius (3.28) says
Cerinthus, late 1st century, held this, and some others;
2)Moderate Form: Material and sensual but not extreme or immoral
pleasures. Eusebius (3.39) says Papias held this; 3)Mild Form: A
period of spiritual joys. Held by Tertullian (Against Marcion 3
24), St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.32), St. Justin (Dialogue
80-81), and a few others. St. Augustine once held it, gave it up
(Sermo 259.2). There were many opponents. The Church never
accepted the view. St. Augustine (City of God 20.7) said the first
resurrection was that from sin, the reign on earth meant people
were not slaves of their vices, the second resurrection would be
physical, for all. The 1000 years stands for all the time from the
ascension to the parousia.

21:1-5: God will wipe away all tears from every eye, and will say:
Behold, I make all things new"!

-------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       5817 Old Leeds Road
       Birmingham, AL 35210 USA
       Voice: 205-956-9537
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------