OT: NABRE Luke 1:46 footnote marked by '*'

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531431#Comment_531431

I guess you were actually wanting a theological discussion, since you could just as easily have sent a message to the NABRE site? (the 'where')

In any event, good luck, since you'll also be up against some of the DSS evidence, along with other parts of both Luke and Acts.

Ken McGuire

For general discussion, there is the Faithlife Christian Debate, as well as countless internet groups for this.

As far as discussion with the authors of said note, you can try to contact the US Catholics Bishops. Personally I would not expect an answer from them since I am not in fellowship with them, but on the other hand, since I do believe so strongly in the power of the word, can hope that it will accomplish its purpose in God's own time.

SDG

Ken McGuire

David Ames

I guess you were actually wanting a theological discussion, since you could just as easily have sent a message to the NABRE site? (the 'where')

In any event, good luck, since you'll also be up against some of the DSS evidence, along with other parts of both Luke and Acts.

Found the site and Sent the question. Got the standard quick reply: ""Your request has been received. Due to the volume and nature of some requests, not all will be answered. ""

What is DSS evidence?

All I want to know is did Mary say it or did Luke add it. The Scripture, as quoted in the NABRE Bible text body, says that Mary said it but the footnote for that verse in the NABRE says she most likely did not. Not a statement that I expected to find in an Officially Approved Catholic Bible.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531458#Comment_531458

Well, I think that horse already got out of the barn (NAB/NABRE having a fairly 'scholarly' viewpoint in its notes ... very similar to LEB).

But that's been my experience with Catholic scholars, is that they're willing to discuss the alternatives, and so I read them a lot. Brown's always been one of my favorities, along with New Jerome.

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531458#Comment_531458

What is DSS evidence?

Dead Sea Scrolls

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531523#Comment_531523

What is DSS evidence?

Dead Sea Scrolls

They found a reading of the Magnificat in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531534#Comment_531534

I think Steve misunderstood your question...he was just pointing out what DSS means, which I'm sure you knew already.

Whether "they" intend this or not, this smacks of typical literary criticism over-reaching, aka run amok. I tend to dismiss such talk as nonsense, mainly because it is rather insulting to the Holy Spirit. This constant grasping for naturalistic explanations for how the various books were assembled almost always dismisses the real, tangible reality of YHWH inspiring the words that come out of the mouths of Biblical characters. Prophecy isn't random. If saying YHWH put the words in her mouth causes frustration and consternation with regard to "freewill", so be it.

The question is...so what if it was a so-called "Jewish-Christian hymn"? What of it? Does that do anything? Solve any problems? Explain something not previously understood? No, it basically is just some "fresh" idea that someone came up with that is intended to establish someone's reputation as a "new idea" producer. It makes far more sense to accept WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS HAPPENED as what actually happened. We don't need to essentially call Luke a liar because some one or more "scholars" doesn't understand why the Bible says what it says in the way it say it. The Book does, after all, say in many places that it is crafted to create precisely that sense in most readers.

Dan Francis

Where or how do I discuss this with the authors of the NABRE? It claims that the Magnificent might really be a Jewish-Christian hymn or something composed by Luke. [And thus not something said by Mary when she first met Elizabeth as revealed in Scripture.]

At the risk of violating forum rules, but not given a doctrinal answer I just wish to point out the following. Quoting from the New Interpreter's Bible:

Mary. Just as the annunciations followed the pattern of angelic annunciations in the OT, so also the Magnificat clearly owes much of its inspiration to the song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1-10. Both open with a couplet exalting the Lord. Verse 48 declares the reason for Mary’s praise and identifies her with the lowly, foreshadowing both the promise of exaltation of the lowly later in the Magnificat and the fulfillment of this promise in the ministry of Jesus. The words of praise, however, speak of God’s redeeming work not as future but as already having been fulfilled. Such is the confidence of faith. The overthrow of the powerful has not come about through the mounting up of the weak in rebellion but through the coming of God in the weakness of a child. The couplets describe the dramatic reversal that is the signature of God’s mighty acts. The proud are scattered. The powerful are deposed. By contrast, the lowly are exalted and the hungry are fed while the rich are sent away empty. According to the promises, the Lord has helped Israel to remember God’s mercies. More than predictions of what is to come, the Magnificat praises God for the goodness of God’s nature and the redemption that Israel and the church have experienced. The Magnificat also makes clear the pattern of God’s activity. In every line there are echoes of the Scriptures of Israel.

-Dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531557#Comment_531557

I actually read through Luke last week and every time I read Mary's response to Elizabeth I ask myself - did Mary really respond this way? I mean, this is a carefully crafted psalm. Surely this wasn't an impromptu response. Interesting indeed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531557#Comment_531557

Where or how do I discuss this with the authors of the NABRE? It claims that the Magnificent might really be a Jewish-Christian hymn or something composed by Luke. [And thus not something said by Mary when she first met Elizabeth as revealed in Scripture.]

At the risk of violating forum rules, but not given a doctrinal answer I just wish to point out the following. Quoting from the New Interpreter's Bible:

Mary. Just as the annunciations followed the pattern of angelic annunciations in the OT, so also the Magnificat clearly owes much of its inspiration to the song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1-10. Both open with a couplet exalting the Lord. Verse 48 declares the reason for Mary’s praise and identifies her with the lowly, foreshadowing both the promise of exaltation of the lowly later in the Magnificat and the fulfillment of this promise in the ministry of Jesus. The words of praise, however, speak of God’s redeeming work not as future but as already having been fulfilled. Such is the confidence of faith. The overthrow of the powerful has not come about through the mounting up of the weak in rebellion but through the coming of God in the weakness of a child. The couplets describe the dramatic reversal that is the signature of God’s mighty acts. The proud are scattered. The powerful are deposed. By contrast, the lowly are exalted and the hungry are fed while the rich are sent away empty. According to the promises, the Lord has helped Israel to remember God’s mercies. More than predictions of what is to come, the Magnificat praises God for the goodness of God’s nature and the redemption that Israel and the church have experienced. The Magnificat also makes clear the pattern of God’s activity. In every line there are echoes of the Scriptures of Israel.

-Dan

I fully agree with the connection to Hhanaah, and all of those "echos of Scripture", otherwise known as prophecy.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531560#Comment_531560

I actually read through Luke last week and every time I read Mary's response to Elizabeth I ask myself - did Mary really respond this way? I mean, this is a carefully crafted psalm. Surely this wasn't an impromptu response. Interesting indeed.

Yeah, yeah...and...did the babe in Elizabeth's womb really leap like that? And what about this and what about that???

This isn't a slippery slope; it is a sheer cliff with jagged rocks below. You are clearly right--it isn't impromptu. It is INSPIRED. Also, remember, it isn't in English, or Latin, or even Greek. It was Aramaic or possibly Hebrew. And there was no accompanying soundtrack. Plus, she KNEW the Scriptures pretty well, I have no doubt. And yeah, the Holy Spirit was feeding her thoughts, if not the exact words, though I have no problem with that either.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531458#Comment_531458

All I want to know is did Mary say it or did Luke add it.

I would suggest that you contact physicists working on time travel. However, a simple search in Logos will show this to be a common perspective:

"The Pharisaic nature of the Psalms of Solomon is probable. Since Luke also shows sympathy for the Pharisees in the book of Acts, it is more likely that the Magnificat originated in this movement rather than in the Jewish Christian or the Baptist’s movement.

François Bovon and Helmut Koester, Luke 1: a Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 57."

While I applaud the cleverness of your wording of your post to fit forum guidelines, I still must question your actual motive.

See also:

"As for its character, the hymn falls into the general pattern of Hebrew poetry with parallelismus membrorum, but no precise metric form has been established. The thought is Jewish in expression, and parallels from the OT can be easily cited. There are some parallels in style to the Qumran hymns, which are likewise messianic and nationalistic, but there are no close parallels (Braun, Qumran, I, 79, 85f.; A. J. G. Dreyer*). All that can be said is that the hymns come from the same Jewish milieu. This makes it unlikely that the Magnificat and the other hymns are Luke’s own composition (A. Harnack*; G. Erdmann*), and suggests that they stem from Hebrew originals. H. Gunkel* argued that they were Jewish eschatological hymns adapted to their present use (e.g. by the addition of the personal allusions in 1:48, 49; similarly, Bultmann, 322f.). This view was refined by P. Winter* who suggested a more precise Maccabean war situation for them. Similarly, J. Wragg* claims that they are independent compositions, possibly centuries earlier, with some slight adaptations; the Magnificat takes up themes from Ru. 1:20; 2:10."

I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 78–79.

Not a statement that I expected to find in an Officially Approved Catholic Bible.

Obviously your expectations were incorrect. I suspect that some research (again through Logos and the web) can lead you to an understanding as to why your expectations were off.

"CAN. 823 §1.† In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.
. . .

CAN. 825 §1.† Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations."

Code of Canon Law: New English Translation (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1998), 267–269."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531567#Comment_531567

I actually read through Luke last week and every time I read Mary's response to Elizabeth I ask myself - did Mary really respond this way? I mean, this is a carefully crafted psalm. Surely this wasn't an impromptu response. Interesting indeed.

Yeah, yeah...and...did the babe in Elizabeth's womb really leap like that? And what about this and what about that???

This isn't a slippery slope; it is a sheer cliff with jagged rocks below. You are clearly right--it isn't impromptu. It is INSPIRED. Also, remember, it isn't in English, or Latin, or even Greek. It was Aramaic or possibly Hebrew. And there was no accompanying soundtrack. Plus, she KNEW the Scriptures pretty well, I have no doubt. And yeah, the Holy Spirit was feeding her thoughts, if not the exact words, though I have no problem with that either.

I like what the Expositor's Bible Commentary had to say about this:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531624#Comment_531624

Getting this thread 'back to Logos', I wasn't aware of EBC's access to a time-machine. '... ability of people in ancient times to absorb and remember the spoken word, especially the biblical word.'

I think the Logos.com page should mention this as a big plus for EBC; AYB's not even close.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531624#Comment_531624

I like what the Expositor's Bible Commentary had to say about this:

Denise's time machine comment notwithstanding, I am happy to agree with you. I am firmly in the camp that puts most emphasis (the big daddy lion's share) on the last paragraph, though some "natural" considerations are naturally going to be in play also. I also believe that the general level of literacy back then was higher than what most scholars assume. And the fund of memorized Scripture would probably blow our minds and put us to shame.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531665#Comment_531665

I also believe that the general level of literacy back then was higher than what most scholars assume. And the fund of memorized Scripture would probably blow our minds and put us to shame.

I'm not sure what Denise was getting at.

"The scarcity of writing skills and materials in the ancient Near East required people to rely upon memory to a degree that is difficult to envision today within the technology of the modern Western world. As long as a culture remains stable, texts can be preserved through oral recitation and memorization with a high degree of reliability, especially if there is a group of people who share the tradition and can act as a check on errors that might creep in."

Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1142.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531677#Comment_531677

I'm not sure what Denise was getting at.

I almost never know what Denise is getting at--she's very stream-of-consciousness, and we apparently only get to swirl around in a few of the eddies--but I somehow always end up laughing or smiling after reading her posts.

[:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531685#Comment_531685

One has to pose the question, 'Based on what?' If you read studies of verbal repetitive accuracy, it's not a pretty picture even for non-writing cultures.

But ignoring today, the quotes above are simply fabricated. Absent a time-machine.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531695#Comment_531695

One has to pose the question, 'Based on what?' If you read studies of verbal repetitive accuracy, it's not a pretty picture even for non-writing cultures.

But ignoring today, the quotes above are simply fabricated. Absent a time-machine.

I guess nothing in the distant past can be known.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531695#Comment_531695

One has to pose the question, 'Based on what?' If you read studies of verbal repetitive accuracy, it's not a pretty picture even for non-writing cultures.

But ignoring today, the quotes above are simply fabricated. Absent a time-machine.

I will agree we can't know for sure. On some level such talk is conjecture. Regarding the influence of the Spirit, I think it is beyond dispute that certain prophetic connections and overlaps establish YHWH's guidance at the language level throughout Scripture.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531699#Comment_531699

"I guess nothing in the distant past can be known." If one is human, that would be a true statement. Of course we know that angels can be among us.

The only reason I mentioned the time-machine, is my opinion is that much of evangelical apologetics is abysmal, similar to the claim you mentioned. Easily questioned, etc.

Evengelical apologetics are locked in a time-warp from the early 1900s around the time of Moody. They've certainly not invested, as have corporate America, in information technology to better demonstrate the validity of the 'grapha', nor educating Christians to better evangelize.

That's one BIG reason (as much as I unfairly criticize Logos), that I have high hopes for the vision that Bob seems to be executing.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531710#Comment_531710

The only reason I mentioned the time-machine, is my opinion is that much of evangelical apologetics is abysmal, similar to the claim you mentioned. Easily questioned, etc.

Evengelical apologetics are locked in a time-warp from the early 1900s around the time of Moody. They've certainly not invested, as have corporate America, in information technology to better demonstrate the validity of the 'grapha', nor educating Christians to better evangelize.

You say that "much of evangelical apologetics is abysmal". Can you name any works that are not "abysmal" in your opinion?

(as much as I unfairly criticize Logos)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Are you admitting what this seems to say to me - that you "unfairly criticize Logos"? If this is true why do you do this?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531710#Comment_531710

The only reason I mentioned the time-machine, is my opinion is that much of evangelical apologetics is abysmal, similar to the claim you mentioned. Easily questioned, etc.

Evengelical apologetics are locked in a time-warp from the early 1900s around the time of Moody. They've certainly not invested, as have corporate America, in information technology to better demonstrate the validity of the 'grapha', nor educating Christians to better evangelize.

I both know what you mean and disagree. A quick glance at "evangelicalism" seems like they are stuck in the past and living off the work of Moody, Spurgeon, and Hodge - and often a quite superficial reading of them as well. Personally, this American "evangelicalism" was the first view of Christianity I rejected because it seemed to have nothing to say to me.

But it seems like there is more there - at least if you include figures like IH Marshall, NT Wright, Gordon Fee, Piper, Virginia Ramey Mollencott, et al. as "Evangelicals". No, they do not all agree in everything - they are not a "school". But they are significant evangelical voices who in various ways have shown me that they are not stuck in the 19th (or earlier) centuries.

SDG

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531761#Comment_531761

The only reason I mentioned the time-machine, is my opinion is that much of evangelical apologetics is abysmal, similar to the claim you mentioned. Easily questioned, etc.

Evengelical apologetics are locked in a time-warp from the early 1900s around the time of Moody. They've certainly not invested, as have corporate America, in information technology to better demonstrate the validity of the 'grapha', nor educating Christians to better evangelize.

I both know what you mean and disagree. A quick glance at "evangelicalism" seems like they are stuck in the past and living off the work of Moody, Spurgeon, and Hodge - and often a quite superficial reading of them as well. Personally, this American "evangelicalism" was the first view of Christianity I rejected because it seemed to have nothing to say to me.

But it seems like there is more there - at least if you include figures like IH Marshall, NT Wright, Gordon Fee, Piper, Virginia Ramey Mollencott, et al. as "Evangelicals". No, they do not all agree in everything - they are not a "school". But they are significant evangelical voices who in various ways have shown me that they are not stuck in the 19th (or earlier) centuries.

SDG

Ken McGuire

I'm actually motivated in a different direction. Jer. 6:16, Jer. 18:15. Rest is found in the ancient paths.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531756#Comment_531756

Yes Bruce, I have mixed feelings on Logos. And that's why I get so (admittedly) angry with them.

On the one hand, the 'past' was largely a sophisticated reader (Libronix specifically). It seems to have been farmed out to a broad range of interests. In that sense, the software is simply a reader/searcher and I wish it could do things more easily.

But on the other hand, the world that Logos introduces to average people like me is so unbelievable. And what one learns from the experience, is that Logos offers much to 'the Church' (broadly defined) that could never have happened BL ('before Logos'). Maybe that seems like an overstatement; I don't think so. The competitors don't offer the library and Amazon doesn't offer the packaging.

I remember the Bible College library of thousands of books I'd never touch, much less read or search. And having at least made a run at learning, I'm much convinced 'the game has just begun'. And Logos might be in the forefront, trying different approaches out (and trying to make money all the while).

I don't know; only Bob & Co knows ... but the above is just my impression. So, yes, I'm quite unfair, as my desire for ease of use ignores the much more significant issues facing Logos, as well as Christians in general.