Wolf in Calfskin: The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB

I. Introduction
II. How Not to Read Your Bible
III. Prolegomena to Genesis
IV. Genesis
V. Exodus
VI. 1 Samuel
VII. Daniel
VIII. Matthew
IX. Luke

VI. 1 Samuel

The NAB pulls its usual tricks in the First Book of Samuel. There is a bit of demythologizing, one (that I have detected) deliberate mistranslation, a claim that the book was complied by a faceless editor rather than written by the man whose name it bears, and, as always, many allegations of contradiction and error, in one case even of moral error. I will here attempt to refute them. Now, I may only be one layman, fighting against an array of polyglot doctored priests, but I will draw inspiration from the story of David and Goliath, which, incidentally, is contained in 1 Samuel, and, trusting in David's intercession, attempt an upset victory.

f. 2:1-10: "A hymn attributed to Hannah, the mother of Samuel, as her thanksgiving to God because she has borne a son despite her previous sterility..."

Notice that this hymn is only "attributed to Hannah, the mother of Samuel." God forbid that we say Hannah actually recited these words!

f. 8:1: "From this chapter on, the First Book of Samuel gives us two and sometimes three viewpoints on most of the events with which it is concerned, such as the appointment of Saul as king, the reasons for his downfall, his relationship with David, even the circumstances of Saul's death (1 Sam 31; 2 Sam 1). The choice of Saul as king is seen, in 1 Sam 8, followed by 1 Sam 10:17-27 and 1 Sam 12 as motivated by the people's defection from the proper service of God; this later editorial approach incorporates not only narratives with which it is consistent, but also early traditions (1 Sam 9:1-10, 16 and 1 Sam 11) which portray the events and their motivation quite differently."

These allegations of contradiction are entirely baseless. First, the idea that 1 and 2 Samuel contain irreconcilable reports of Saul's death is about as inane as these types of claims come. 1 Samuel records what actually happened; 2 Samuel records what an Amalekite said happened. The Amalekite was lying. He made up a story in hopes of garnering from King David some type of reward.¹¹⁰ However, his plan backfired, and David executed him.

Second, the alleged contradiction between 1 Samuel 16:19-23 and 1 Samuel 17:55-58, regarding whether or not Saul knew David prior to his battle with Goliath, can also be satisfactorily reconciled. David was a young boy when he served as Saul's armor bearer (vv. 16:19-23), and the Scripture does not tell us how much time elapsed between the events narrated in ch. 16 and the events narrated in ch. 17. Perhaps months or even years passed, and David's appearance changed significantly in that time. Perhaps he grew his first beard. "Furthermore," Merrill adds, "Saul's mental and emotional condition, always aberrational at best, would certainly have been aggravated in this hour of stress, perhaps to the point of his not recognizing even an old friend."¹¹¹

I will deal with the claim regarding the disparate accounts of Saul's accession to power in detail below.

f. 10:5: "In a prophetic state: in an ecstatic condition due to strong feelings of religious enthusiasm induced by a communal observance, possibly accompanied by music and dancing."

Rather than attribute the "prophetic state" to a movement of God's Spirit, the NAB suggests that it is merely "an ecstatic condition due to strong feelings of religious enthusiasm induced by a communal observance." This is redolent of the Modernist principle of vital immanence, which explains every religious experience as internal "feelings of religious enthusiasm" rather than supernatural grace.¹¹² Religious experience comes from within, in this view, and is induced by natural, psychological means: the Hebrew prophets whip themselves up into a freny like the priests of Ba'al.

f. 10:8: "By inserting this verse, with its seven days, an editor has prepared for one narrative of the rejection of Saul (1 Sam 13:8-15) in the very context of Saul's anointing."

Again, without evidence or argument, the NAB scholars simply assert that "an editor" inserted this verse. How, pray tell, do they know?

f. 11:12-14: "With these verses, an editor has harmonized the account of the acknowledgment of Saul as king at Mizpah (1 Sam 10:17-24) with the public acclamation at Gilgal (1 Sam 11:15) after the defeat of the Ammonites (1 Sam 11:1-11)..."

The ubiquitous "editor" strikes again, this time to harmonize two allegedly disparate accounts. In the one, teaches the NAB, Saul is enthroned at Mitzpah after being chosen by lot, whereas in the other he is enthroned at Gilgal after saving the Jews of Jabesh-gilead. But the text as it stands is a unified whole. There is quite simply no contradiction there. Saul is chosen for king by lot at Mitzpah (vv. 10:20f), but many of the Jews do not accept him (v. 10:27). However, after he demonstrates his leadership by winning a decisive military victory (vv. 11:1-11), he gains the people's unqualified support, so the prophet Samuel decides to renew the kingdom by repeating the coronation rites. There is no need to posit two disparate sources, and one desperate editor; the narrative is perfectly coherent as is.

What is more, the NAB has deliberately mistranslated Scripture in v. 11:14 in order to make their charge of contradiction seem more plausible. The NAB scholars, alone in the wide field of biblical translation, have chosen to render chadash in this verse as inaugurate, instead of "reaffirm" (NIV), "renew," (NAS, KJV, DRV, RSV), egkainidzo (LXX, renew, cf. 1 Mac 4:36; Ps 50:12; Sir 36:6), or the like. And given that they translate the word properly elsewhere,¹¹³ this error cannot be ascribed to incompetence. It is evident that they have purposely chosen to mistranslate chadash in order to make Scripture to be in error. As I explained above, they believe that vv. 10:24ff and 11:15 were originally two independent and contradictory accounts of Saul's one-and-only coronation, but that an editor weaved them together and attempted to harmonize them by positing that, while both events happened, the second rite of coronation was merely a renewal of the first. But the NAB scholars have seen through the editor's thin veneer; they have pierced the scrim and descried the original, contradictory sources from which the final product was made; they know that 1 Samuel 11:14f did not originally describe a "renewal" of Saul's kingship but the inauguration thereof, therefore they are perfectly justified in manhandling and mistranslating the word of God, that we might be able to see as clear as they.

f. 15:3: "...The interpretation of God's will here attributed to Samuel is in keeping with the abhorrent practices of blood revenge prevalent among pastoral, seminomadic peoples such as the Hebrews had recently been. The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God."

Here the NAB outright charges Scripture with a moral error. Samuel, speaking as God's prophet, tells Saul that God wishes him to "attack Amalek" and to kill all the "men and women, children and infants," yet the NAB scholars blatantly assert that this "has never been in conformity with the will of God." Evidently, they believe they know the mind of God better than inspired Scripture, which is God speaking.¹¹⁴

Ironically, the liberal Catholics of yesteryear attempted to open the Bible to charges of scientific and historical error by carving for it a limited domain of inerrancy, viz., matters of faith and morals.¹¹⁵ Observe how at present they wax bolder and more radical in their attenuation of the ancient faith: now Scripture contains moral errors as well. Indeed, Fr. Raymond Brown went so far as to assert that the Bible contains erroneous "time-conditioned religious beliefs."¹¹⁶ This progression is illustrative that the liberals must not be given an inch with respect to the doctrine of the Bible; else there will be nothing left by and by.

f. 16:14: "An evil spirit sent by the LORD: the Lord permitted Saul to be tormented with violent fits of rage."

This is more demythologizing. What the Bible narrates as supernatural, the NAB explains as natural. Saul was not actually possessed or obsessed by a fallen angel with an intellect and will, but only "tormented with violent fits of rage." The Douay, by contrast, takes this passage at face value.¹¹⁷

f. 17:54: "At the time supposed by this narrative, Jerusalem was still Jebusite, and David had no military tent of his own; the verse is a later gloss."

Judges 1:21 records that the Benjaminites attempted to take Jerusalem, but were unable to completely dislodge the Jebusites. This resulted in the Benjaminites and Jebusites dwelling side by side. As such, at "the time supposed by this narrative," part of Jerusalem would have been under Benjaminite control. As for David's "tent," this need not refer to a military tent; the Hebrew word ohel may refer simply to a dwelling place (cf. vv. 4:10; 13:2), in this case David's house in Bethlehem.¹¹⁸ These two facts being established, the NAB's argument that this verse is a later gloss collapses.

May he who harps God for us in the eagle-eye win grace for the vindication of His word.¹¹⁹

VII. Daniel

Daniel is the kind of book by which the martyr's ardor is fanned to flame. Its heroes are men of exemplary courage and piety, preferring to be cast into a raging furnace or a den of lions rather than bow before false gods. They endure persecution with humility and contrition, all the while thanking the Lord for sending them such just chastisements for their sins. And they triumph, and for their fidelity they receive from God their just reward.

Hence, as the great soldier-priest Mattathias died, wishing to encourage his sons to "show zeal for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of our fathers" (1 Macc 2:50), he called to their minds (after the deeds of Abraham and others) the deeds recorded in this book. "Hannaniah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. Daniel because of his innocence was delivered from the mouth of the lions. And so observe, from generation to generation, that none who put their trust in him will lack strength" (vv. 59-61).

Moreover, Daniel is the kind of book with which souls are won. Its historical prophecies are exquisite in their precision, predicting hundreds of years of history in great detail. In fact, Daniel is probably the best book in the entire Bible for proving divine inspiration to the nonbeliever, for it even identifies by name the nations to which some of its prophecies refer. Yet more extraordinarily, in places the book of Daniel even provides the time frames in which the events it describes will transpire. It is truly an awe inspiring work.

David Goldstein, the secular Jew turned Catholic evangelist, describes how the book of Daniel moved him to embrace the Christian faith:

Especially was I impressed with the prophecy of Daniel, in which he foretold the exact time when the vision and the prophecy would be fulfilled; when the Saint of Saints would be anointed; when the Messiah would be here, in accordance with God's promise, for in the fullness of that time Christ our Lord was born.¹²⁰

Suffice to say, the NAB vitiates Daniel. Yet again it espouses the claims of the enemies of Christianity; it teaches that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, after the events which it "predicts" had already transpired.¹²¹ This view devastates the moral and prophetic force of this book. Suddenly the fingerprints of divine foreknowledge and inspiration which are the visions of statues, animals, and horns are no more than creative summaries of past history. Suddenly this book of amazing foresight has none at all, and even its hindsight is in question. Suddenly this motive of credibility does not seem so credible.

Thankfully, the preponderance of the internal and external evidence is not on the NAB's side. First, the author explicitly and repeatedly identifies himself as Daniel, the same Daniel who experienced the events narrated in this book (vv. 7:28; 8:1,15,27; 9:2; 12:4-5). This does not convince the NAB, which insists that this "book takes its name, not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its hero."¹²² But what about the author's repeated and insistent self-identification is so difficult to understand? If Daniel were not indeed the author of Daniel, this would not be pseudonymity but pseudoi, lies.

Second, Daniel is mentioned by his sixth century B.C. contemporary Ezekiel, as one renowned for wisdom and righteousness (Ezek 14:14, 20; 28:3). Ezekiel even expected the King of Tyre to know of him, which presupposes that Daniel was a well known figure among pagans as well as Jews.

The NAB, to avoid the force of this argument, must insist that Ezekiel is talking about a different Daniel. "The Daniel named here may be the traditional just judge of the ancient past, celebrated in Canaanite literature... but is not the hero of Dn 1-12."¹²³ This objection approaches absurdity. Ezekiel mentions Daniel alongside Noah and Job as men who exemplify the righteousness by which men save themselves and others from destruction. The prophet Daniel was particularly apt for inclusion in this list, for by his righteousness he had saved himself and his friends from death at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 2:17-18), just as Noah had saved his family from the flood and Job had preserved himself and his wife from the attacks of Satan. On the other hand, the Daniel described in the Canaanite Ras Shamra tablets is a worshipper of Ba'al, and hence Ezekiel could not have considered him righteous in the same sense as Noah and Job.¹²⁴ Why, for that matter, would Ezekiel include a pagan in his list of righteous men, when he could have included Joseph or Moses? Furthermore, it strikes me as too convenient for the NAB's position that the Bible should be entirely silent about this other Daniel until just the time at which, according to the traditional position, the prophet Daniel came to prominence.

Third, Our Lord taught that the prophecies contained in the book of Daniel were spoken by the prophet named Daniel (Matt 24:15). Here we see once again that the NAB scholars apparently will not allow Jesus' authority to extend to literary criticism. Finally, subsequent tradition is unanimous in attributing Daniel to its protagonist, as witnessed by Josephus¹²⁵ and St. Jerome.¹²⁶

Since the NAB makes no attempt in its introduction to justify its claim that Daniel was written during the Maccabean Rebellion, I will here explain and refute some of the arguments which have historically been advanced in favor of this position. The first is that the prophecies are too accurate, and hence could not possibly have been composed until after the events they describe had already occurred. This argument, obviously, rests on a false premise.

The second argument is that the Aramaic of Daniel, which contains loan words from Greek and Persian, belongs to the second and not the sixth century B.C. However, the three Greek words each name musical instruments which were played before Nebuchadnezzar's golden image (vv. 3:5,7,10,15). Given the contact which existed between the Greek and Babylonian civilizations,¹²⁷ it is not at all surprising that Nebuchadnezzar should have possessed Greek musical instruments at his court. Next, Daniel's use of Persian words is sufficiently explained by his surviving several years after the Persian conquest of Babylon, during which time many Persian loan words passed into Aramaic.¹²⁸ Kenneth Kitchen demonstrates conclusively that Daniel's Aramaic can be dated anywhere from the late sixth (its traditional date of composition) to the second century B.C., and probably precedes the third century B.C.¹²⁹

Finally, it is alleged that Daniel contains historical mistakes which an eyewitness to these events would not have made. Yet recent discoveries have vindicated this divinely inspired work. For example, the Babylonian king Belshazzar who is mentioned throughout the book was until recently otherwise unknown to history. None of the great historians of antiquity such as Xenophon and Herodotus were aware of him; they knew only of Nabonidus and preceding kings. In the past this led many to deny the historical reliability of Daniel. However, the recently discovered Nabonidus Chronicle reports that Nabonidus entrusted the kingship to his son, the crown prince Bel-shar-usus (Belshazzar) while he spent several years absent in Arabia. Belshazzar was ruling in Babylon as de-facto king at the time that Babylon fell.¹³⁰ Now, as the great historians of antiquity are completely unaware of this king, it is abundantly evident that his memory faded into obscurity soon after his kingdom was destroyed. Hence it would be highly improbable that this information would have been known to an obscure Maccabean Jew who was three hundred years yet further removed from these events than the aforementioned historians. Second century B.C. folk narrators do not typically know more of sixth century B.C. history than fifth century B.C. historians. Hence, the most natural explanation of the data is that Daniel was there. He was an eyewitness to these events, and he wrote down what he saw.

The other main charge of historical inaccuracy centers on the character of Darius the Mede, who, according to Daniel, succeeded to the kingdom of Babylon at the age of 62. It is an established fact of history that the Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylon. Moreover, Cyrus had already overthrown the Median sovereign a few years before. So it is problematic that Daniel describes a man named Darius the Mede as becoming king over Babylon upon its fall. However, the Nabonidus Chronicle records that Cyrus appointed a man named Gubaru as sub-governor of Babylon immediately after it came under his power. It is possible that Darius the Mede was simply another name for him.¹³¹ Yet another possible explanation is supplied by D. J. Wiseman, who has argued that Darius the Mede was Cyrus himself.¹³² Cyrus was 62 when he conquered Babylon, his mother was a Mede, and ancient Near Eastern Kings often bore more than one name. Hence Wiseman translates Dan 6:28 appositionally: "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian." This solution appears best.

f. 2:1-49: "The chronology of Daniel 2:1 is in conflict with that of Daniel 1:5, 18 and in Daniel 1:25 Daniel appears to be introduced to the king for the first time..."

Supposedly vv. 1:5 and 1:18 put the first meeting between Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel during the third year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, whereas 2:1 puts it in the second. However, according to the Babylonian reckoning, "the year in which a king was crowned was the year of accession, whereas the next full year was the first year of his reign."¹³³ This alleged contradiction melts away as soon as one learns that historical fact. Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel to Babylon during the year of his accession, and three years later, when Daniel's training was complete, it was the second year of his reign. So we see that the two chronologies can be harmonized quite easily. Moreover, far from being evidence of historical inaccuracy, this is actually evidence that Daniel was written by a Babylonian, not a Maccabean, Jew, for a Maccabean Jew would not have used Babylonian dates. This is especially true with regards to Daniel 1:1, where the use of the Babylonian reckoning puts him in prima facie contradiction to Jeremiah (cf. Jer 25:1, 9; 46:2).

f. 2:2: "Chaldeans: here probably astrologers, who were so associated with the Chaldeans in the Hebrew mind that in the later language they are sometimes simply called by the name of that people."

This is another of the many arguments put forth in favor of the proposition that Daniel was written by a Maccabean Jew: Daniel's use of the term "Chaldean" as referring specifically to astrologers is an anachronism in the sixth century B.C. But this is essentially an argument from silence. Apart from Daniel, the first known instance of such a usage of the word is in the writings of Herodotus circa 450 B.C.¹³⁴ It is not altogether improbable that "Chaldean" could have been used in this way 87 years before.

f. 2:36-45: "The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron). The last, after Alexander's death, was divided among his generals (Daniel 2:41-42)..."

The NAB's exegesis of this prophecy is quite novel; historically the four kingdoms have been understood as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.¹³⁵ Moreover, by this exegesis the NAB commentators strip their Maccabean Daniel of the last vestiges of his prophetic foresight, not even allowing him to predict the events of the next few years!

There are several problems with this reading. First, the Median Empire did not succeed the Babylonian Empire; the Medes lost their sovereignty to the Persians some years before the Euphrates was ever diverted and mighty Babylon fell.¹³⁶ Second, the Book of Daniel, in vv. 8:3,20, treats the Medo-Persian kingdom as a whole, depicting it as a ram with two horns, one larger than the other. One would think that Daniel would be consistent, and treat it as a whole here as well.¹³⁷ Third, Daniel 2:44-45 states that within the lifetimes of the kings of the fourth empire of this prophecy God would establish His messianic kingdom on earth. Christ Himself interpreted this passage as a reference to His person and mission (Luke 20:18). Yet by His time the Greek empire had long since been conquered by Rome. Hence the fourth kingdom is Rome. The NAB's interpretation simply does not line up with the facts.

f. 7:5: "A bear: represents the Median empire, its three tusks symbolizing its destructive nature..."

The bear could much better be interpreted as Medo-Persia than Media. If it is interpreted as Media one is left floundering as to the meaning of the statement that "[the bear] was raised up on one side." However, if one interprets it as Medo-Persia then it makes perfect sense as a parallel to vv. 8:3,20; it signifies the superiority of the Persians in the kingdom. In addition, the "three tusks... in its mouth" could better be translated as three ribs between its teeth (cf. Amos 3:12; Ps 124:6; Job 29:17; Jer 51:44). Thus it would signify the three main conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire, namely Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.¹³⁸

f. 7:6: "A leopard: used to symbolize the swiftness with which Cyrus the Persian established his kingdom. Four heads: corresponding to the four Persian kings of Daniel 11:2."

The leopard could also symbolize the swiftness with which Alexander the Great established his kingdom, in which case its four heads would correspond to the four smaller kingdoms which Alexander's generals carved out for themselves after his death. This is by far the more natural interpretation, as Daniel soon goes into great detail about these events (vv. 8:8-9; 8:20-21; 11). Keil further notices that "the four heads do not rise up one after another [as the four succeeding Persian kings of the NAB's interpretation], but that they all exist contemporaneously on the body of the beast, and therefore can only represent four contemporary kings, or signify that this kingdom is divided into four kingdoms."¹³⁹

f. 7:7f: "...The ten horns represent the kings of the Seleucid dynasty, the only part of the Hellenistic empire that concerned the author. The little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.), the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne."

f. 7:25: "The reference is to the persecutions of Antiochus IV and his attempt to force the Jews to give up their customs and to adopt Hellenistic ways (1 Macc 1:33-34).

If one accepts this erroneous interpretation, one is forced to conclude that Daniel believed that God would establish His Messianic kingdom immediately after the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. Daniel 7:25-27). Obviously, this did not happen. Furthermore, the Seleucid Empire cannot properly be described as "devouring the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it" (Dan 7:23). Rather, we must interpret this kingdom of ten horns the same way we interpret it in the book of Revelation, as bearing dual fulfillment in the Roman Empire and the kingdom of Antichrist.

f. 9:24: "...A most holy: an expression used almost always of an object, the altar or the temple, but once (1 Chron 23:13) of Aaron the high priest. The author sees the definitive establishment of the kingdom of God, realized in the reconsecration of the temple after Antiochus' desecration, or personified in the holy community (like the Son of Man of Daniel 7). The Fathers of the Church almost unanimously understood the reference to be to Christ, the final realization of the prophecy."

f. 9:25: "From the utterance... to be rebuilt: from the time of Jeremiah's prophecy. One... anointed and a leader: either Cyrus, who was called the anointed of the Lord to end the exile (Isaiah 45:1), or the high priest Joshua who presided over the rebuilding of the altar of sacrifice after the exile (Ezra 3:2)..."

f. 9:26: "An anointed: doubtless the high priest Onias III, murdered in 171 B.C., from which the author dates the beginning of the persecution..."

Once again the NAB commentators espouse an interpretation foreign to the patrimony of the Catholic Church. By taking care to specify that the Fathers of the Church almost unanimously understood the reference to be to Christ, they studiously avoid the condemnation of the First Vatican Council.¹⁴⁰ Yet, one suspects that, whatever exception or exceptions the NAB might be able to find, the consensus of patristic exegesis of this passage amounts to unanimity in the sense envisioned by the conciliar decree.

This prophecy is about Jesus Christ, not indirectly through its quasi-messianic themes, as the NAB teaches, but directly and exclusively, and I will prove it. First, though at first glance God's decree that at some point in the future Jerusalem would be restored (Jeremiah 30:18) seems a likely candidate for the starting point of the 70 weeks, closer examination rules it out. For this we must consult other translations, as the NAB takes liberties with the text of Daniel 9:25. It translates it, in part, as "from the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt," whereas literal translations all render this section as "from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" or some such. This is why this is important: the NAB's rendering makes this prophecy sound like a reference to a general proclamation that Jerusalem would at some point be rebuilt; the literal rendering makes it sound like a reference to a specific command i.e. "go, rebuild and restore Jerusalem." God's decree in Jeremiah 30:18 meshes with the NAB's version, but not with the literal version, as He did not command Jeremiah to build.

To what then, does Daniel 9:25 refer? It refers to Atraxerxes' decree to Nehemiah to rebuild the Holy City (Nehemiah 2:3-8), which took place on Nisan 1, 444 B.C.¹⁴¹ This is when the 70 weeks (i.e. 490 years) begin. And if we convert the prophetic years of 360 days into precise solar years of 365.242 days, adding the 69 weeks which Gabriel tells us will pass between the decree of Atraxerxes and the coming of Messiah (anointed one) the Prince places us exactly on the date of Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem.¹⁴² So, the anointed one of v. 25 is none other than Christ Himself. Moreover, with this hermeneutic, unlike that of the NAB, we have no need to posit that the anointed ones referred to in vv 24, 25, and 26 are three different people or things; they all refer to Christ. He was cut off and killed, and then a few years later the Romans came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

f. 11:5-45: "These verses describe the dynastic histories of the Ptolemies in Egypt... and the Seleucids in Syria... In Daniel 11:10-20 is described the struggle between the two kingdoms for the control of Palestine... Finally, Daniel 11:21-45 describe the career of Antiochus IV and his persecution, in details that have been seen above."

Indeed, this prophecy is incredibly precise. Yet if it were written after the events it describes had already transpired it would be nothing more than a pious fraud.

VIII. Matthew

Sadly, the New Testament does not fare much better than the Old under the historical critical knife of the New American Bible; just as the translators enthusiastically embrace Julius Wellhausen's four source theory for the composition of the Pentateuch, so too do they embrace a German multi-source theory for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew. This time the sources are only three (Mk, Q, and M), but nevertheless the force of the two theories is the same: Scripture was not written by eyewitnesses and is not entirely trustworthy as history.

In accord with its German theory, the NAB rejects the unanimous patristic tradition which ascribes this Gospel to St. Matthew the Apostle. Contrariwise, this tradition is convincing for the Catholic Church.¹⁴³ Indeed, it is sufficiently well attested that it should be convincing on the grounds of rational historical criticism alone.

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, writing near the beginning of the second century,¹⁴⁴ affirmed that Matthew put the stories of the words and deeds of the Lord Jesus into an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language.¹⁴⁵ Moreover, Papias based this affirmation on testimony from the previous Christian generation. Later in the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons confirmed, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."¹⁴⁶ Origen likewise, at the beginning of the third century, witnessed to the same tradition.¹⁴⁷

Yet the NAB, without any external evidence, hypothesizes that the Gospel of Matthew was composed by an anonymous Syrian Christian around 80 A.D. This author used for his sources the Gospel of Mark, a hypothesized collection of the sayings of Christ known as Q which was also used by the author of Luke, and certain oral and written traditions known only to him.¹⁴⁸ He also fabricated certain things.¹⁴⁹ In sum, the NAB posits that our Gospel of Matthew is but partially and remotely apostolic in origin, as it is the product of the synthesis of numerous oral and written traditions with a few flights of fancy thrown into the mix.

The NAB commentators cite as support for this theory the fact that the Gospel of Matthew contains a great deal of the same material as the Gospel of Mark. They assume that the author of Matthew took this material from Mark (indeed they do not interact at all with other possible explanations for the coincidence of so much material in these two Gospels, such as their mutual transmission of stereotyped apostolic anecdotes). And as an apostle, writing from memory, would not have had to rely for his material on Mark, who was not an eyewitness to Christ's earthly ministry, the NAB concludes that the author of Matthew was not an apostle. This argument, obviously, requires Matthew to have been written after Mark; this the NAB fails to prove.

Incidentally, not that it resolves the question of Gospel priority, but we may here consider a Jewish parody of Christianity which ironically supports an early date of composition for the Gospel of Matthew. Obviously the Gospel must be older than the parody which mocks it. So, since this story, attributed to Gamaliel II, appears to be from the 70s or 80s A.D., the Gospel according to Matthew must be even older. The story reads:

On the morrow came R. Gamaliel and brought [a Christian judge] a Libyan ass, and told him that he did not wish to let his sister inherit. Said the judge: "After thy sister left I consulted the law again, and found that the new law said: 'I did not come to abolish the Mosaic law, neither to increase nor to diminish it.' [cf. Matt 5:17] Hence it must remain as in the old law, that where a son is left a sister must not inherit." Said Ema Shalom to the judge: "May God make thy light as bright as a candle." [cf. Matt 5:15-16] Said R. Gamaliel to her (in the presence of the judge): "An ass came along and extinguished thy candle."¹⁵⁰

Gamaliel II lived into the early second century, so he could have written the story at a later date. However, since the story mentions the division of his father's estate, this implies that it takes place before or soon after his father's death, which would presumably precede his own by a few decades. Hence, even if Gamaliel wrote the story near the end of his life, he saw nothing odd about having his characters quoting the Gospel of Matthew much earlier.

Regarding the postulate of the Q source: it is just that, a postulate. There is no hard evidence of it ever having existed. Its only justification is that Matthew and Luke contain a number of sayings of Jesus which Mark and John do not. But this fact admits of other explanations besides shared dependence on a particular documentary source.

Lastly, the NAB commentators cite Matt 22:7 as evidence for the post-A.D. 70 date of composition, in which Jesus alludes to the impending destruction of Jerusalem. This is an incoherent argument. If one grants that Jesus foresaw the future, He could easily have uttered this parable in the early 30s A.D. And the NAB commentators do not seem to preclude Jesus' foreseeing the future, as they grant at least the possibility that the Gospel of Mark, in which also Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, was written before 70 A.D. So, could Jesus predict the destruction of Jerusalem or could He not? If He could, how is Matt 22:7 evidence that Matthew was written after 70 A.D.?¹⁵¹

As we continue through the commentary proper, note how many times the NAB will run afoul of St. Pius X's condemnations in Lamentabili Sane, quoted above.¹⁵²

f. 2:1-12: "The future rejection of Jesus by Israel and his acceptance by the Gentiles are retrojected into this scene of the narrative."

This is what happens when one abandons the traditional Catholic teaching that the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. Suddenly one need no longer believe that the events they record actually occurred, but may reduce them to pseudo-historical theological allegory: some Christian made up the story to illustrate a point. And apparently, by the way, that Christian was so historically illiterate he did not realize that Herod was not a Jew and hence was ill suited for rhetorical use as the prototypical Jewish rejecter of Christ.

f. 4:12-17: "...In order to accommodate Jesus' move to Capernaum to the prophecy [of the light rising upon Zebulun and Naphtali (Isaiah 8:22-9:1)], Matthew speaks of that town as being 'in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali' (Matthew 4:13), whereas it was only in the territory of the latter, and he understands the sea of the prophecy, the Mediterranean, as the sea of Galilee."

Like Renan, the NAB commentators presume to correct Sacred Scripture's self-understanding. They do so rashly. First, the borders between Zebulon and Naphtali had long since been erased by the time of St. Matthew, so he made no error by combining them as one territory in which Capernaum was situated. Second, it is not certain that Matthew identified the sea of Isaiah's prophecy as Galilee. That he described Capernaum with the adjective parathalassian (seaside), referring to its proximity to Galilee, is not conclusive proof that when he proceeded to quote Isaiah's prophecy mentioning "the sea" he thereby understood Galilee. Third, it is not certain that the sea of Isaiah's prophecy is in fact the Mediterranean rather than Galilee; therefore if Matthew identified it as Galilee he could very well have been right (as indeed, he must be, for he is inspired). Isaiah's derek-hayyam may mean either "the way to the sea" or "the way by the sea." The road to which he referred ran by Galilee and to the Mediterranean. Hence the sea to which he referred may have been Galilee or the Mediterranean.

f. 4:20: "Here and in Matthew 4:22, as in Mark (Mark 1:16-20) and unlike the Lucan account (Luke 5:1-11), the disciples' response is motivated only by Jesus' invitation, an element that emphasizes his mysterious power."

There in absolutely no need to charge Scripture with a contradiction solely because one Gospel omits an element of a narrative which another Gospel contains. In fact, the story in the Gospel of Luke about Jesus going out into the water with Simon fits nicely between vv. 18 and 19 of Matthew. One need only do a little work to find amongst the Gospels a satisfactory harmony. These scholars would do well to listen to St. Augustine's advice to Faustus.¹⁵³

f. 5:1-7:29: "The first of the five discourses that are a central part of the structure of this gospel. It is the discourse section of the first book and contains sayings of Jesus derived from Q and from M. The Lucan parallel is in that gospel's "Sermon on the Plain" (Luke 6:20-49), although some of the sayings in Matthew's "Sermon on the Mount" have their parallels in other parts of Luke…"

f. 5:1-2: "Unlike Luke's sermon, this is addressed not only to the disciples but to the crowds (see Matthew 7:28)."

Since I dealt with the three-source theory above, I will here confine myself solely to answering these footnotes' two charges of contradiction, namely that in Matthew this sermon takes place on a mountain whereas in Luke it is delivered on a plain, and that in Matthew Jesus addresses the crowds whereas in Luke He speaks solely to His disciples.

As to the former, the Greek words topou pedinou, which the NAB translators here interpret as "plain," do not have the same semantic range as that English word; rather they simply signify a stretch of level ground. The NAB translators know this, as demonstrated by their translation of Luke 6:17. So we see that the alleged contradiction vanishes as soon as one bothers to carefully examine the text. There is nothing contradictory about the statements, "He gave a speech on a mountain" and "He gave a speech on a stretch of level ground." One can find stretches of more or less level ground on mountainsides. And certainly if I were hiking down a mountain, and wanted to stop somewhere to give a sermon, this is the sort of spot which I would choose.

As to the latter, a quick look at the two verses preceding Luke 6:20 obliterates the claim that Jesus is there depicted as speaking only to His disciples, and not to the crowds. We learn that "there was a great throng of people... who had come to hear Him... and all the people were trying to touch Him." Indeed, verse 20 does say that Jesus looked at His disciples when He began His sermon, but the preceding verses make it absolutely obvious that there were many, many other people in attendance. An apologist might look at his wife as he begins his opening statement; that does not mean that she is the only person watching the debate.

f. 5:3-12: "...Although modified by Matthew, the first, second, fourth, and ninth beatitudes have Lucan parallels (Matt 5:3; Lk 6:20; Matt 5:4; Lk 6:21, 22; Matt 5:6; Lk 6:21a; Matt 5:11-12; Lk 5:22-23). The others were added by the evangelist and are probably his own composition..."

This footnote is representative of the many, many gratuitous assertions in the NAB that the evangelists put words into Our Lord's mouth.

f. 8:14-15: "Cf Mark 1:29-31. Unlike Mark, Matthew has no implied request by others for the woman's cure. Jesus acts on his own initiative, and the cured woman rises and waits not on 'them' (Mark 1:31) but on him."

An omission is not tantamount to a contradiction. It is completely nonsensical to charge the Gospels with error simply because one evangelist includes details which another evangelist omits. The NAB is, once again, making the same logical error as Faustus.

f. 10:22: "To the end: the original meaning was probably 'until the parousia.' But it is not likely that Matthew expected no missionary disciples to suffer death before then, since he envisages the martyrdom of other Christians (Matthew 10:21). For him, the end is probably that of the individual's life (see Matthew 10:28)."

This claim has dire implications for Christ's divinity. If, as the NAB claims, the original meaning of Christ's words to His disciples was probably 'until the parousia,' this would mean that Christ probably mistakenly believed that the end of the world would come within the lifetime of His disciples. As He is God, this is quite impossible. Perhaps the NAB would defend our Lord's divinity by assuring us that He did not actually say these words.

f. 13:1-53: "The discourse in parables is the third great discourse of Jesus in Matthew and constitutes the second part of the third book of the gospel. Matthew follows the Marcan outline (Mark 4:1-35) but has only two of Mark's parables, the five others being from Q and M..."

Notice that practically every other footnote mentions Q. Q simply receives an inordinate amount of attention for a hypothesized document. This footnote is indicative of the kind of circus which results when one abandons belief in apostolic authorship of the Gospels and decides to dismember them with highly speculative (and no less destructive) textual criticism.

f. 14:1-12: "The murder of the Baptist by Herod Antipas prefigures the death of Jesus (see Matt 17:12). The Marcan source (Matt 6:14-29) is much reduced and in some points changed. In Mark Herod reveres John as a holy man and the desire to kill him is attributed to Herodias (Matt 6:19, 20), whereas here that desire is Herod's from the beginning (Matt 6:5)."

Here we find yet another allegation of contradiction. These scholars have completely forgotten the kind of humility exemplified by St. Justin Martyr,¹⁵⁴ and charge the Bible with egregious errors ad nauseum. Suffice to say, there is no contradiction here, just as there have not been contradictions in any of the other verses whereupon the NAB has accused the Bible of error. In neither account does Herod revere St. John the Baptist. Rather, the motivation behind Herod's unwillingness to execute him is fear (Matt 14:5, Mark 6:20). Herod is worried about saving his own skin. In both accounts Herod is distressed at the prospect of having to kill St. John but grudgingly does so because he is bound by his oath and his public credibility is at stake (Matt 14:9, Mark 6:26).

f. 16:14: "...Jeremiah: an addition of Matthew to the Marcan source."

This is what is so pernicious about the three source theory for the composition of Matthew. No longer is this Gospel an independent witness to the life and deeds of Jesus Christ. No longer is it the testimony of a holy apostle. No, it is only an edited version of Mark. It is, in the eyes of these scholars, essentially a work of plagiarism.

f. 16:21-23: "...Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself..."

Exactly why could Christ not have made these predictions of His Passion? On what principle do the NAB commentators exclude this possibility? Do they in fact deny that Jesus could or did predict the future? They naturally will never say such a thing outright, but they certainly provide one with grounds for suspicion.

f. 17:24: "The temple tax: before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70 every male Jew above nineteen years of age was obliged to make an annual contribution to its upkeep (cf Exodus 30:11-16; Nehemiah 10:33). After the destruction the Romans imposed upon Jews the obligation of paying that tax for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. There is disagreement about which period the story deals with."

Jesus died on the Cross long before 70 A.D., so of course this narrative, set by the inspired and unerring apostle during the life of Christ, is dealing with the second temple period. Such logic should suffice for one holding the integral Catholic faith.

The following verses of the pericope confirm this conclusion. Jesus explains that He is not obligated to pay the temple tax because kings do not collect taxes from their sons, but from strangers (the NAB obscures the meaning by replacing "sons" with "subjects"). Clearly, Jesus (and by extension, Christians) is the son and God the Father is the king. Hence the temple tax of two drachmas is being collected on behalf of God. Now, I find it hard to believe that God would collect taxes in order to maintain an abominable pagan shrine. That would be Caesar's doing, and as Christians are not privileged sons of Caesar, they would not be exempt from his tax, and Jesus' argument would be moot.

f. 20:20-21: "The reason for Matthew's making the mother the petitioner (cf Mark 10:35) is not clear..."

Naturally, Matthew did so because the mother actually asked Jesus this and St. Matthew the Apostle faithfully recorded what he remembered happening. As for harmonizing Matthew with Mark, perhaps James and John asked their question through the intercession of their mother.

f. 21:4-5: "The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Isaiah 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction)."

f. 21:7: "Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy."

These statements are, as Pius XII would say, "absolutely wrong and forbidden." Once more, the NAB scholars presume to correct Scripture's self-understanding, and do so rashly. One may easily interpret the "them" of v. 7 as referring to the cloaks and not to the donkey and the colt. Jesus sat only on the colt. The statement in v. 5 that Zion's king comes meek and riding on a donkey and a colt would then be interpreted loosely as referring to how the donkey carried some of His baggage.

f. 23:8-12: "The prohibition of these titles [Rabbi, Father, Master] to the disciples suggests that their use was present in Matthew's church. The Matthean Jesus forbids not only the titles but the spirit of superiority and pride that is shown by their acceptance."

The official Bible of the USCCB here gives away the store to "fundamentalist" Protestantism and admits that in Matt 23:9 Jesus literally forbids the use of the titles father, master, and teacher. A great deal of apologetic ink has been spilt refuting this contention. Why is our own Bible espousing it? The NAB's commentary seems to be by turns Jewish, atheist, and Protestant; it is anything but Catholic. Finally, the phrase "the Matthean Jesus" is repulsive. Is there more than one Jesus in the Bible? Does the "Matthean Jesus" teach doctrines contradictory to the Marcan, the Lucan, the Johannine?

f. 24:34: "The difficulty raised by this verse [this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place] cannot be satisfactorily removed by the supposition that this generation means the Jewish people throughout the course of their history, much less the entire human race. Perhaps for Matthew it means the generation to which he and his community belonged."

Once again the NAB entertains a supposition which the enemies of Christianity use against the credibility of the Bible, and which the Magisterium has explicitly condemned:¹⁵⁵ perhaps the authors of the Bible mistakenly taught in their writings that the world would end within their lifetimes.

There are several possible solutions to the difficulty raised by this verse. One is that Matthew 24 refers primarily to God's judgment of Israel in 70 A.D., and hence actually was fulfilled within the lifetime of the generation which witnessed the life of Christ and wrote the New Testament. This view, known as preterism, requires a metaphorical interpretation of Matt 24:30, but can justify this by appeal to Matt 26:64. Another possible solution, as the NAB notes, is that "this generation" refers to the Jewish people. The NAB does not justify its judgment that this solution is unsatisfactory. Again, perhaps "this generation" refers to the generation of the faithful, the Church. Or, still another possibility, we may understand the aorist gentai as an inceptive, i.e., "this generation will not pass away until all these things begin to take place."

f. 27:5-8: "For another tradition about the death of Judas, cf Acts 1:18-19. The two traditions agree only in the purchase of a field with the money paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus and the name given to the field, the Field of Blood. In Acts Judas himself buys the field and its name comes from his own blood shed in his fatal accident on it [i.e. falling off a cliff, as opposed to Matthew where Judas hangs himself and the chief priests then use his money to buy a field]."

The traditional explanation for this alleged contradiction is that Judas hanged himself on a tree near a cliff. The branch subsequently broke, and Judas fell down the cliff and "burst open in the middle."¹⁵⁶ Regarding the statement of Acts 1:18 that Judas "bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity": although Judas did not intend to purchase a field for himself, his returning the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests resulted in his obtaining a field, and hence analogically he could be said to have purchased it.

f. 28:8: "Contrast Mark 16:8 where the women in their fear 'said nothing to anyone.'"

It is on this sad note that I will end my study of the Gospel according to Matthew according to the New American Bible. This footnote serves no purpose but to cast doubt on the reliability of the Gospels, and there are more than enough atheists in the world to do that. A Bible created by Christians should reconcile prima facie contradictions, not point them out. So, I will here supply for the NAB's dereliction of duty, and propose that when Mark said that the women "said nothing to anyone," he meant that as the women went to tell the disciples about the Resurrection they said nothing to anyone they met on the way.

IX. Luke

In the introduction to the Gospel according to Luke, the NAB makes nearly identical claims to those it makes in the introduction to Matthew. Luke's Gospel, like Matthew, is said to derive from three sources: in this case Mark, a "written collection of sayings of Jesus also known to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q: see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers."¹⁵⁷ Thus, instead of Mk, Q, and M, we have Mk, Q, and L.

As the NAB scholars will make clear in their commentary, they believe that Luke was quite free in his compilation, arrangement, and adaptation of his source material, that he was, shall we say, creative in shaping his narrative to serve his rhetorical purposes. We see this reflected in the introduction, which asserts, Luke "is concerned with presenting Christianity as a legitimate form of worship in the Roman world, a religion that is capable of meeting the spiritual needs of a world empire like that of Rome. To this end, Luke depicts the Roman governor Pilate declaring Jesus innocent of any wrongdoing three times."¹⁵⁸ Let us be clear: when the NAB says that Luke "depicts" Pilate declaring Jesus innocent three times, it is by no means affirming that Pilate actually declared Jesus innocent three times. Luke says that he did, but the NAB doubts or denies the correspondence of Luke's statement to historical reality.

Next, the NAB argues that certain "details in Luke's Gospel (13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70."¹⁵⁹ Hence it concludes that the Gospel was probably written after that date. However, all four passages which the NAB quotes as implying familiarity with the destruction of Jerusalem are predictions, on the lips of Christ, of what would happen in the future. Could Jesus not have predicted the destruction of Jerusalem? The NAB's argument for the late date of composition of Luke has no force unless one assumes this heretical hidden premise.

In the same vein, the NAB asserts that the "prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples."¹⁶⁰ The first footnote in the commentary speculates that he is a "second-or third-generation Christian." However, although Luke's prologue proves that Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, it is perfectly consistent with his being among the first Christian converts after Pentecost, and hence a contemporary and companion of the Apostles. This is what ancient Christian tradition affirms, as witnessed by Papyrus Bodmer XIV (c. 200 AD), the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus of Lyons,¹⁶¹ the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Tertullian.¹⁶² This tradition has been confirmed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission,¹⁶³ and indeed is so strong that even Joseph Fitzmyer accepts its basic contours, viz., that this Gospel's author is "Luke, a Syrian of Antioch, a physician, and a sometime collaborator of Paul."¹⁶⁴

Finally, the NAB proclaims Luke's ignorance ("incomplete knowledge") regarding "Palestinian geography, customs, and practices," this ignorance being among the "characteristics of this Gospel." The NAB will attempt to substantiate this charge by making specific allegations of error in its commentary, which I will answer in turn. Later, in the chapter on the Acts of the Apostles, I will supply additional arguments for the early (pre 70 A.D.) date of composition of both Lucan works.

f. 1:1-4: "...As a second-or third-generation Christian, Luke acknowledges his debt to earlier eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, but claims that his contribution to this developing tradition is a complete and accurate account..."

Note that St. Luke merely claims to give a complete and accurate account of the events of the life of Christ. The NAB leaves the question open for now as to whether this claim is true. In subsequent footnotes the NAB will inform us that St. Luke made things up or changed his source material to suit his theological ends. It would seem to follow from this that St. Luke's claim is false.

f. 1:5-2:52: "...The narrative uses early Christian traditions about the birth of Jesus, traditions about the birth and circumcision of John the Baptist, and canticles such as the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and Benedictus (Luke 1:67-79), composed of phrases drawn from the Greek Old Testament. It is largely, however, the composition of Luke who writes in imitation of Old Testament birth stories, combining historical and legendary details, literary ornamentation and interpretation of scripture..."

Here as in many other places the NAB scholars portray St. Luke as manipulating the past in order to weave an edifying story.¹⁶⁵ They do not entertain the traditional belief that he simply passes on eyewitness testimony (in this case, from Mary), as he claimed he would do in his prologue.

f. 1:5: "...Luke relates the story of salvation history to events in contemporary world history. Here and in Luke 3:1-2 he connects his narrative with events in Palestinian history; in Luke 2:1-2 and Luke 3:1 he casts the Jesus story in the light of events of Roman history..."

Here again, the NAB intimates that St. Luke's gospel is something akin to historical fiction. St. Luke is said to combine the truth with fancy, and place the result in the context of real, historical events.

f. 1:20: "You will be speechless and unable to talk: Zechariah's becoming mute is the sign given in response to his question in v 18. When Mary asks a similar question in Luke 1:34, unlike Zechariah who was punished for his doubt, she, in spite of her doubt, is praised and reassured (Luke 1:35-37)."

f. 1:45: "Blessed are you who believed: Luke portrays Mary as a believer whose faith stands in contrast to the disbelief of Zechariah (Luke 1:20)."

Doubt is a sin against faith.¹⁶⁶ If Mary doubted God's messenger at the Annunciation, as Calvin impiously thought,¹⁶⁷ then she sinned, and she is not the Immaculate Conception. If it was not the NAB's intent to accuse our Lady of sin, it should not have attributed "doubt" to her, and should have used the word "difficulty" or some equivalent instead. So, the NAB is at the very least guilty of phrasing itself in a scandalously inaccurate manner.

Whether the NAB scholars intend to accuse our Lady of actually committing a sin of doubt, or at least of being depicted as committing a sin of doubt in Luke's narrative, is difficult to discern. On the one hand, they mention Mary's "doubt" in direct parallel to Zechariah's doubt, which is clearly sinful. This leads one to believe that they mean "doubt" in the same sense in both instances. On the other hand, in the subsequent footnote the NAB insists that Mary, within Luke's narrative, is a believer whose faith stands in contrast to Zechariah's disbelief. Would the NAB scholars simply state their position plainly?

f. 1:46-55: "Because there is no specific connection of the canticle to the context of Mary's pregnancy and her visit to Elizabeth, the Magnificat (with the possible exception of v 48) may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate at this point in his story..."

f. 1:68-79: "Like the canticle of Mary (Luke 1:46-55) the canticle of Zechariah is only loosely connected with its context... [T]he hymn... applies more closely to Jesus and his work than to John. Again like Mary's canticle, it... may have been a Jewish Christian hymn of praise that Luke adapted to fit the present context..."

The NAB seems intent on dissenting from every magisterial decree ever promulgated by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Above, it claimed that Luke was probably written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Here it intimates that Mary herself did not compose the Magnificat. These propositions contradict replies VI and IV, respectively, of the PBC's 1912 decree Concerning the Authors, Dates, and Historical Truth of the Gospels according to Mark and Luke.¹⁶⁸

The NAB does not see the specific connection of the Magnificat to the context of Mary's visit to Elizabeth, but it is there. In v. 48 Mary proclaims "from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." This indicates that she has received an extraordinary blessing; it is not something that every Jewish Christian would sing about himself at a typical Sunday meeting. Mary's statement in v. 49 that God has done great things or wonders for her reinforces this. The NAB argues that Luke may have added v. 48 in order to connect the hymn to Mary, but this is pure speculation. Moreover, to argue that the hymn has no specific connection to Mary, based on the supposition that the verse which connects it specifically to Mary was not originally part of the hymn, is manifestly circular.

Much of Mary's canticle, it is true, reflects general biblical themes which, though appropriate, are not specific to the context of Luke 1. However, it is to be expected that Mary, bursting into a spontaneous song of praise to God, would echo biblical themes whose application is broader than her immediate circumstances.

The canticle of Zechariah, the Benedictus, receives similar treatment to that afforded the Magnificat: the NAB denies or doubts that Zechariah proclaimed it in the circumstances narrated by St. Luke. In justification of this position, the NAB notes that the Benedictus speaks more to Christ than to John. Well, naturally! Christ must increase, and John must decrease. It is entirely appropriate for Zechariah's hymn to laud primarily the work of Christ, and secondarily John's work to prepare His way. Indeed, it is only in the context of Christ's work that John's work of preparation is intelligible. Hence, the NAB's argument by which it justifies its refusal to affirm that Zechariah composed the Benedictus, like that with respect to Mary and the Magnificat, falls flat.

f. 2:1-2: "Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke's dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus' birth in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus' birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius..."

This footnote accuses Luke of being a significantly less than conscientious historian, recklessly constructing a narrative based on nothing more than a vague recollection and, therefore, inevitably making glaring historical mistakes.

The Vatican's chief historian, Fr. Walter Brandmüller, admirably defends the accuracy of Luke's work:

[Gerhard] Kroll shows by means of the available sources from profane history, such as inscriptions, papyrus finds, ancient historiography, and so forth, that Augustus in fact decreed a universal census of the Roman Empire. Kroll refers, for example, to the so-called Monumentum Ancyranum. This, an extensive inscription in the temple of Rome and Augustus in Ankara, contains a text that Augustus himself left behind toward the end of his life... In it Augustus says that he ordered a census three times during his reign. The Roman jurist Tertullian (d. 220), who claims to have used the archives of the Roman state, writes in his polemical work, Adversus Marcionem, which was composed in Rome: "It is certain that during the reign of Augustus the census was carried out in Judea by Sentius Saturnius."

This news is startling. Wasn't Quirinius the one who carried out the census? Now, Luke is indeed the only one to report that Quirinius was governor during Herod's lifetime (d. 4 B.C.); nevertheless, none of this rules out the accuracy of the Lucan account. It can also be harmonized with Tertullian's information, for a series of references leads to the highly probable conclusion that Quirinius, during the years in question, held the superior position of an Orienti praepositus [commander over the East], to whom the governor of Syria was a subordinate. Consequently, Luke mentioned Quirinius as the one actually responsible for the census and omitted the name of the governor who carried it out.

...No one disputes the fact that the census was carried out in the provinces every fourteen years. So if we count fourteen years back from A.D. 6, we come to the year 8 B.C. At that time Herod was living, and Quirinius resided in the East as Caesar's legate. Therefore, during the years from 8 to 4 B.C.--since the census process took several years to complete--the census took place and Jesus was born.¹⁶⁹

f. 2:11: "...As savior, Jesus is looked upon by Luke as the one who rescues humanity from sin and delivers humanity from the condition of alienation from God..."

The NAB here continues its long tradition of using subjective language to the exclusion of proclaiming objective truth. Thus, "Jesus is looked upon by Luke as the one who rescues humanity from sin."

f. 2:22: "Their purification: syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband... They took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord: as the firstborn son (Lk 2:7) Jesus was consecrated to the Lord as the law required (Ex 13:2,12), but there was no requirement that this be done at the temple. The concept of a presentation in the temple is probably derived from 1 Sm 1:24-28.

Contra the NAB, syntax does not compel us to read "their" as referring to Mary and Joseph, and context suggests Mary and Jesus instead. On this point Francois Bovon writes:

The expression ["their purification"] is only to connect "purification" and "presentation." Luke brings these into the context of the redemption of the firstborn, as the citation from Exodus 13 indicates, surely because "purification" comes up in this context now and again, although not in Exodus 13. Although an inexact description both for the mother's purification (Lev 12) and for the son's redemption (Exod 13), katharismos can be understood as such in a general sense.¹⁷⁰

The NAB is correct to note that the law never required that the firstborn son should be consecrated at the temple in Jerusalem. However, this fact does not justify the NAB's conclusion that the story of Jesus' presentation in the temple was probably fabricated in imitation of a story in the Old Testament, rather than having actually occurred. The Holy Family could have consecrated Jesus at the Jerusalem temple even though this was not a requirement of the law. It ought not surprise us that the Holy Family would perform a supererogatory act of piety!

f. 2:35: "...[Mary's] blessedness as mother of the Lord will be challenged by her son who describes true blessedness as 'hearing the word of God and observing it.'"

While this footnote perhaps admits of an orthodox interpretation, its manner of expression certainly offends against Catholic sensibilities.

f. 3:21: "Was praying: Luke regularly presents Jesus at prayer at important points in his ministry..."

By now we have observed this phenomenon a sufficient number of times that to point it out again would simply be repetitive. The NAB commentary gives rise to doubt by repeatedly using such language as "Luke portrays," "Luke presents," and "Luke characterizes," without ever explicitly affirming the factual veracity of his work.¹⁷¹ Then it confirms this doubt by accusing Luke of fabricating various details, mixing and matching sources at whim, and in general confirming the sneaking suspicion, engendered by the type of language described above, that St. Luke's portraits/presentations/characterizations are not in fact accurate but the product of a man who has a theological agenda and is not adverse to manhandling historical sources in its pursuit.¹⁷²

f. 4:1: "Filled with the holy Spirit: as a result of the descent of the Spirit upon him at his baptism (Luke 3:21-22), Jesus is now equipped to overcome the devil..."

This footnote is simply bizarre. Jesus, being perfect God and perfect man, was more than sufficiently equipped to overcome the devil from the moment of His conception. Is the NAB here saying that some additional equipment from the Holy Spirit was necessary, such that Jesus would have been inadequate to overcome the devil without it? This is unthinkable. Traditional Catholic exegesis holds that Jesus allowed Himself to be baptized in order to sanction the ministry of His predecessor, to teach humility, and to sanctify the waters to prepare them to serve as the matter of the sacrament of regeneration.¹⁷³ Christ absolutely did not get baptized because He needed it to arm Himself against a fallen angel.

f. 4:21: "Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing: this sermon inaugurates the time of fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Luke presents the ministry of Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament hopes and expectations (Luke 7:22); for Luke, even Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection are done in fulfillment of the scriptures..."

Even Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection? Of course and especially Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection are done in fulfillment of the Scriptures! And not just for Luke (note the subjective language again; the NAB scholars do not agree with Luke that the Old Testament actually prophesied a suffering Messiah, as they will state openly below), but for the other evangelists as well (cf. Matt 26:54; John 19:28), and indeed the whole world, as this is objective truth.

f. 5:1-11: "There are traces in Luke's story that the post-resurrectional context is the original one: in v 8 Simon addresses Jesus as Lord (a post-resurrectional title for Jesus--see Luke 24:34; Acts 2:36--that has been read back into the historical ministry of Jesus) and recognizes himself as a sinner (an appropriate recognition for one who has denied knowing Jesus--Luke 22:54-62)."

"Lord" is not an exclusively post-resurrectional title; Jesus used it of Himself and others used it of Him throughout His earthly ministry.¹⁷⁴ If the NAB scholars intend to relegate to anachronism every instance in which the Gospels record someone addressing Jesus as Lord prior to His resurrection, based on the supposition that "Lord" is a post-resurrectional title, surely they must see the hopeless circularity of their argument. Next, Simon's recognition of himself as a sinner is wholly appropriate for one who has led the life of an average Galilean fisherman. These two facts having been established, we see that this story in perfectly congruous with the context in which Luke situates it, and there is no justification whatsoever for supposing, as the NAB does, that this story has been transposed from its original context as an appearance of the risen Lord.

f. 5:19: "Through the tiles: Luke has adapted the story found in Mk to his non-Palestinian audience by changing "opened up the roof" (Mk 2:4, a reference to Palestinian straw and clay roofs) to through the tiles, a detail that reflects the Hellenistic Greco-Roman house with tiled roof."

According to the NAB, Luke as a matter of course exercised little care for the accuracy of the factual details of his narrative, and indeed in this instance proposes a factual detail which is objectively false: if this story ever actually happened, the paralytic would have been let down through a straw and clay roof, whereas Luke says he was let down through a tile roof.

As in every instance in which it does so, the NAB accuses Sacred Scripture of error rashly. Archbishop Goodier explains of first century Palestinian roofs that "in the centre itself a square patch was covered with loose tiles, resting on thin poles, which in the very hot season could be removed, and so give air and coolness to the room below."¹⁷⁵ This being the case, St. Luke's statement that the paralytic was let down "through the tiles" comports perfectly with the milieu of first century Palestine.

f. 8:21: "...[B]y omitting Mark 3:33 and especially Mark 3:20-21 Luke has softened the Marcan picture of Jesus' natural family. Probably he did this because Mary has already been presented in Luke 1:38 as the obedient handmaid of the Lord who fulfills the requirement for belonging to the eschatological family of Jesus; cf also Luke 11:27-28."

Once again the NAB raises doubts about the biblical basis of the Immaculate Conception. It teaches here that Luke "probably" softened Mark's portrait of Mary in order to harmonize it with his own portrait of her as an obedient handmaid of the Lord. This suggests that Mark's portrait is inconsistent with Mary's being an obedient handmaid of the Lord (i.e., that in Mark's portrait she is a sinner), or at least that Luke found it to be so. Perhaps the NAB scholars would save their orthodoxy by clarifying that they do not think Mark's portrait of Mary is actually inconsistent with Marian dogma; Luke merely mistakenly thought so.

f. 9:32: "They saw his glory: the glory that is proper to God is here attributed to Jesus (see Luke 24:26)."

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I must devote a paragraph to one more instance of needlessly subjective language. St. Luke is said to have attributed to Jesus, in the transfiguration narrative, the glory that is proper to God. Shall I trust this attribution? Shall I trust the word of a man who makes things up, who puts words in peoples' mouths, and who writes narratives embellished to sound like Old Testament Scripture, to the detriment of factual accuracy, all because he has an agenda to pursue? The whole tenor of the NAB's commentary on Luke would lead me to believe that the answer is no.

f. 10:18: "I have observed Satan fall like lightning: the effect of the mission of the seventy-two is characterized by the Lucan Jesus as a symbolic fall of Satan..."

And what exactly are we to make of this odd little term: "the Lucan Jesus"? Given that the NAB speaks elsewhere of the historical Jesus, it is one more stab at the notion that we can trust Luke to accurately relay what Jesus actually did and taught.

f. 17:20-37: "To the question of the Pharisees about the time of the coming of God's kingdom, Jesus replies that the kingdom is among you (Luke 17:20-21). The emphasis has thus been shifted from an imminent observable coming of the kingdom to something that is already present in Jesus' preaching and healing ministry. Luke has also appended further traditional sayings of Jesus about the unpredictable suddenness of the day of the Son of Man..."

The implication here, as in the comments on Luke 21:5-36, 8, is that St. Luke reworked the received teaching (that Jesus would return imminently), because this teaching had proven to be false.

f. 24:26: "That the Messiah should suffer...: Luke is the only New Testament writer to speak explicitly of a suffering Messiah (Luke 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). The idea of a suffering Messiah is not found in the Old Testament or in other Jewish literature prior to the New Testament period, although the idea is hinted at in Mark 8:31-33. See the notes on Matthew 26:63 and 26:67-68."

This is certainly one of the most outrageous footnotes contained within the NAB. It seriously claims that "Luke [a writer, incidentally, whose trustworthiness the NAB has gravely undermined] is the only New Testament writer to speak explicitly of a suffering Messiah." This claim is flatly false. The concept of the suffering Messiah is ubiquitous in the New Testament,¹⁷⁶ and is even expressed by Peter and Paul with those exact words.

Equally outrageous, in this footnote the NAB actually sides with modern Judaism against Christianity, and claims that the concept of a suffering Messiah is foreign to the Old Testament! Might I point the NAB scholars to the suffering servant oracles of Isaiah? Or Wisdom 2:10-24? Daniel 9:26 or Zechariah 12:10? The NAB even says in its commentary on Isaiah 53 that Christ is its perfect fulfillment. Why, then, does the NAB choose to contradict itself here? Or, according to the NAB's definition of terms, are these two propositions somehow not contradictory?

As a whole, the NAB commentary on Luke undermines the faith of Catholics, introducing doubts, multiplying difficulties, and leaving the reader with the uneasy and inchoate feeling that all herein is to some degree suspect. Although, standing alone, some of the NAB's claims may seem inconsequential, as a whole the myriad doubts which pervade the NAB constitute a formidable edifice. It must be torn down.

Ben Douglass
June 2, Anno Domini MMIX

[110] This solution is obvious to anyone willing to allow the Scriptures to speak with consistency. So Challoner, in HOT, p. 381; KD, Vol. 2, pp. 558-559; Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2nd ed. 2008) p. 238.

[111] Merrill, op. cit., p. 230.

[112] Cf. PDG, 7-8.

[113] The NAB translates the various forms of chadash as restore (2 Chr 15:8; 24:4; Is 61:4), restored (Lam 5:21), renew (Job 10:17; Ps 51:12; 104:30), and renewed (Ps 103:5).

[114] The proper Catholic response to violent biblical passages such as this is supplied by St. Thomas Aquinas, cited supra in "Prolegomena to Genesis." Cf. also Bishop Challoner's commentary: "The great master of life and death (who cuts off one half of mankind whilst they are children) has been pleased sometimes to ordain that children be put to the sword, in detestation of the crimes of their parents, and that they might not live to follow the same wicked ways. But without such ordinance of God, it is not allowable in any wars, how just soever, to kill children" (in HOT, p. 358).

[115] Cf. HG, 22; SP, 19.

[116] R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1973) p. 9.

[117] "An evil spirit, by divine permission, and for [Saul's] punishment, either possessed or obsessed him" (Challoner, in HOT, p. 360).

[118] KD, Vol. 2, p. 487.

[119] Cf. Dante Alighieri, Paradiso, Canto XX 37-39.

[120] David Goldstein, in Honey from the Rock, ed. Roy Schoeman (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2007) p. 70.

[121] A prolific third century opponent of Christianity named Porphyry was the first to advance this claim. Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Jerome opposed him. Secularists have since taken up Porphyry's cause. Pope Leo XIII denounced as a detestable error the contention that "the prophecies and the oracles of God are... either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature" (PD, 10).

[122] SJNAB, p. 1021.

[123] SJNAB, p. 983.

[124] Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, "Who is Ezekiel's Daniel," retrieved 3/31/09.

[125] The Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 10, Chs. 10-11.

[126] Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason Archer (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958) passim.

[127] Cf. Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Daniel and Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander," Evangelical Quarterly 53.1 (January-March 1981): 37-47; KD, Vol. 9, pp. 507-508.

[128] K. A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel," in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman (London: The Tyndale Press, 1965) pp. 35-44.

[129] Ibid., pp. 31-79.

[130] Nabonidus Chronicle, Years 7, 9-11.

[131] Ibid., Year 17.

[132] D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel," in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman (London: The Tyndale Press, 1965) pp. 9-16.

[133] Dr. Barry D. Smith, "The Book of Daniel and the Second-Temple Period," (paper for Atlantic Baptist University at http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Daniel.htm) 7/12/04.

[134] E.g., The Histories, 1:181,183.

[135] "The statue denoted the four great empires of the Chaldees, Persians, Greeks, and Romans" (HOT, p. 1090; cf. CCHS, pp. 626-627; KD, Vol. 9, p. 654).

[136] The Histories, 1:191.

[137] "[S]ince in ch 8 the Medo-Persian empire is represented as one empire symbolized by one beast, so must it be represented by one beast or by one metal in the other visions. Any attempt, therefore, to split up the Medo-Persian empire into two separate and successive kingdoms is against the writer's view of history" (CCHS, p. 627).

[138] KD, Vol. 9, p. 640.

[139] Ibid., p. 641.

[140] "[I]t is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against... the unanimous agreement of the Fathers" (DeRev, par. 9).

[141] So Challoner, in HOT, p. 1103; Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1999) p. 200.

[142] Cf. Harold Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1977) p. 138, in McDowell, op. cit., p. 200.

[143] The Pontifical Biblical Commission decided, in its June 19, 1911 decree "Concerning the Author, the Date, and the Historical Truth of the Gospel according to Matthew" (AAS 3 [1911] 294ff; EB 401ff; Dz 2148 ff): "I: Having regard to the universal and unwavering agreement of the Church ever since the first centuries, an agreement clearly attested by the express witness of the Fathers, by the titles of the Gospel manuscripts, the most ancient versions of the sacred books and the lists handed on by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, by Popes and Councils, and finally by the liturgical use of the Church in the East and in the West, may and should it be affirmed as certain that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, was in fact the author of the Gospel current under his name? Answer: In the affirmative" (in CCHS, p. 70).

[144] Cf. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006) pp. 13-14.

[145] In Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39:16. On the interpretation of logia I follow Bauckham, op. cit., p. 214.

[146] Against the Heresies, 3:1:1.

[147] Origen, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25:3-4.

[148] In its 1912 decree "On the Synoptic Problem or the Mutual Relations of the First Three Gospels," the Pontifical Biblical Commission explicitly forbade catholic exegetes from advocating the source-critical theory here embraced by the NAB (AAS 4 [1912] 465; EB 117f; Dz 2164ff): "II: Ought those to be considered faithful to the above prescriptions, who without the support of any traditional evidence or historical argument readily embrace what is commonly called 'the two-document hypothesis', the purpose of which is to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke chiefly by their dependence on the Gospel of Mark and a so-called collection of the discourses of our Lord; and are they consequently free to advocate it? Answer: In the negative to both parts" (in CCHS, p. 71).

[149] "In large measure the material of these discourses came to 'Matthew' from his tradition, but his work in modifying and adding to what he had received is abundantly evident" (SJNAB, p. 7 of the Revised New Testament, quotation marks mine). Cf. St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 45: "You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and of the Holy Spirit. You know well that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them." St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies, 4:33:8: "[T]he Scriptures... have come down to us by being guarded against falsification, and are received without addition or deletion."

[150] The Babylonian Talmud, trans. Michael L. Rodkinson (Boston, MA: New Talmud Publishing Company, 1903) Vol. I, Tractate Shabbat, Chapter XVI. Burton Visotzky, in "Overturning the Lamp," Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 38 (1987) p. 78, translates the allusion to Matt 5:15-16 as "May your light shine forth like a lamp," which is more explicit.

[151] Incidentally, for the Pontifical Biblical Commission such prophecies are evidence of a pre 70 A.D. date of composition: "III: Can the composition of this original text be postponed till after the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies it contains about that destruction were written after the event... Answer: In the negative" (Decree "Concerning the Author, the Date, and the Historical Truth of the Gospel according to Matthew," in CCHS, p. 70).

[152] Supra, f. 63.

[153] "But Faustus finds contradictions in the Gospels. Say, rather, that Faustus reads the Gospels in a wrong spirit, that he is too foolish to understand, and too blind to see. If you were animated with piety instead of being misled by party spirit, you might easily, by examining these passages, discover a wonderful and most instructive harmony among the writers. Who, in reading two narratives of the same event, would think of charging one or both of the authors with error or falsehood, because one omits what the other mentions, or one tells concisely, but with substantial agreement, what the other relates in detail, so as to indicate not only what was done, but also how it was done? This is what Faustus does in his attempt to impeach the truth of the Gospels; as if Luke's omitting some saying of Christ recorded in Matthew implied a denial on the part of Luke of Matthew's statement. There is no real difficulty in the case; and to make a difficulty shows want of thought, or of the ability to think" (St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 33:7).

[154] "But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that Scripture contradicts itself]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext[for saying] that it is contrary[to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself." (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 65)

[155] Pope St. Pius X, in LS, condemned the following notions: "33. Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity... 52. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately." St. Pius also lamented such erroneous opinions in PDG, 36: "[The modernists] are ready to admit, nay, to proclaim that Christ Himself manifestly erred in determining the time when the coming of the Kingdom of God was to take place, and they tell us that we must not be surprised at this since even Christ was subject to the laws of life! After this what is to become of the dogmas of the Church?" Again, the NAB could perhaps salvage Christ's omniscience by trashing the authenticity of the sayings Matthew puts in His mouth.

[156] Cf. Witham, in HNT, p. 1435.

[157] SJNAB, p. 96.

[158] Ibid., p. 95.

[159] Ibid., p. 96.

[160] Ibid.

[161] Adv. Haer. 3:1:1.

[162] Adv. Marcionem 4.2,2.

[163] Decree "Concerning the Authors, Dates, and Historical Truth of the Gospels according to Mark and Luke," June 26, 1912 (AAS 4 [1912] 463ff; EB 408ff; Dz 2155ff), reply I.

[164] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Luke the Theologian (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1989) p. 2.

[165] Compare this with the reverent, face-value acceptance of everything the evangelists say which characterizes Catholic Biblical scholarship of happier times: "Since the Gospels are the source of virtually all that we really know about Christ's earthly life, it follows that the most accurate, authentic, and realistic account is that given by the evangelists themselves. The most that an author can do is to coordinate and harmonize those narratives, describe the background and the setting of the scenes and incidents, and explain the text when it presents some obscurity or difficulty" (Rev. John O'Brien, Life of Christ (New York, NY: John J. Crawley & Co., 1957) p. xi).

[166] "The faith demanded by the Christian Revelation stands on a different footing from the belief claimed by any other religion. Since it rests on divine authority, it implies an obligation to believe on the part of all to whom it is proposed; and faith being an act of the will as well as of the intellect, its refusal involves not merely intellectual error, but also some degree of moral perversity. It follows that doubt in regard to the Christian religion is equivalent to its total rejection, the ground of its acceptance being necessarily in every case the authority on which it is proposed... Doubt as to the Faith is thus impossible in the Catholic Church without infringing the principle of authority on which the Church itself depends... It will be evident from what has been said that doubt cannot coexist either with faith or knowledge in regard to any given subject; faith and doubt are mutually exclusive..." (The 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia, Doubt; cf. CCC 2088)

[167] "The holy virgin appears to confine the power of God within as narrow limits as Zacharias had formerly done; for what is beyond the common order of nature, she concludes to be impossible. She reasons in this manner. I know not a man: how then can I believe that what you tell me will happen? We ought not to give ourselves very much trouble, to acquit her of all blame. She ought immediately to have risen by faith to the boundless power of God, which is not at all lettered to natural means, but sways the whole world" (John Calvin, Commentaries, Vol 31, Harmony of the Evangelists, ix, vii).

[168] AAS 4 [1912] 463ff; EB 408ff; Dz 2155ff.

[169] Walter Brandmüller, Light and Shadows: Church History amid Faith, Fact, and Legend, trans. Michael J. Miller (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2009) pp. 87-89. Cf. Sal Ciresi, "Christmas According to the Evangelists: The Veracity of the Gospel Testimonies" in The Latin Mass, Vol. 15, No. 5, Advent/Christmas 2006.

[170] Francois Bovon, Luke 1, trans. Christine M. Thomas (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002) p. 99.

[171] Cf. Footnotes to 1:19; 2:22-40; 3:1-23; 4:18, 21, 23, 25-26, 34; 8:40-56; 9:32; 10:18; 12:10-12; 13:1-5; 16:14-15, 16.

[172] Cf. Footnotes to 4:16-30, 23; 5:1-11; 9:18-22, 23; 9:51-18:14; 11:13; 12:45; 16:8b-13; 18:31; 19:11-27; 20:15; 21:5-36, 8.

[173] HNT, p. 1252.

[174] Cf. in the Gospel of Luke alone: 1:43; 2:11; 5:12; 6:5; 7:6; 9:54, 59, 61; 10:17, 40; 11:1; 12:41; 13:23; 17:37; 18:41; 19:8, 31; 20:44; 22:33.

[175] Most Rev. Alban Goodier, S.J., The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Vol. I (New York, NY: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1944) p. 176.

[176] E.g., Matt 17:22-23; 2 Cor 1:5; Phil 3:10; Col 1:24; Heb 2:9-10; 5:8; 9:26; 13:12; 1 Pet 1:11; 2:21; 3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1.