Started looking through the New American Bible at home. This is a much newer translation than the Douay-Rheims I was quoting from on the old board. It reflects a much different sensibility than the D-R did. The D-R was made at a time of great conflict between Catholics and Protestants in England, and alot of the notes seemd almost hysterically concerned with scoring points off the various Protestant "heresies". The notes also tend to reflect more modern scholarship. For example, the D-R followed the tradition that Moses wrote the books of the Pentateuch, whereas the NAB ruggests that Moses didn't necessarily write all - or maybe even any - of it, and discusses the J/E/P/D authorship theories that I dimly remember being taught about in high school.
The NAB also reflects more modern naming practices (i.e., no more "Paralipomenon" or "4 Kings", and so on).
And it's got a list of popes in it. Did you know that there was a Pope Linus?
Views: 903
You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!
But he looked at them and asked, "What then does this scripture passage mean: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'?
Everyone who falls on that stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."
Yeah, what does that mean? I always thought that Jesus was the "stone which the builders rejected", but does this mean that He is going to fall on people and crush them?
The authors of the first three gospels transmitted much preexisting material, but edited and arranged the material in doing so. According to the standard account, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and also shared at least one other lost source, known to scholars as Q.
The parallel passages to Luke 20:17-18 are Mark 12:10-11 and Matthew 21:42-44. The "stone" quotation is from Ps. 118:22-23 (Luke drops the bit from v.23). In each case the "stone" quotation follows the Parable of the Vinedressers. The bit about those who fall on the stone isn't found in Mark but is found in the Matthew passage.
All three evangelists say Jesus was talking to Jewish religious leaders, including chief priests. The block of material depicts Jesus as warning the Jewish leaders that rejecting him will result in their own destruction. Luke's gospel was written after the destruction of the Temple in the year 70, so he probably understood this as a warning that had come to pass. But he probably also understood the same principle as at stake in acceptance and rejection of Jesus generally.
There is a theory that the first five books of the Bible were compiled by four different authors or traditions. Those authors are usually referred to by those four initials. However, that kind of textual study/criticism has generally gone out of favor.
There is a theory that the first five books of the Bible were compiled by four different authors or traditions. Those authors are usually referred to by those four initials. However, that kind of textual study/criticism has generally gone out of favor.
Why? From a conclusion that it's probably incorrect, or from a sense that it's not a (spiritually?) fruitful avenue of study?
There is a theory that the first five books of the Bible were compiled by four different authors or traditions. Those authors are usually referred to by those four initials. However, that kind of textual study/criticism has generally gone out of favor.
Why? From a conclusion that it's probably incorrect, or from a sense that it's not a (spiritually?) fruitful avenue of study?
Ah, I'm more familiar with theories concerning authorship of the New Testament than the Old. I've found some interesting reading on it. Thanks.
There is a theory that the first five books of the Bible were compiled by four different authors or traditions. Those authors are usually referred to by those four initials. However, that kind of textual study/criticism has generally gone out of favor.
Why? From a conclusion that it's probably incorrect, or from a sense that it's not a (spiritually?) fruitful avenue of study?
There is a theory that the first five books of the Bible were compiled by four different authors or traditions. Those authors are usually referred to by those four initials. However, that kind of textual study/criticism has generally gone out of favor.
Why? From a conclusion that it's probably incorrect, or from a sense that it's not a (spiritually?) fruitful avenue of study?
Both.
As I recall, it stood for the "Jahwist", the "Elohist, the "Priestly" and um, er, ah...."Doug".
Replies
But he looked at them and asked, "What then does this scripture passage mean: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'?
Everyone who falls on that stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."
Yeah, what does that mean? I always thought that Jesus was the "stone which the builders rejected", but does this mean that He is going to fall on people and crush them?
This abbreviation eludes me.
The parallel passages to Luke 20:17-18 are Mark 12:10-11 and Matthew 21:42-44. The "stone" quotation is from Ps. 118:22-23 (Luke drops the bit from v.23). In each case the "stone" quotation follows the Parable of the Vinedressers. The bit about those who fall on the stone isn't found in Mark but is found in the Matthew passage.
All three evangelists say Jesus was talking to Jewish religious leaders, including chief priests. The block of material depicts Jesus as warning the Jewish leaders that rejecting him will result in their own destruction. Luke's gospel was written after the destruction of the Temple in the year 70, so he probably understood this as a warning that had come to pass. But he probably also understood the same principle as at stake in acceptance and rejection of Jesus generally.
There is a theory that the first five books of the Bible were compiled by four different authors or traditions. Those authors are usually referred to by those four initials. However, that kind of textual study/criticism has generally gone out of favor.
Why? From a conclusion that it's probably incorrect, or from a sense that it's not a (spiritually?) fruitful avenue of study?
Ah, I'm more familiar with theories concerning authorship of the New Testament than the Old. I've found some interesting reading on it. Thanks.
Both.
As I recall, it stood for the "Jahwist", the "Elohist, the "Priestly" and um, er, ah...."Doug".
"Doug the Deuteronomist'?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 8 Next