Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament

I’m currently teaching a New Testament course and I have beeen re-reading a lot of great material dealing with all aspects of New Testament studies. I’m re-reading—among other things—Curtis Mitch’s work. I thought this was especially well-written, and a good synthesis of modern scholarship. The excerpt below comes from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament, which Curtis Mitch co-edited with Scott Hahn. With regard to the traditional attributions of authorship of the four Gospels—i.e., that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, and John wrote John—Mitch writes the following:

“every extant Gospel text with a surviving title page includes a superscription with the name of the evangelist as given by tradition. If untitled Gospels ever existed, none has survived to confirm the assertion….Some would argue that the titles and traditions linked with the Gospels are historically unreliable. But if the Gospels were initially disseminated as anonymous works, and only decades later ideas about their origin began to crystallize and take hold throughout the Christian community, then we are left with a situation that is very difficult to explain. Not only are the names of the evangelists unanimously attested in the second century, but one is hard-pressed to account for why these names and not others were chosen and universally agreed upon. The apostle John may be thought an obvious choice to credit with a Gospel, given the extent of his influence in early Christianity. [But] why attribute the other Gospels to figures such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Even though Matthew was one of the Twelve, he appears only a few times in the New Testament and never in such a way that later generations would conclude that he was a figure of towering importance. Even more, it is unlikely that a Gospel addressed to readers from a Jewish background [at that time] would be attributed to a tax collector, since tax collectors were generally despised by Jews [of that time] as morally corrupt, ritually unclean, and politically traitorous. The problem is even more acute in the case of Mark and Luke, neither of whom was an apostle and neither of whom appears in the writings of the New Testament as a prominent authority figure in the earliest Christian community. If churchmen in the second century were merely speculating about the authorship of the Gospels, one might reasonably expect them to have preferred more illustrious personalities such as Peter or Paul. At the very least, one would expect more than one opinion to have made itself heard in the annals of Christian history.”¹

In a footnote, Mitch includes the following: “The Book of Hebrews provides a counterexample. Because its author is never identified in the book, and no name is supplied in its title, there was much speculation in the early centuries about who wrote it. No such speculation surrounded the authorship of the four Gospels.”²

I highly recommend the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. I use it weekly, sometimes daily.

1. Curtis Mitch, “Introduction to the Gospels,” in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament, ed. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, xv-xxiii (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), xvi.
2. xvi n. 2.

Just over a week ago, Dr. Michael Barber interviewed me on The Sacred Page radio show for a Catholic radio station. The interview pertained to my conversion to Catholicism and also to my research on the political roots of modern biblical criticism. Dr. Barber recently posted the podcast of the interview on the popular blog he co-authors, The Sacred Page. The podcast can be found here: http://www.thesacredpage.com/2011/09/tsp-episode-3-jeff-morrow-conversion.html

Isaiah in Greek

The biblical canonization process within Judaism is quite complicated. It is frequent for Protestant scholars to take Josephus’ use and list of Scriptures as representative of the basic canon of Pharisaic Judaism–which led to rabbinic, and eventually modern Judaism–arguing that the canonization process within Judaism predates the time of Jesus. Although the Council of Jamnia (or Yavneh) [end of the first century A.D.] is NOT likely the place where the Jewish biblical canon reaches its final form, that meeting did address the canonical status of certain books—Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.¹ Scholars remain divided about the closing of the Jewish biblical canon. In my opinion, it seems likely that it is even later that the canon becomes more fixed within Judaism.

 What complicates matters further is that different groups within Second Temple Judaism apparently considered different books canonical. Although the biblical books used by the Pharisees is likely identical to Josephus’, which looks like the Old Testament of most Protestants, and, it should be noted, the Hebrew Bible (Tanak) of the majority of contemporary Judaism, this is not for certain. Sadducees, on the other hand, had a much smaller list of biblical books (only including the Penateuch, according to New Testament evidence). It is difficult to determine what canon was in

Sirach from the Cairo Genizah

use among the Jews at Qumran—where Esther has not been discovered but Tobit and Sirach from the deuterocanon have been found (in Aramaic and Hebrew no less)—but it appears they likely considered some of their own community’s texts as canonical.² The question of canon at such an early stage, however, is complicated by the fact that we are not even sure what a canon would mean at that point within Judaism. Would they have understood those texts as divinely revealed, as inspired? And what would inspiration mean for them? Would there have been a canon-within-a-canon? These questions remain unresolved.

We do know, however, that certain Jewish communities did in fact use the Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Bible, and that they included the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. Although far from certain, the Book of Sirach appears to have been according canonical status among some of the early rabbis (more on this in a future post). A recent discovery of medieval manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah has shown that Jews in the medieval period in Africa, and throughout the Byzantine Empire, continued to use the LXX (more on this in a future post). To this day, Ethiopian Jews use the LXX as their Bible, including the deuterocanonicals. Some Jews in antiquity used, and some Jews today continue to include the deuterocanonicals in their Scripture. More on this in future posts.

Fragment from the Cairo Genizah

For Further Reading:

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective.” In The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 53-67. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

Davies, Philip R. “The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective.” In The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 36-52. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

Mason, Steve. “Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon.” In The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 110-127. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. “The Septuagint: The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism.” In The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 68-90. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

VanderKam, James C. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 91-109. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Josephus and the Scriptures.” Fides et Historia 13 (1980): 42-63.

1. If we trust the later rabbinic sources on the matter, which I think are generally trustworthy.
2. At Qumran, copies of Tobit were found in both Aramaic and Hebrew, and Hebrew fragments of Sirach were present there. Hebrew portions of Sirach were also found at Masada and in the Cairo Genizah.

English Bible

I often get asked the question, “why did the Catholic Church add books to the Bible?” We hope to do more posts on the canonization process of Scripture, but for the moment, I thought I would respond to this question with a brief post.

This question often comes to me from Protestants who assume that Christians always had a Bible that matched a modern Protestant Bible: 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. Since Catholic Bibles include 46 books in the Old Testament (but likewise share the same 27 book New Testament with Protestants), those asking me this question often assume that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Old Testament at some point in the medieval period. These 7 books Catholics refer to as deuterocanonical (second canon), whereas Protestants often refer to them as apocryphal (hidden books, i.e., books that do not belong). These books are: 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch. 

With such assumptions often present, this question misunderstands the actual history. Of course on the face of it, it is true that the Catholic Church “added” books to the Bible—-in the sense that the list of which books belong in the Bible (i.e., the canon) developed over time, and the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit, we believe) determined the

Hebrew Old Testament

final form of this canon.

But to set the record straight, the first list of books that matches a Protestant Bible cannot be found anywhere in history—as far as I am aware—prior to the Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century. And even then, Protestant Reformers often did not include all of the books our contemporary Protestants use. For example, Martin Luther initially doubted the canonical status of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. And while Luther had much praise for the Old Testament deuterocanonical book Judith (which he did not believe to be inspired by God, but which he thought Christians should read), he often criticized other biblical books found in Protestant Old Testaments including Esther and Jonah. The famous Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli doubted that Revelation belonged in the New Testament. John Calvin, who never wrote a commentary on Revelation, also had concerns over its canonical status. 

Prior to the Reformation, all Christian biblical canons either excluded books from the Old Testament that Protestants (and Catholics, and Orthodox) consider inspired, like Esther—-or, they excluded some of the 27 New Testament books that Protestants (and Catholics, and Orthodox) consider inspired, like 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—-or, they included some or all of the 7 deuterocanonical books that Catholics (and Orthodox) include in their Bibles. There are no Bibles (nor lists of biblical books) that have the complete 27 New Testament books and all 39 Old Testament books in Protestant Bibles, but which exclude the 7 deuterocanonicals. 

Greek New Testament

The first list of 27 New Testament books comes from St. Athanasius’ 39^th Festal Letter of 367 A.D. But, while he excludes the book of Esther from his canon, he includes Wisdom of Solomon, and it appears that he probably included Baruch as well. The first time all of the books Protestants have in their Bibles were actually included in the Bible, was at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., presided over by the Pope. And this council’s list was identical to the Catholic Bible of today. In the West, that list remained virtually unchanged until the Protestant Reformation. Thus, since Christians in the West universally used the contemporary Catholic Bible, from 382 until the Reformation—-and since, prior to that there were no Bibles identical to any Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Bible of today—-a more historical question would be, “why did Protestants remove books from the Bible?”

For Further Reading:

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1988. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298079076&sr=1-1.

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Canon-Origin-Transmission-Authority/dp/1565639251/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298078831&sr=1-1. This is a revision of McDonald, Lee Martin. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Christian-Biblical-Canon/dp/1565630521/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298078831&sr=1-4.

McDonald, Lee M. and James A. Sanders, ed. The Canon Debate. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298078781&sr=1-1.

Metzger, Bruce M. An Introduction to the Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Apocrypha-Bruce-M-Metzger/dp/0195023404/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298078811&sr=1-1.

Morrow, Jeffrey L. “In the Crosshairs of the Canon.” This Rock 11, no. 11 (November 2000), available online at: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011fea4.asp. N.B. This article, which I wrote as an undergraduate student, contains a serious typo with the date of Trent. Also, although it is composed as a fictional dialogue at a Bible study, all of the conversations were real conversations I had with real people prior to writing this article.

The United States Mint recently unveiled the new designs for the Presidential $1 coins that will enter into circulation this year. It has frequently been said that a nation’s coins are a mirror of its values. In the United States we have an incredible mix of people and motivations which shape our culture. As a result our coins reflect both good and embarassing elements. The first coin of 2010 will honor former Presidents Millard Fillmore. The obverse design on the Millard Fillmore dollar is by United States Mint Sculptor, Engraver Don Everhart. The common reverse design of all the Presidential coins is also by Everhart and features a dramatic rendition of the Statue of Liberty. Inscriptions on the reverse are $1, and United States of America, E Pluribus Unum, 2010, and the mint mark with 13 stars appearing on the edge of the coin. Translated from Latin, the motto “E Pluribus Unum” means “Out of Many, One.” This motto first appeared on U.S. coinage in 1795 and became a mandatory inscription in 1873. The motto “In God We Trust” first appeared on US coinage in 1864. Since 1938, all US coins have carried the inscription.

In 2007 the United States Mint debuted the new series of circulating commemorative dollar coins honoring the former presidents. The golden colored dollar coins featured rotating obverse designs with four president coin designs to be released each year. For the first time in Mint history the national motto was moved to the rim of the coin. As a result of this “special incused edge lettering” there was much public discussion concerning God being moved (quite literally) to the margins. The first dollar honoring George Washington, was released into circulation on February 15, 2007. Shortly thereafter a number of coins were discovered missing the national motto altogether. Public controversy broke out after the “accident” of what became dubbed the “godless dollars.” This caused much public outcry and even a call to boycott the new coins. In response to wide spread public indignation President Bush signed into law H.R. 2764, which required that instead of being concealed on the edge, the motto “In God We Trust” should be moved to the obverse or reverse of Presidential Dollars as soon as practicable.

Millard Fillmore (January 7, 1800 – March 8, 1874) was the 13th President of the United States (1850-1853) As a child his father was said to be Scottish Presbyterian. As an adult Fillmore had no formal religious ties, and indeed had showed little interest in religion, until he joined the local Unitarians congregation in 1831. In 1843, Fillmore ran for governor of New York. While it was a close race, Fillmore lost. He blamed the  defeat on recent Catholic immigrants. Being out of a job, Fillmore looked for an opportunity that would keep him in politics. In 1847, he won election as New York’s comptroller, or chief financial overseer. Fillmore’s winning margin over his Democratic rival was so wide that he was instantly seen as a leading Whig candidate for the upcoming 1848 national campaign. In his report from January 1849, he suggested that a national bank, with the stocks of the United States as the sole basis upon which to issue its currency, should be established. This idea led to the essential principle of our present system of national banks.  In June 1848, Millard Fillmore was nominated by the Whig national convention for vice president, with General Zachary Taylor. Both major parties of the time, the Whigs and the Democrats, avoided an official platform statement on the contentious slavery-extension issue in order to preserve their national unity. The men were to be sworn in on Sunday, March 4, 1849, but being a devout Christian, President-elect Zachary Taylor refused to be sworn into office on a Sunday because it was the Sabbath. Instead, Taylor and Fillmore were sworn in on the next day, Monday March 5, 1849. During a hot day in Washington on July 4, 1850, President Zachary Taylor remained out in the sun too long then had a snack of a large bowl of chilled and iced milk. He complained of stomach pain and died shortly thereafter. Millard Fillmore succeeded him as president. Taylor’s Cabinet resigned and President Fillmore at once appointed Daniel Webster to be Secretary of State. In the autumn of 1852 he was an unsuccessful candidate for nomination for the presidency by the Whig National Convention.

President Franklin Pierce’s 1852 appointment of a Roman Catholic, James Campbell of Pennsylvania, for Postmaster General marked the first Catholic cabinet officer and touched off a political storm that led to the prominence of the nativist American Party (more commonly referred to as the Know-Nothing Party). Millard Fillmore joined the Know Nothing Party and they made him their candidate for president in 1856. The party produced a vast amount of propaganda against the Catholic Church stating that Catholics were not patriotic but owed their allegiance solely to the Pope and therefore could never be true Americans. Frequently anti-Catholicism was voiced as opposition to the Roman papacy, particularly to papal influence in political affairs. Misinformation contributed to ongoing discrimination against Catholics and the popular slogan of the 1884 presidential election, wherein Republicans decried the Democratic Party’s association with “rum, Romanism, and rebellion.” The Know Nothing party sought to exclude from office all Catholics and non-native born citizens while also urging the repeal of naturalization laws. The anti-Catholic movement enjoyed great success in the 1850s, most notably electing governors in Massachusetts and Delaware. In the thirty-fifth Congress, which assembled in December, there were seventy-five Know Nothing members elected. In the election of 1856 Fillmore was pitted against Democrat James Buchanan and the first presidential nominee of the new Republican Party, John C. Fremont. Fillmore carried only Maryland in the election, but won 40 percent of the voted in ten other Southern states. The new presidential dollar reminds us that coins, like national leaders, are a product of their times. The political and theological elements are held in tension should cause us to consider with caution how we as Christians may unwittingly allow national interest or dominant culture to shape our thinking in undesirable ways.