Catholic Study Bible
(1 posts)In which I share an excerpt from my newest joke book.
You may be surprised, as I was, to learn that there is such a thing as The Catholic Study Bible. Roman Catholic history makes the idea of Catholics actually studying the Bible (or even reading it) seem fantastic. I myself have only known one Catholic who read the Bible at all — and I have made an effort to find this out about my Catholic acquaintances. Nevertheless, such a thing exists, and happens to be lying in front of me at this very moment, open to Mark 6:3. This is the passage the notes of which every New Testament reference to Jesus’ brothers and sisters is referred.
As you likely know, Roman Catholic dogma claims that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remains perpetually virgin. There is, of course, no biblical suggestion that that is so, yet it is a doctrine believed de fide, or as an essential doctrine denial of which is heresy. Therefore, whenever Scripture refers to the brothers of Jesus, it must mean something else, because . . . well, because if it doesn’t, then Rome is wrong, and that is simply inconceivable.
So they explain:
The brother of James . . . Simon: in Semitic usage, the terms ‘brother, ‘sister’ are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, half-sisters; cf Gn 14, 16; 29, 15; Lv 10, 4. While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew ’āh by the Greek word adelphos, “brother,” as in the cited passages, a fact that may argue for a similar breadth of the meaning in some New Testament passages. For instance, there is no doubt that in v 17, “brother” is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas. On the other hand, Mark may have understood the terms literally; see also Mt 3, 31–32;12, 46; 13, 55–56; Lk 8, 19; Jn 7, 3,5. The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
—The Catholic Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2006), 1326.
The note is, on the one hand, disappointing. I really expected a much higher level of sophistry from these great Papist scholars. On the other hand, I get a good chuckle out of the brazen admission that they really don’t have a leg to stand on, and must perform linguistic tricks just to say the word might, given the right screenwriter and director, believably be cast as something other than itself. Quite humorous is their insinuation that we should utter in hushed tones, “Ooh, nuance!” at the revelation that half-brothers have been referred to simply as brothers. Oh, such broad semantic range!
The cherry on the sundae is the editors’ final bare-faced admission that, if Rome hadn’t put them on the spot, they never would have thought to impose anything but the plain meaning on the text.
