It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed a book, and I can think of only one prior instance in which I’ve written to a publisher to ask for a copy of a book for purposes of reviewing. But that changed this past week: I reached out to Ignatius Press to get a review copy of John Bergsma and Brant Pitre’s A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: Old Testament. Why? Because, after looking through a copy I’d purchased a priest friend for Christmas, I became convinced that it fills an important hole in Catholic theology right now.
Briefly, there’s too often a disjunct between orthodox and theological work. Much of what’s written by Catholic scholars has a skeptical and even sneering tone towards the truths of the faith, while most orthodox Catholic writers are focused more on popular audiences than scholarly ones. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is that scholarly journals serve as gatekeepers, effectively silencing orthodox voices, and stymying their academic ascendancy. Much more could be said about this, and has been. Within Catholic moral theology, Fordham’s Charles Camosy has a 3000-word exploration of the problem in Notre Dame’s Church Life Journal. For New Testament Biblical theology, Notre Dame’s John Finnis gave a 2014 talk so damning that one of the faculty members (a Holy Cross priest) afterwards said that “he could feel the value of his Notre Dame M.Div. degree plummeting by the minute, as Finnis demonstrated that a great deal of what he’d been taught was wrong.” Finnis has since published an Ave Maria Law Review article laying out these critiques in detail.
Unfortunately, this problem exists within the world of Old Testament Biblical scholarship as well. A touchstone for reading the Old Testament well is found in Luke 24:27, where Christ “interpreted to them [the disciples on the road to Emmaus] in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” The two disciples would later reflect, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32). It’s a reminder that it’s only if we’re walking with Christ that we can grasp the deepest meanings of Scripture (cf. Luke 24:27). Such a truth is too easily forgotten by Catholic academics. There’s a strong pressure in academia to write in an “objective” tone that takes no position on whether or not the Bible is actually true. But of course, the question of the truth of the Bible is unavoidable. So, for example, when the New American Bible says of Christ’s prediction of His death that “neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Mt 17:22–23; 20:17–19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself,” it’s because the authors (under the oversight of Archbishop McCarrick) are apparent heretics. Since they seemingly don’t believe that Jesus is divine and knows the future, any “predictions” He makes about the future must actually be later fabrications simply ascribed to him. In other words, you can’t do good scholarship on the Bible if you don’t know whether the Bible is a reliable set of testaments to God’s interactions with humanity, or a collection of pious fictions.
But that doesn’t mean we should throw all of this scholarship out in toto. So there’s a second frustration: popular Catholic writers who don’t stay au courant with the best trends in scholarship, who respond to outdated arguments, or who make glaring historical errors or unfounded assumptions. Bergsma and Pitre navigate between the horns of this dilemma by crafting a Biblical commentary that’s rich, orthodox, and scholarly. One of its greatest strengths is that it explains scholarly insights in ways that are clear to the uninitiated, without dumbing things down. The book begins with a chapter contextualizing the scholars’ own scholarly position in relationship to the development of Biblical scholarship over the last 150 years, concluding that “the Church cannot ignore any mode of biblical scholarship and requires scholars who are familiar with, or have mastered, the various modern methodologies,” but instead “must take the best aspects of these various methods and integrate them into an approach to the biblical text that is both rigorously exegetical and theologically fruitful” (pp. 47-48). What does this approach to Scripture look like, practically? The rest of the book demonstrates this method in action:
The approach is deeply Christological. Readers familiar with either Dr. Bergsma or Dr. Pitre will be used to their focus on the relationship between the Old and New Testament. Unsurprisingly, a major theme of their commentary is that of Christ’s discussion on the road to Emmaus: how the Old Testament prefigures the Life, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus. Some of these (like the sacrifice of Isaac) may be familiar; others, not so much. For example, Bergsma and Pitre point out several parallels involving Joseph in Genesis (p. 158) including that “Joseph is sold to Gentiles for twenty silver pieces by Judah and eleven brothers (Gen. 37:25-36)” while “Jesus is sold to Gentiles for thirty silver pieces and abandoned by eleven disciples (Mt. 26:15, 30)”; and “Joseph is with two condemned men (cupbearer and baker), one of whom is pardoned and given physical life (Gen. 40:1-23)” while “Jesus is with two condemned men, one of whom is forgiven by Jesus and given everlasting life (Lk. 23:32, 39-43).” As you can imagine, such an approach radically changes the reading of the Old Testament.
It’s even-handed, but unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom. Take a simple question: “Who wrote the Song of Solomon (a.k.a. ‘Song of Songs’)?” More specifically, is the book written by Solomon, about Solomon, or in the style (or person) of Solomon? Even in the ancient world, there wasn’t consensus on the question, and most scholars reject Solomonic authorship out-of-hand. Bergsma and Pitre stop short of endorsing one position or another, but instead give the best arguments for each (pp. 654-56). While acknowledging that only a minority of scholars think Solomon actually wrote the book, the authors point out that these scholars actually make a decent case. For example, the bridegroom says to the bride “You are beautiful as Tirzah, my love, comely as Jerusalem” (Song. 6:4). The parallelism between these two cities “reflects the social and political situation in the late tenth-early ninth century B.C., when Tirzah and Jerusalem were cities of comparable size and glory, so that Tirzah was the logical choice for a rival capital when the kingdom split” (p. 655). But Tirzah was only an important city for a brief moment in history: the northern capital was moved from Tirzah to Samaria, and little more is heard of the city after. So it’s an intriguing detail that might suggest dating the book to around the time of Solomon.
It connects Scripture to the broader life of the Church. Whether it’s showing when and where Ezekiel is read in the Liturgy of the Hours and Mass (pp. 868-873), or the connection between the calling of Jeremiah from the womb (Jer. 1:5) and the Church’s teaching against abortion (p. 802), or the seventy elders (Nu. 11:16-23) and the presbyteral order (pp. 252-53), the authors don’t settle simply to explicate the text in isolation: they show its relationship to the rest of revelation and the Christian life.
If there is one shortcoming to the book, it’s that it only covers the Old Testament. While the commentary regularly shows the way that the Hebrew texts prefigure the New Testament, it would be helpful to have a commentary focusing on the New Testament texts specifically. On the other hand, the book is plenty large without it: excluding indices, it clocks in at just under a thousand pages as is. This probably isn’t the kind of book you will sit down and read cover-to-cover. But it is a great resource (and ideal Christmas gift) for: priests giving homilies, seminarians and students studying Scripture, or Catholics simply trying to understand their faith better and the place of the Old Testament in that faith.
Thanks for the excellent recommendation. Good spiritual resources help a lot when studying religious subject matter. And it’s also why I frequent this site: It’s an excellent school for studying all things pertaining to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
You ALWAYS do a great job, Joe! Best to you, and have a great Christmas!!
Thank you!
“But it is a great resource (and ideal Christmas gift) for: priests giving homilies, seminarians and students studying Scripture:
Ahem! Priests and DEACONS giving homilies.
Good point. They definitely need it. (Kidding, kidding!)
Joe, I very much enjoyed reading this article. Likewise, I have been concerned with the “two sides” of Bible interpreters–those in the German-critical mode with are essentially atheistic and those who take a “fundamentalist” approach. The truth of the matter is that we need to have a critical eye for manuscripts, history, and authorship (like Origen, Saint Jerome, and others had) but have the central presupposition when interpreting the Scriptures that they are 1. God-breathed and without error and 2. Always, at all times, about Jesus Christ.
The Orthodox Study Bible, which predates the work you are citing here, is a similar (though probably less well accomplished) attempt at towing both lines. If anything it is a little too uncritically liberal, not overtly scholarly, but this is made up for by its intense Christological focus and citing of the fathers. Good for laypeople—probably not a good gift for a theologian, as they would need more detail.
It does sound like the book your article cites addresses a crucial need among Christians–a return to reading Christ into the Old Testament instead of taking the Protestant literary-historical sense approach when reading the same source material. Further, we cannot throw out the arguments of scholarship and the fathers (the Church’s earlier scholars) in interpreting the same Scriptures. Manuscript studies, in my personal opinion, are particularly crucial as the meanings of turns of phrases and such can only be discerned this way. With all sides taking uncritical positions of favoring only the Masoretic Text or LXX (I’m unaware if there are Vulgate thumpers still out there), scholarship has shows that none of these manuscript positions are perfect (though the LXX appears the strongest and most in-line with the Apostles and Dead Sea Scrolls).
Joe, what OT manuscript tradition is used in the book you are recommending here?
God bless,
Craig
I wonder if the other ‘disciple’, on the road to Emmaus, was Mary Clopas, ‘sister’ of the Mother of Jesus.
I think you could be right, but is it of any consequence who the specific disciples were?
Again you could be right, but earlier verses in Luke 24 suggest that the Women, having gone to the tomb with their spices, found it empty. The women then returned to the other disciples–presumably the men–who did not believe their report. Thereafter ‘they’–again presumably the men–headed on the road to Emmaus.
It makes sense to me that the testimony of some women is generally viewed with skepticism by men. PARTICULARLY men would be skeptical of the CONTENT of reports of an empty tomb on that first Easter morning. The women were the first at the tomb (other synoptics report this to be so) and took their tale to the men. Therefore, it seems more reasonable that the women were not the first skeptics.
All of them (women and men) could have been disheartened since they could not yet realistically conceive of Jesus’ rising from the dead.
Here are a few thoughts.
It would appear the ‘disciples’ are going home, normally that would involve a couple. They implored Jesus to stay with them, again a couples’ response. Again after being at Calvary 2 days before, with here ‘sister’ Mary, mother of Jesus, would not ones’ heart be ‘burning’ also? After the recognition, both return to Jerusalem, again a normal couple response.
The other item was that Mary Cleopas,had many years of intimate contact with the mother of Jesus, who undoubtedly shared many ‘ponderings’ over the years, from Mary, Mother of Jesus. It would have been something to be the fly on the wall, listening to those conversations.
Okay, it may be so, but what are the consequences? If it were significant that we should know the personal identities of those disciples, why wouldn’t inspired Holy Scripture have told us their names?
I have always had an (admittedly unexamined) image of two men on the road. I presume you have not?
It may have been a couple. I get a “two male Disciples” vibe. The most important takeaway from this particularly beautiful Scripture passage is, this was the first post-Resurrection Mass, complete with Liturgies of both Word and Eucharist. The Boss Himself, once again, showing the way….or should I say, the Way.
Why else the perfect timing of “they recognized Him in the breaking of the Bread….and then he disappeared.”
But He was still there….in the Bread He had just broken….Alleluia….
Definitely it was the first Mass. Does it matter who the attendees were? The most important being, Christ, was.
I’ve enjoyed both.
There are many Biblical things not mentioned, and is left to our imagination.
But it is interesting to take a different views of Biblical incidents. Such as what did John see when he entered the tomb on Easter morning? Image on a shroud?
I like these wrt Emmaus
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/19/3c/22193cf162a0c529f11c20a0eb7a0afc.png
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/b4/89/36/b489360c0a74e40209f04bbf48cfc6d6–church-banners-emmaus.jpg
http://www.gerhardy.id.au/images/Jesus_Emmaus-02.jpg
I almost missed the collaborators on the NAB and its heretical authorship. Wow. The more one digs, the more dirt one uncovers.
On another note: With best wishes and prayers to all for a merry blessed Christmas, health and peace in the New Year.
P.S.: This year is notable for my having ditched the Novus Ordo Mass. The Latin Mass under the auspices of FSSP has become my home. What do you all think? Anyone else giving it a thought or two?
Margo – Merry Christmas to you!
There is one FSSP church here in Colorado Springs, and I do go to Mass there when I can; it is transporting in a way scarcely describable, especially a sung High Mass. I recall the words of the emissaries of the Kievan Rus ruler Vladimir the Great, upon experiencing an Orthodox Divine Liturgy in the Hagia Sophia: “We knew not whether we were in Heaven or on earth; only we know that God dwells here amongst men.”
Craig T. knows whererof I speak…
I am very tied to my parish by ministry work and location, or I would be spending a lot more time at Immaculate Conception….
Way back when, I was conflicted about Novus Ordo vs Tridentine, until I was introduced to St. Justin Martyr’s description of what would seem to be a home Mass of early Christians in his “First Apology.” Sounded a lot like Novus Ordo. I am thus OK with vernacular and think it’s here to stay, though I see the great value in a Mass said exactly the same, everywhere. Now…I also do strongly think Ad Orientem should be re-instated, along with Eucharist on the tongue, preferably at the altar rail.
The Mass would then be a little less Novus, and a little more properly Ordo….
AK! Merry Christmas and Hello Again, Friend.
I have Mass with all you imagine, and more. We have an organist playing a huge organ, candlesticks a foot or two high in hugely ornamental holders. Altar rail with cloth covering. Booklets with English-Latin translation. (I received the 1962 Roman Missal, a maroon color cowl-neck sweater, and books for Christmas gifts). Beautiful processional and recessional (?) with 12+ all-male altar servers. No women near the sanctuary.
We have the schola, chant. Holy decent priests with confession prior to as well as during Mass if needed. There is always a long line of penitents. There is NO parishioner hand shaking. There is parishioner talking before or during Mass. Ad orientum. Of course there is communion on the tongue, given to all by a priest. A huge crucifix center front. Devout priests trained in reverence. Incensing, holy watering, bell ringing. Rosary before Mass for the Church. Instead of prayers for the PF’s intentions, there are prayers for him.
Who cares if one doesn’t know Latin? (It’s also very close to English–it’s really quite simple, amicus meus. Latin adds to the mystery, the transcendent experience, the awe of the other–the unspeakable untouchable beauty of God who deigns to be with us. All you say, and more.
I wish you the best now and in the new year. So good to know you’re around about. God bless.
NO parishioner talking!
Hi Margo, Merry Christmas!
Regarding liturgies, I can hardly tolerate modern Church architecture, modern liturgical music, weak and worldly homilies… and anything liturgical that seeks to conform itself to modern liberalism or ‘cafeteria’ Catholicism. Fortunately for me, the Lord guided my ways towards a Dominican Order run parish in Northern California, and it has pretty much the right balance regarding the above requirements regarding a holy liturgy, and so I am very fortunate and grateful to God for leading me to my present parish.
At least in the Mass that I attend we have the Mass of the Angels sung in Latin in it’s propers seasons, with the other corresponding seasons of the Liturgical year sung in Latin, as well. We also have an excellent choir and organ, with the singing taking place in the choir loft, but the congregation also contributes vigorously. Moreover, the church was built in about 1850, or so, and so is filled with authentic Catholic art and architecture. So, this is also highly conducive for holiness and true Christian inspiration.
On the other hand, I was able to attend the extraordinary form liturgy occasionally, and while I liked the ancient Mass, I was inundated by the Latin language that was far more prevalent than is with the ‘Mass of the Angels’ Mass that I am accustomed to. And, I found it to be distracting due to the inability to comprehend the Mass as I usually do. On the other hand, I really liked the ‘ad orientum’ at the extraordinary form liturgy! … and I loved the overall holiness exhibited.
In short, I think if the Novus Ordo is said with as many elements as possible fond in the ‘extraordinary form’ …minus the extra Latin used in the “Pater Nostra” and other common prayers….that this would be a good balance for liturgical purposes.
But again, nothing is as dis-edifying as a typical heterodox modern liturgy that tries to cater to ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ . I frequently have come from such modern liturgies slightly depressed and saddened, which is something that a Christian should not experience in a sacred Liturgy.
One thing I have come to experience, though….and that is… that the current Dominican Order seems to be doing a pretty good job regarding liturgy and preaching. All of the priests I consider to be treasures given to our parish by God. I am just a ‘nobody’ and ‘simpleton’ in comparison with their excellent and heroic Christian preaching and good example…and on a pretty much continual basis. So, I praise God that he still gives us some holy preachers in this crazy world or ours!
Best to you always,
– Al
Al – ha ha….I agree with you on the architecture (Reformista meetin’ houses), nauseatingly sappy music, and oh yes…the one SJW deacon (happens to be a lawyer) who insists on making every homily a thinly-disguised attack on an unnamed but obvious US President. Couldn’t you have kept him in California?
I think we agree also on necessary changes to make Novus Ordo more holy and less subject to ‘clown Mass’ ‘sperimentation.
Speaking of…enjoy this:
https://catholiccartoonblog.blogspot.com/search?q=parish+diversity+council
Merry Christmas to you, Al. You are not a nobody! You are a dear friend, always kind, always ready with answers for the most persistent questioners. You are a great example of preaching the Gospel with your work through the Legion and distribution of Catholic literature. I value your input here.
You are indeed fortunate to have found such good preachers and liturgy. The architecture was predominantly ruined in the 1970s. So many beautiful churches were then ‘reoriented’ and make no sense. My latest parish church was built 50 years ago; the style was ‘in the round’ with the altar smack center with four naves surrounding the altar. The crucifix was at one corner (if you may envision a circle having corners!), the tabernacle of repose in another, the priests’ chairs at a third, and the ambo at the last. Talk about being distracted. One never knew where to direct one’s gaze. Always it seemed that Jesus was left out, stuck and hung in a ‘corner,’ instead of presiding above the altar which logically seems to be his place.
I know what you mean, too, about the sadness. I often counted my Mass attendance at my prior parish as penance.
Don’t get me wrong. My new parish is a 45 minute drive. I need more time to dress appropriately and to recollect myself prior to Mass. Many parishioners spend 5-10-more minutes in after-Mass thanksgiving, and I find myself doing similarly so as not to disturb anyone else. This amounts to a 3-hour experience. My mentally challenged son loves it. When I asked him what he liked, the first time, without hesitation, he said, “Holy Communion.” Later he offered that he likes the priest. Then the music. Then the organ. Then “everything.”
Through the eyes of the simple come words from the wise. So you see, Al, it is good that you are simple. But you are not a nobody.
May God bless you always.
Hi Margo,
That 45 minute commute, each way, should be seen as an invaluable spiritual investment. And, what you say about your son is a proof of that. I encourage everyone I meet to do the same, that is, to find a very good parish with excellent preaching and liturgy, and even if it is farther to travel… join it. And, the reason for this scrupulous search for a great parish is, that everyone needs other devout Christians of the same SOLID faith to commune with and even do evangelization and other holy projects with. So, if there are few, or no, zealous and orthodox parishioners at your local parish you will not have this essential devout and knowledgable support group. This is why Jesus compares us to lambs and sheep: we need the help of others around us to not merely survive, but to thrive in the spiritual life. Basically, we need to encourage each other continually to keep on the good and holy path towards the ‘narrow gate’ !
At least we can do this occasionally on this blog site, also! 🙂
Best to you always, and keep up all of your good and holy work! Many of your comments here are very insightful and spiritually ‘brilliant’.
– Al
Hi Al,
Thank you, friend. Good and wise words except when you praise me!
I wish this software allowed an edit. I amend my earlier statement about confession during mass to “after” Mass! Thank you.
Hi Margo,
The Latin Mass in my city has confession prior to and during Mass. Not unusual for people to be standing in line all the way up to the consecration.
One of the things that frustrates me is that this particular parish took out the beautiful altar rail back in the late 70’s, along with other changes. Now they are trying to raise enough money to undo those changes. Ahh the foolishness of the changes that accompanied the Novus Boredo.
I have long wondered why this software does not have either an edit function, or a way to preview how your post will look before actually posting.
Duane – I am more than overjoyed to hear a parish somewhere is trying to reverse the physical changes of the silly 60’s. Maybe it’ll catch on!
Hi Duane,
My parish may offer confession during Mass. I’m not certain. The priest once announced that confession would continue during Mass, but I sit in the front, confessionals are in the back, I’m relatively new at the parish and have not personally observed confession during Mass, so the announcement could have been for a 1x only occurrence. The bulletin says that confession is offered before and after Mass. It makes sense that two priests who are committed to the raison d’etre of their work would offer confession until the Consecration.
I hope your parish gets its altar rail! In the 1970s, conservatives used the word “wreckovation” to describe church building restructuring, stripping, defacing. That is a succinct summation, isn’t it? Despite many an uproar by some vocal laity, far too many bishops, priests, and parishioners who partook of the fare in the cafeteria which many RC churches began to provide, over-ruled the ‘rigid’ trads who wanted a beautiful space in which to worship.
My city’s cathedral is an architectural disaster. The bishop is a neutral quiet player who seems to want to keep everyone together. He is not bold. He isn’t bad. He’s lukewarm. Shudder.