Readings

First Testament:      2 Samuel 7:1-5, 8b-12, 14a, 16

Psalm:                    Psalm 89, 2-3, 4-5, 27, 29 (2a)

Epistle:                   Romans 16:25-27

Gospel:                   Luke 1:26-38

 

Commentary

Although these Personal Notes refer to the Lectionary, they do not assume the reader has access to the Lectionary, except as it is read during the Sunday liturgy.  This is so important that I will repeat it two more Sundays, after which I will make it the first sentence in the Appendix.

Advent is a time to prepare for Christmas, which is Thursday in 2008.  This is the Fourth Sunday in Advent.  The readings begin with what Christians regard as prophecies of the coming Christ Jesus.  This is not one glorious road to the opening of the skies to the arrival of Jesus.  History is dotted with many disclaimers, as shown below the double line.

All of that recognized, the historic reality of Jesus entering human history marks the Lectionary readings for this Sunday.  The entrance is historic.  This entrance enables humans on planet Earth to have real contact with God above.  The preparation for Christmas is also a preparation for entrance into eternal life by the Faithful.

 

==================================================================

Annotated Bibliography

Material above the double line draws from material below the double line.  Those uninterested in scholarly and tangential details should stop reading here.  If they do, however, they may miss some interesting scholarly details. 

 

2 Samuel 7:1-5, 8b-12, 14a, 16

2 Sam 7:14-15

Matthew R.  Schlimm, "Different Perspectives on Divine Pathos: An Examination of Hermeneutics in Biblical Theology"[1]

Schlimm points to Richard Brueggemann who “speaks of “Yahweh’s failure to adhere to covenant.’” [italics in original].  Schlimm concludes, “Neither the disturbing nature of the [First Testament] text nor its contextual qualifiers should be ignored.  In other words, Sacred Scripture does consider whether the evidence does support the theory that the LORD will not break his Covenant under any circumstances.  At the time of writing, the evidence was unclear.

The Notes for December 22, 2002, available on the web, concentrate on the word forever.  The Greek for forever in Romans 16:27, below is factually difficult; scholars do not know which Greek is correct for forever.  While the Faithful want to think that the Covenant is unconditional and forever, that the Covenant is unconditional and forever only becomes evident with the Resurrection.  Christmas is the beginning.  Easter is the culmination.

 

2 Sam 7:1

Matthew J.  Lynch, "Zion's Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b—63:6 in Isaiah's Zion Traditions"[2]

Lynch argues that after the warrior LORD won victory in Egypt, he provided for the building of his sanctuary.  In a similar way the LORD provides a sanctuary for himself in the lives of the Faithful, after he shows how awesome he is.

 

2 Sam 7:14

Edwin C.  Hostetter, review of Edward P.  Meadors, Idolatry and the Hardening of the Heart: A Study in Biblical Theology[3]

Hostetter writes that Meadors “condemns Egypt for categorizing its kings as divine offspring (p.  30), while Israel too is thus identified in passages such as Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14.” I will be a father to him and he shall be a son to me.  Meadors examines various aspects of hardening of the heart and concludes that salvation is possible for those whom God hardens.

 

Psalm 89, 2-3, 4-5, 27, 29 (2a)

Codex Sinaiticus

The Greek for Psalm 89 in the Codex Sinaiticus does not seem to fit the Lectionary.  The reason may be explained below; 89 may refer to the Hebrew, rather than the Greek.

 

Psalm 88:26-27

Karl A.  Kuhn, “The `One like a Son of Man’ Becomes the `Son of God’”[4]

Kuhn links 2 Samuel 7:14, but not the verse 14a used in the Lectionary, to Psalm 89:26-27.  Kuhn cites Joseph A.  Fitzmyer who rejects the messianic interpretation, but concludes that this apocalyptic text speaks “positively of a coming Jewish ruler, perhaps a member of the Hasmonean dynasty, who will be a successor to the Davidic throne.” As evidenced by the Flight into Egypt, what the LORD of history is doing sometimes remains unknown to the best of the Faithful.  The meaning of the various Christmases in the lives of the Faithful is often unclear, except with the hindsight of history.

 


Psalm 89:3

Brittany E.  Wilson, "Pugnacious Precursors and the Bearer of Peace: Jael, Judith, and Mary in Luke 1:42"[5]

Wilson links the acceptance of the Annunciation with the acceptance of the will of God in David, whom Wilson, somehow, finds in Psalm 89:3.

 

Psalm 89:4

Jeremy Corley, “A Numerical Structure in Sirach 44:1—50:24”[6]

Corley refers to Psalm 89:4, as part of his argument for a numerical structure in Sirach.  Corley notes that Burton L.  Mack recognizes seven Pentateuchal covenants in Sirach.  They are: (1) Noah in Gen 9:9; (2) Abraham in Gen 17:2; (3) Isaac in Gen 2:3; (4) Israel/Jacob in Gen 2:4; (5) Moses in Exod 24:7-8; (6) Aaron in Lev 7:34; and (7) Phinehas in Num 25:12-13.  In the Sunday Lectionary, Reading 23B recognizes the Noah Covenant and Reading 168B recognizes the Moses covenant.  The Sunday Lectionary does not place the other five covenants before the Faithful.

 

Psalm 89:5-7

G.  R.  Beasley-Murray, "The Interpretation of Daniel 7"[7]

The Lectionary uses verse 5 only, with no hint that verses 5-7 elevate Israel to the level of saints or holy ones, which Murray argues refers to supernatural beings.  When the Faithful receive the Eucharist on Christmas, that does raise them to the level of the saints or holy ones.

 

Psalm 89:27, 28 (26, 29)

John Goldingay, "The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6)"[8]

Goldingay argues that the reference to God as forever the father of David reflects Isaiah 9.

 


Psalm 89:1-6, 8-9

André Ménard, O.F.M.  Cap., "The Spirituality of Transitus in the Writings of St.  Bonaventure" [9]

Like the Codex Sinaiticus, this must be a different Psalm 89 than that used by the Lectionary.  My copy of the Vulgate numbers the Lectionary Psalm 89 (88).  I suspect Psalm 89 was Psalm 88 at the time of Bonaventure.

 

The difference is between the Greek and the Hebrew:[10]

 

Greek           Hebrew

                    1-8

9-10              9

11-113          10-12  The Greek Septuagint numbering is one less than the Masoretic Hebrew is.  The second number in the Vulgate, 89 (88), therefore, 88 refers to the Greek.  The Lectionary is using the Masoretic Hebrew.

114-115        113

116               114-115

147               146-147

                148-150

 

Psalms 9 and 10 in the Hebrew are together as Psalm 9 in the Greek.

Psalms 114 and 115 in the Hebrew are together Psalm 113 in the Greek.

Psalm 116 in the Hebrew divides into Psalms 114 and 115 in the Greek.

Psalm 147 in the Hebrew divides into Psalms 146 and 147 in the Greek.

 

Protestant traditions use the Hebrew numbering.

Eastern Orthodox translations use the Greek numbering

Roman Catholic Lectionary translations use the Greek numbering, but modern translations often place the Hebrew numbering in parenthesis.  This means that 89 (88) refers to Psalm 89 in the Hebrew and Psalm 88 in the Greek.  That is why my version of the Vulgate has a 1986 copyright.

 

I have been so angry at the Lectionary translations, that, up until now, I have not bothered to straighten out the numbering.  Some Australian Cardinal or Archbishop has superimposed his translations on the Hebrew, to the point that some religious orders of sisters, at least for a while, did not use the Lectionary translations.

 


Psalm 89:26-30

Michael H.  Floyd, "Welcome Back, Daughter of Zion!"[11]

The Lectionary does not use verses 26 and 28 which are part of the argument Floyd makes, when he writes, “… the walls in question are literally the city walls of Jerusalem, but in view of the central role played by the king in maintaining the cosmic order that is centered on the holy city (Ps 89:26-30 [Eng.  2529]; cf.  Psalms 46 and 48), the walls can be figuratively described as his [i.e.  the LORD’s].”  In other words, the God of the cosmic order is making the covenant with the Faithful.

 

Romans 16:25-27

Romans 16:27

The apparatus shows difficulty with the phrase:

 

Lectionary (1998)                         forever and ever.

 

The Vulgate (circa 410)                in saecula.

 

Douay-Rheims (1582-1610)          for ever [sic] and ever.

 

King James (1611)                       for [sic] ever.

 

Catholic RSV (1969)                    forever more [sic]

 

New American (NAB) (1970)         forever and ever.

 

New Jerusalem (1985)                 for ever and ever.

 

I think the difference in the Greek is between forever and forever and ever.  The difference may be between as long as the earth lasts and even beyond as long as the earth will last.  The problem with the best Greek to use leaves me undisturbed.  Dwelling on the difference, helps keep up the conversation with God in prayer … which is the purpose of these Notes. 

The 2002 rendition of these Notes concentrates on forever as the key word for the Sunday.

 


Rom 16:25-27

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed., Erroll F.  Rhodes, tr.[12]

The Alands draw attention to these contested verses fifteen times, including eight photo reproductions of manuscripts.

 

The Alands explain:

 

          Major disturbances in the transmission of the New  Testament text can always be identified with confidence, even if they occurred during the second century or at its beginning.  For example, about A.D.  140 Marcion dealt radically with the ending of Romans, breaking it off with chapter 14.  This bold stroke, together with the two different endings (Rom.  16:24 and 1:25-27) which were then added, despite the presence of the solemn epistolary conclusion at 16:20 (because its function was obscured by the greetings appended at 16:21-23), all resulted in a proliferation of readings in the tradition.

          Kurt Aland has enumerated no fewer than fifteen different forms here in his Neutestamentliche Entwurfe (Munich: 1979), without counting the further varieties represented by the subgroups of the fifteen forms. 

          … None of the composition theories advanced today [1989] in various forms with regard to the Pauline letters, for example, has any support in the manuscript tradition, whether in Greek, in the early versions, or in the patristic quotations from the New Testament.  … In other words, from the beginning of their history as a manuscript tradition the Pauline letters have always had the same form that they have today.

 

Rom 16:25

Jeremy Corley, “The Pauline Authorship of 1 Corinthians 13”[13]

Corley argues that “the mysteries” is a “noun that occurs seven other times [besides 1 Corinthians 13:2] in the undisputed Pauline letters,” except that the Greek at Romans 16:25 is in the singular, mystery, not mysteries.  Corley, perhaps, does not mean the exact word, but means to include the derivative as well.

 

Rom 16:26

Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B., “Feminist Mariologies: Heteronomy/Subordination and the Scandal of Christology” [14]

McDonnell writes, “Every free response to a divine invitation is a faith response, involving `the obedience of faith’ (Romans 1:5; 16:26 [used here]), that is, a faith manifesting itself in obedience.” McDonnell goes on to argue that God exercises his authority by persuasion, rather than by command and that, normally, humans ought to do the same.

 

Luke 1:38

 

Luke 1:26-38

Luke 1:35

The apparatus shows difficulty with the phrase:

 

Lectionary (1998)                         the child to be born will be called holy,

 

The Vulgate (circa 410)                quod nascetur sanctum,

 

Douay-Rheims (1582-1610)          the Holy which shall be born of thee

 

King James (1611)                       that holy thing which shall be borne of thee

 

Catholic RSV (1969)                    the child to be born will be called holy

 

New American (NAB) (1970)         the child to be born will be called holy,

 

New Jerusalem (1985)                 the child will be holy

 

I think that holy thing of the King James Version calls attention to the difficulty with the original Greek.  The problem might be with the hypostatic union, viz.  that Jesus is both human and divine.  Thing may be referring to the other than human aspect of the nature of Jesus. 

 


Luke 1:1

Scot McKendrick and Kathleen Doyle, Bible Manuscripts: 1400 Years of Scribes and Scripture[15]

Since these Notes are calling attention to the original manuscripts, what McKendrick is doing helps in appreciation of what was happening before the advent of the printing press.  McKendrick reproduces manuscripts kept in the British Library in London.  One illustration, dating from the third quarter of the Ninth Century (Charlemagne 747-814),[16] is written entirely in gold.  Monks of the Premonstratensian Abbey of Floreffe in France preserved another manuscript dating from the third quarter of the Twelfth Century (Aquinas 1225-1274)[17].  Finally, McKendrick reproduces a copy of the first page of Luke in Serbian Church Slavonic, originally produced in 1354 during the empire of Stefan Uros IV Dusan (1331-1355).  For the first time, McKendrick is offering a readily available reproduction of some of these precious manuscripts, mainly in Latin.

Because the task of mentioning these illustrations every time they occur is beyond the energy allocated to these Notes, I simply call attention here, to the next places (not all the places) pertinent illustrations occur.  The reference to the Reading is followed by the Scripture reference and, then, the pertinent pages in McKendrick:

 

011B, Luke 1, 43, 93, 134 [here];

013B, Matthew 1, 39, 65, 77, 95;

017B, Luke 2, 89, 108;

020B, Psalm 72 (71), 68, 71;

021B, Mark 1, 25, 27, 33, 42, 113;

035B, John 12, 155;

039B, 1 Corinthians 11, 132;

042B, John 20, 17, 105;

050B, John 10, 16;

053B, John 1, 23;

056B, Psalm 98 (97), 29;

058B, Acts 1, 44, 53;

065B, John 1, 12, 17, 38, 57, 61, 78, 106, 152, 153;

086B, Psalm 81 (80), 85, 128;

098B, Wisdom, 149;

101B, Mark 6, 113;

104B, Amos, 1, 1, 7, 94;

125B, Psalms 14—15 (13-14), 58, 59;

125B, James 1, 69;

134B, Psalm 54—55 (53—54), 146;

143B, Psalm 90 (89), 138;

158B, Mark 13, 33;

003C, 1 Thessalonians 1, 45;

012C, Psalms 80—85 (79-84), 35;

017C, 1 Samuel 1 (I Kings), 82, 148,

027C, Psalm 27 (26), 108, 122, 123, 147;

036C, John 8, 16;

041C, Genesis I, 92, 64, 120-127, 137;

041C, Luke 24, 21;

048C, John 21, 20, 55;

045C, Revelation 1, 19;

057C.  John 14, 104;

075C, Luke 5, 120;

105C, Psalm 69 (68) 98;

132C, 1 Timothy 1, 100;

132C, Luke 15, 93;

159C, Malachi 3, 89;

004A, Isaiah 11, 88, 118;

022A, Matthew 4, 106;

034A, John 11, 50;

076A, Psalm 119 (118), 51, 96;

088A, Matthew 9, 121;

164A, 2 Corinthians 13, 132;

 

Luke 1:26-38

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Catholic Catechism for Adults[18]

The Bishops refer to this Gospel under three headings: “God’s Plan for Mary:  Doctrinal Statements; The Rosary,” “Prayer in Communion with Mary,” and in the Glossary at “Jesus”.  The doctrinal statement is, “From that moment [the Annunciation] onwards the Virgin Mary cooperated freely and in the obedience of faith with the plan of salvation.”  Jesus cites Luke 1:31, you shall name him Jesus.”

Richard A. McCormick, S.J.  writes of the Catechism: “Silvio Cardinal Oddi, as head of the congregation for the Clergy, stated, `This will be a directory of the truth, followed by a directory that proves the Church has always followed that particular doctrine.’”  McCormick goes on, “The `chill factor’ in moral theology is still blowing in the wind.”  McCormick means that the Catechism is an attack on academic theology.  Let that fact account both for why (1) parish clergy do not use the Catechism and (2) why these Notes do. 

If the hierarchy is attacking academic theology, the least these Notes can do is point out their sloppy scholarship, as happens over and over again, although not right here.  If the Bishops want to teach, let them teach, let them persuade; but if they want to teach nonsense, such nonsense needs recognition in the right and obligation of disbelief.  For thinking, educated Catholics, Faith does not cover nonsense, as the sexual cover ups make increasingly clear.[19]

 

Luke 1:26-38

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed., Erroll F.  Rhodes, tr.[20]

The Alands identify one Ninth Century manuscript in Munich and another in Zurich.  Luke is missing from the Fifth Century[21] Curetonian Syriac version of Sacred Scripture.  The Alands also explain a complicated system of identifying verses used before the current Chapter and Verse format.  As always, this material from the Alands lends historical verity to the meaning of Sacred Scripture.  I do not want to do more than cite its presence.  I am not now ready to interpret what that evidence means.

 

Luke 1:5-80

Brittany E.  Wilson, "Pugnacious Precursors and the Bearer of Peace: Jael, Judith, and Mary in Luke 1:42"[22]

Previously, sixty-four of these Notes have cited Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women.  Wilson makes use of Bauckham to develop the argument that Luke portrays Mary as an activist, like Judith and Jael.  The difference is that Mary follows a way of peace, rather than violence.  Wilson refers to Bauckham to observe that he “outlines the chiastic structure of Luke 1:5-80 according to the perspective of the characters within the text, emphasizing the narrative centrality of this meeting and, thus, the importance of Elizabeth’s initial greeting in v.  42.”

 


Luke 1:26-56

Richard J.  Dillon, "The Benedictus in Micro- and Macrocontext"[23]

From the relationship between the angel and Mary, Dillon argues for a similar relationship between Elizabeth and Mary.  The Benedictus of Elizabeth is not mere decoration of the text, but is as essential as the response of Mary to the angel.

Verse 32, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, refers back to the promise made to David that the Lectionary uses in the First Reading at 2 Samuel 7:10-12, 14a, and 16.  Luke 1:26-56 also refers to the mention of David that the Lectionary uses at Psalm 89:4.

 

Luke 1:26-35

Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy[24]

Barker makes the point that God reveals himself through all of the human senses; that here, Mary hears the angel, but does not mention seeing the angel.

 

Luke 1:27

Irene Nowell, O.S.B., Jesus' Great-Grandmothers: Matthew's Four and More"[25]

Nowell writes,

 

What can we say about the fifth woman in Matthew’s genealogy …: Mary, mother of Jesus.  She too has no genealogy.  Like Rebekah, she is identified as a virgin (parJenoV) [Luke 1:27[used here]]).  Like Rebekah and Ruth, she is blessed by others (Luke 1:42).  Her situation because of her pregnancy is similar to that of the other great-grandmothers.  She has, we believe, a single pregnancy and is endangered by this pregnancy.  Like Sarah’s son, her son faces death because of the covenant; like Athaliah’s son, her son is murdered because of a question of kingship.  Finally, Mary, by her courageous lifetime yes, is a guarantor of our future.

 


Luke 1:31-33

Darrell L.  Bock, review of Kenneth Duncan Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually[26]

Bock argues that Litwak is wrong to assert that because such phrases as “it is fulfilled” or “it is written” are not included in Luke 31-33, that the fulfillment of the promise is not included.  Bock labels this the “phrase concept fallacy, where one argues that a concept is absent because certain phrases are lacking.

 

Luke 1:31b-35

Karl A.  Kuhn, “The `One like a Son of Man’ Becomes the `Son of God’”[27]

Quoting Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Kuhn asserts that “`Luke’s origin was in Syrian Antioch `where he lived as an incola, speaking the Aramaic dialect of the indigenous natives of the country.’”  Kuhn finishes his article asserting

 

But the presentation offered in Jewish apocalyptic writings of the unique transcendence of this awaited redeemer figure, of which Christians professed Jesus as the fulfillment, likely had an important role in shaping Christian conceptions of Jesus long before the Gospel was proclaimed and articulated in a largely non-Palestinian milieu.

 

Luke 1:34

Christian P.  Ceroke, O.Carm., “Luke 1:34 and Mary’s Virginity[28]

Ceroke concludes, “The evidence of the impossibility of an absolute vow [of virginity] does not of itself eliminate a virginal preoccupation from the scope of her [Mary’s] thought.”

 

Luke 1:35

Edward P.  Hahnenberg, “The Ministerial Priesthood and Liturgical Anamnesis in the Thought of Edward J.  Kilmartin, S.J.”[29]

In the title of the article, Anamnesis means memory of Jesus. 

Kilmartin assumes the guiding principle that the ministerial priesthood serves the memory of Christ.” Hahnenberg uses Luke 1:35, about the angel speaking to Mary, to contrast the bestowal model of Luke with the procession model of John in the Christology of Jesus. 

In the bestowal model, the Spirit descends upon Jesus in the synoptic Gospels.  In the procession model, found in the Gospel according to Saint John, “The Spirit is not an intermediary but the very bond [of love] uniting Father to Son and Son to Father.  As such, the Spirit is not a mediator, but the personal mediation between Father and Son.” In the procession model, that Augustine proposed, “the Father bestows Spirit onto the Son.”  In the bestowal model, the Holy Spirit is the term or end distinct from the act of mutual love.  In the procession model, the Holy Spirit is seen as love itself. 

 

Either way, bestowal or the processional, the sacrament of Holy Orders is a divine institution.

 

Luke 1:35

Robert C.  Tannehill, review of Robert F.  O'Toole, S.J., Luke's Presentation of Jesus: A Christology[30]

Tannehill does not agree with O’Toole.  Tannehill writes,

 

He [O’Toole] relies heavily on Luke 1:35, which provides a guide to interpreting the title Son elsewhere in Luke-Acts.  When the title Son follows Christ in a passage, it is a matter of step-parallelism; the two are not equivalent.  I note, however, that Jesus is first introduced as “Son of the Most High” in connection with his role as the promised Davidic king, the Messiah (Luke 1:32-33) …

 

Tannehill argues that titles are not enough to understand Jesus; besides titles referring to the past, the Faithful should also consider the functions of Jesus, as presented in the narrative.

 

Luke 1:36

Nuria Calduch-Benages, review of Armand Puig I Tárrech (ed.), Imatge de Déu[31]

A ten page article by Josep Rius-Camps “analyzes three equidistantly arranged Lucan passages (1:21, 36 [which the Lectionary uses here]; 13:11, 14, 16 and 23:44) that refer to the crafting of man and woman in God’s image on the sixth day [of creation].”  Luke 1:36 is about the angel announcing that Elizabeth has conceived a son.

 


Luke 1:37

Bruce J.  Malina, “Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean?”[32]

Malina uses Luke 1:37, “nothing will be impossible for God” to argue to link the imaginary and imaginary time with the real world and real time.  The link belongs exclusively to God.  Malina argues, “To say that all things are possible for God means all those things presently not possible for human beings will forever remain so.  The past and the future as the possible, then, cannot belong and never will belong to human beings.”

 

Luke 1:38

Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B., “Feminist Mariologies: Heteronomy/Subordination and the Scandal of Christology” [33]

McDonnell writes, “If the patriarchal form of heteronomy [subordination] (and its correlative subordination) is the ultimate enemy in Mariology as elsewhere, the Annunciation is where the main battle is fought.”  In that light, sermons take on an interesting cast, revealing the relative sexism of the preacher.

 

 



[1] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 4 (July 2007) 685.

 

[2] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 2 (July 2008) 256.

 

[3] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 1 (July 2008) 117.

 

[4] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1 (July 2007) 30, 31.

 

[5] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 3 (July 2006) 441, 451.

 

[6] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1 (July 2007) 46.

 

[7] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1 (July 1983) 50.

 

[8] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 2 (April 1999) 242.

 

[9] Greyfriars Review, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2004) 36.

 

[11] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 3 (July 2008) 488.

 

[12] Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989 17, 69, 88, manuscript p61 100, 111, manuscript 0209 125, 146, 151, 155, 157, 191, (quotation) 295-296, 300-301, 310.

 

[13] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2 (July 2004) 261.

 

[14] Theological Studies, Vol. 66, No. 3 (September 2005) 534.

 

[15] London: The British Library, 2007 43, 93, 134.

 

[18] Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006, 143, 148, 298, 470.

 

[19] Richard A. McCormick, S.J., The Critical Calling: Reflections on Moral Dilemmas Since Vatican II (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1989 2006) 91-92.

 

[20] Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989, manuscript 053 118, manuscript 0130 122, 250, 252.

 

[22] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 3 (July 2006), 441, 447, 449, 450, 452.

 

[23] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 3 (July 2006) 460, 461, 462, 476.

 

[24] London: T & T Clark International: A Continuum imprint, 2003, 115. 324 fn 32.

 

[25] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 1 (July 2008) 13.

 

[26] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 1 (January 2006) 153.

 

[27] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1 (January 2007) 22-42.

 

[28] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (July 1957) 329-342.

 

[29] Theological Studies, Vol. 66, No. 2 (June 2005), 260.

 

[30] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 4 (July 2006) 773.

 

[31] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 2 (July 2008) 425.

 

[32] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1 (July 1989) 15, 17.

 

[33] Theological Studies, Vol. 66, No. 3 (September 2005) 533.