Material above the double lines draws from material below the double lines. Those uninterested in scholarly details should stop reading here. If they do, however, they may miss some of the fun stuff scholars are digging up.
Moller argues with difficulty that Amos debated with his audience. Moller unconvincingly dates Amos from the Eighth-Century BC.
Brian Britt, “Prophetic Concealment in a Biblical Type Scene”
While the article does refer to Amos 8, and, therefore, is in the index, I do not see how to relate the research to the Lectionary.
Amos 8:5 ephah
Since the Lectionary uses the word ephah, some background is in order. The ephah is an ancient Hebrew unit of dry capacity, equal to 1/10 comer, about 23 liters (21 U.S. dry quarts). It occurs frequently in the Bible, where it is translated as “ephah” and is defined in Ezekiel 45:11. Ephah is found at Exodus 16:36, Leviticus 5:11, 6:20, 19:36, Ezekiel 45:10, 11, 24, 46:5, Numbers 5:15, Judah 6:19, Ruth 2:17, 1 Samuel 1:24, 17:17, Isaiah 5:10, Amos 8:5, and Zechariah 5:6-10. This is the only place the Sunday Lectionary uses ephah. The Weekdays Lectionary uses ephah thrice, Ruth 2:17 reading 423 in Year I and 1 Samuel 1; 24 reading 198 in Year I and II.
Defining terms seems never-ending. The difference between a
Responsorial Psalm: Psalm 22:1-2, 4-6, 7-8
This Psalm praises the LORD who uplifts the poor.
In the Greek, verses five and six are indented (as they are in the Lectionary) indicating words used in an early Christian hymn. The idea of one mediator is very strong in Christian dogma.
The Greek and the Latin break the versification just before verse 8 because verses 8-15 belong together. The title in the Vulgate is “Concerning Men and Women.” This passage is one of the most, if not the most, sexist in Sacred Scripture. The Lectionary cites the section, without indicating its total impact. The key word in the Lectionary is the article, the, where verse 8 reads, “… the men should pray, lifting up holy hands …” Verse 9 goes on to tell what women should be doing, in the spirit of keeping their heads covered, their mouths shut, and, from the First Testament, their feet in the house. I mean sexism is one of the problems of Sacred Scripture that calls for attention with increased understanding of the Deposit of Faith.
The Catechism indexes Deposit of Faith in three places. The Catechism defines Deposit of Faith as “the heritage of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, handed on in the Church from the time of the Apostles, from which the Magisterium draws all that it proposes for belief as divinely revealed.” The Catechism does not explicitly say either when or whether the Deposit of Faith closed. My understanding is that the Deposit of Faith closed with the death of the first Christians.
1 Tim 2:1
1 Timothy 2:1 urges Christians to pray for those outside Christian fellowship, including kings and other leaders.
1 Timothy 2:4
The Bishops ask the question “Why
must Revelation be transmitted?” They
answer their question with 1 Timothy 2:4 and the
1 Timothy 2:5
The Bishops have a passage titled “Mary’s Maternal Intercession,” defended against 1 Timothy 2:5. Referring to 1 Timothy 2:5, the Bishops use a double negative, not deny, to write, “But this does not deny the possibility that Christ would permit others [namely Mary] to share in his mediating role.” Would the choice belong to Christ as human or as divine? I have no response and suggest that the Bishops are disorganized.
Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B., “Feminist Mariologies: Heteronomy/Subordination and the Scandal of Christology”
McDonnell observes that, in 1974, “
In verse six, the mention of proper time has historical significance. Timothy is dividing history into periods, at least into Before Christ (B.C.) and In the Year of Our Lord (A.D.), Anno Domini.
1 Tim 2:7
Fitzmyer insists that
Bassler explains why he and the
majority of scholars do not think
Alleluia: cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9
This verse, about role reversals in the next life, is also used next Sunday.
Gospel: Luke 16:1-13
Brodie argues unconvincingly that Luke drew from a Proto-Luke document. That document would be the earliest of the New Testament Gospels, except that it is lost to history. That is partially why Brodie is unconvincing.
Despite Twentieth-Century attempts to argue otherwise, Harrill argues persuasively that the ancient Christian New Testament church upheld slavery. As best as I can tell, that change only happened in the last half of the Twentieth Century.
Quarles discounts the research of Crossan concerning the historical Jesus. Quarles accepts the parable of the tenants as originating from Jesus.
Blomberg argues that those who told parables often did offer explanations. Just because an evangelist includes an explanation, does not mean that Jesus did not originate the explanation, when he told the parable.
For more on sources see the Appendix file. Personal Notes are on the web site at www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes
There are three areas of clarification.
One: the activity of JustFaith is a vicarious
suffering activity, joining with
Two: the material on Mary is a review of devotional practice in the light of feminist theology.
Third: most importantly, the human vocation is dealing with problems, from the moment of birth to the moment of death. While I do not look for problems, problems do seem to look for me and, when they do, I try to deal with them directly. The nature of research scholarship, such as that found in the journals cited in the footnotes, is to examine problems. I would rather accept the conflict than ignore the problem.
 http://www.religioustolerance.org/mary_cor.htm 070812.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 4 (October 2004) 625.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 1 (January 2002) 41.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 2 (April 2007) 312.
 Theological Studies, Vol. 66, No. 3 (September 2005) 555.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 4 (October 2005) 659.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 4 (October 2004) 595.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 3 (July 2007) 599.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 4 (October 2006) 756.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1 (January 2007) 149.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 3 (July 2007) 531.
 the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1 (January 1991) 57.