In 1961, Edward F. Siegman, C.PP.S., wrote, “We know that the evangelists have not always lined up their data in chronological order.”[1]  Jeff Cavins with his 2011 study book, The Bible Timeline:  The Story of Salvation, still does not seem to have gotten the message.[2]  Cavins treats the Bible as a history book containing theology, which it is not, on three scores.  First, the content: the Bible is a theology book containing some history.  Second, the Bible is not a single book with a predominant messianic theme, but is a series of books, with many themes, one of which is messianism.  Third, when the authors wrote the Biblical books is more important for perspective on what is inspired, than when the events they record happened.  The historical circumstances under which God inspired his authors is foundational to whatever is inspired. 

 

Most importantly, Cavins does not relate his study of Sacred Scripture to the liturgy of Sunday Mass.  Personal Notes is doing that.  Just as the Mass is the prayer life of the Church, so are the Psalms the prayer book of the Church, something to which Cavins seems oblivious.

 

 

Readings

First Reading                     Amos 6:1a, 4-7

Responsorial Psalm:          Psalm 146:7, 8-9, 9-10 (1b)

Second Reading:               1 Timothy 6:11-16

Alleluia:                             cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9

Gospel:                             Luke 16:19-31

 

Annotated Bibliography

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

 

Amos 6:1a, 4-7

Personal Notes cites members of the Protestant Revolt in the spirit of Gerald O’Collins, S.J., writing,[3]

 

In fact, by allowing the liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular, by stressing “the table of God’s word” along with the importance of the homily (no. 52), and by granting to the laity—although restricted to certain circumstances—communion “under both kinds” (no. 55), Vatican II conceded the demands of Martin Luther and other 16th-century Protestant reformers, albeit in the 20th century.  In short, while SC [Sacrosanctum concilium [sic]] did not use explicitly the language of “reform” or “reformation,” what it enacted can and should be described in those terms.

 

Amos 6:

John Mayer (1583-1664), “Commentary upon All the Prophets”[4]

In the context of the Trayvon Martin case, Mayer wrote, there ought to be in us a sympathizing with our brethren in distress, not feasting when they are in adversity because this is complained of in Amos 6.

 

Saint Vincent de Paul (1580-1660) is a contemporary of Mayer.

 

Amos 6:4

Maria Lindquist, “King Og’s Iron Bed”[5]

Lindquist argues from Lying upon beds of ivory that, earlier, with the bed of King Og, “that iron was used for purposes of adornment during this period [the Iron Age 1200-550],[6] just as ivory embellished luxury items at a later date.

 

Amos 6:6

John Mayer (1583-1664), “Commentary upon All the Prophets”[7]

Mayer writes,

 

Daniel [7:9-28] is here propounded as a pattern to us, that we may not be unaffected with the sufferings of God’s people, against which it is declaimed (Amos 6:6).  Moreover, as he, so we must keep in our hearts the words of God as we desire, that our hearing of them may not be in vain, so likewise Mary did, and who so is wise will ponder these things.

 

Psalm 146:7, 8-9, 9-10 (1b)

This Psalm is available for funerals, one of the “Second Psalms” for Morning Prayer.[8]

 

1 Timothy 6:11-16

1 Tim 6:11-16

Jeffrey R. Asher, review of Mark M. Yarbrough, Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy:  An Evaluation of the Apostle’s Literary, Rhetorical, and Theological Tactics[9]

Asher reports that Yarbrough identifies twelve passages that meet his criteria for preformed traditions.  1 Timothy 6:11-16 is one of those passages.  The criteria are:  structure, content, and style, which Asher further subdivides.

 

1 Timothy 6:15

Daniel B. Wallace, With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes: Greek Grammar:  Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament[10]

Wallace translates, the King of those who are reigning and Lord of those who are lording it (over) (others).  The Lectionary uses the King of kings and Lord of lords.

 


 

1 Timothy 6:16

Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), “Annotations on Genesis 1:14”[11]

Zwingli swings who dwells in unapproachable light, back to Genesis when the sun and moon were only created on the fourth day.  Before that, the ineffable light of God made light.  The purpose was not to worship the sun or the moon.

 

Martin Luther (1483-1546) is a contemporary of Zwingli, as is Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556).

 

1 Timothy 6:11-12

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, Priests for the Third Millennium:  The Year for Priests[12]

Dolan begins his 1. Faith chapter, by noting that after Vatican II, “one-fourth of the priest faculty left the priesthood” in the archdiocese of St. Louis.  Dolan then goes on to muse, “Thus, we are not afraid to probe, wonder, question, think critically.”  The Faithful know better, because priests do not read.  If they read, they might become engaged with dangerous critical thought.  This danger is evident at The Catholic University of America, whose administration has been on the censured list of the American Association of University Professors since 1960, for dismissing theology professor Charles Curran, without giving him a hearing.[13]  Cardinal Dolan is a member of the Board of Visitors for The Catholic University of America.

 

cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9

 

Luke 16:19-31


 

Luke 16:14-31

Timothy Johnson, “Narrative Perspectives on Luke 16:19-31”[14]

Johnson notes

 

that the entire sequence of 16:14-31 is once more spoken to Jesus’ enemies, the Pharisees. . . . From this narrative perspective, then, we can conclude that the dialogue between Abraham and the rich man is far from an afterthought; it is, indeed, the intended climax of the parable, which serves to morally indict the rich man (and the money-loving Pharisees) in a manner that the basic story does not:  if the rich man and the Pharisees had truly been committed to Moses and the prophets, they would have recognized that the sharing of possessions with the poor among the people was at the heart of Torah and would never cease being normative for God’s people (see 16:17) and the rich man would have fed and clothed the man he passed every day at his gate (16:19).

 

Luke 16:19

Maurice A. Robinson, “The Rich Man and Lazarus—Luke 16:19-31”[15]

Robinson identifies the Greek for who used by Luke in a rich man who identifies the passage as written by Luke, rather than a later redactor.

 

Luke 16:19, 20

Philip Comfort, “Two Illustrations of Scribal Gap Filling in Luke 16:19”[16]

The two illustrations are Lazarus and Dives.  Comfort concludes,

 

So the scribe of P75 [P75 is a manuscript] was not alone in supplying the rich man with a name; his is simply the earliest extant record of having done so.  (P75 dates back to the end of the second century.)  Even after the early centuries, readers of this pericope also sensed the lack and provided the rich man a name.  In fact, the lack of a name for the rich man was so pronounced that the Latin adjective “dives” (meaning “rich”) was assumed to be the man’s name.  Since the time of Chaucer [c. 1343-1400],[17] the rich man has been known as “Dives” in Latin and English literature.

 

Luke 16:19-31

John P. Meier, “Is Luke’s Version of the Parable of the Rich Fool Reflected in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas?”[18]

Meier argues,

 

Granted Luke’s tendency to supply some Q parables with a preface, we need not be surprised to learn that the parables unique to Luke stand out because such a large number of them have an introduction that raises the topic treated in the parable.

 . . . 

 

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31) may perhaps be included in our list, though technically the hostile interchange between the Pharisees, who are said to love money, and Jesus, who announces God’s reversal of socioeconomic values, occurs in vv. 14-15 [not used in the Sunday Lectionary] instead of immediately before the parable, which takes up this theme.

 

Luke 16:19-31

Matthew W. Bates, “Cryptic Codes and a Violent King:  A New Proposal for Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16-18” [19]

Bates argues, “Luke 16:16-18 appears to have been a thematically arranged collection of material that denigrates Herod Antipas by hidden transcript.”

 


 

Luke 16:19-20

Stanley E. Porter, “Assessing Translation Theory:  Beyond Literal and Dynamic Equivalence”[20]

Porter begins by showing similarities between formal and dynamic equivalence translations.  Importantly, he then argues,

 

The target language may have values, however, that have been established by the source language through a process of transference, but these are the values in the target language, not those of the source language, and this is not what is normally thought of as translation.  One of the places where this has become most obvious of late is in terms of translation of the singular masculine pronoun of Greek.  It is now thought that English does not use the masculine singular pronoun as inclusive, as it was clearly used in Greek, thus justifying various forms of expression in English that are not the “same” as they were in the original Greek.

 

Luke 16:20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 31

Barbara Aland, “The Text of Luke 16”

Maurice A. Robinson, “The Rich Man and Lazarus—Luke 16:19-31”[21]

 

Barbara Aland observes, “The short text edition of Nestle, considered to be the best possible [Greek] text, is attested by only 16 witnesses.  That is not much considering the fact that the Gospel of Luke is transmitted in about 2,000 manuscripts, only 16 out of 2,000.”

 

Robinson notes, “Luke mentions Abraham more than any other Gospel writer (Matt 7 times, Mark 1 time, Luke 15 times, John 10 times; cf. Acts 7 times),”

 

Robinson also notes that

 

the Greek for Then Abraham said [to him], “If they will not listen to Moses . . .  ” has said [to him] in the original Greek, because were said [to him] not original, no good reason would exist for its addition, whereas were autw [said to him] originally present, the text would read more acceptably but less smoothly and dramatically.  Thus, the presence of autw appears to represent the more difficult reading and should be preferred.

 

Luke 16:19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 16-30

Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Comparative Discourse Analysis as a Tool in Assessing Translations, Using Luke 16:19-31 as a Test Case”[22]

Porter and O’Donnell lead readers into a technical maze.  “Corpus linguistics is the computational and statistical analysis of representative samples of naturally occurring language to identify patterns of meaning.”  The cavalier attitude of the Papacy toward translations, makes me prefer to stay out of this maze.

 

Luke 16:20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 16-31

Alain Gignac, “Synchronic Observations on Luke 16:19-31 as Preparation for a Translation”[23]

Gignac has interesting insights.

 

The Greek for the bosom of Abraham and at his side is the same word, plural for bosom and singular for at his side.  In other words, the first bosom makes Abraham female.  Gignac writes, “The BJ [1998 French Jerusalem Bible] is very particular, making Abraham a female:  `in his womb.’  And why not?  The general meaning is clearly intimacy, proximity.  The difficulty lies in respecting the metaphor.” . . . Many words indicate the importance of family:  Father Abraham (vv. 24, 30), father (v. 27), my father (v. 27), child (v. 25—not son!), brothers (v. 28).”  Family is significant for the Covenant.  In the Covenant the Faithful are part of the family of God. 

 

“In v. 21, the dogs are licking Lazarus, but the reader should see that in v. 24 the rich man wants desperately to lick just the tip of Lazarus’s’ finger.”

 

The narrative structure presents two plots successively, a plot of resolution (vv. 19-23) with a stereotyped and minimalist mise en scène, and a revelation plot (vv. 24-31), with a very long dialogue (for the Bible!) in which the proud rich man, even in Hades, dares to make three requests to use Lazarus as his servant, each of which Abraham refuses.

 

From a socio-historical perspective, to be buried is a sign of wealth, and it seems logical that Lazarus would have gone to the “common grave.”  But in the narrative, the vertical contrast is in favor of Lazarus.  One last detail to note:  from Abraham’s point of view, the resurrection is vertical . . .  in contrast with the rich man’s point of view, where it is described horizontally . . . ”

 

Lazarus is always shown in reference to the rich man; he is ranked at the level of a dog; he says nothing.  We could affirm that he is nothing, or the shadow of the other man.  The word anqrwpoV [man] is not applied directly to him (despite many translations [the Lectionary refers to a poor man, named Lazarus]), but he has a name.

 

There is a close intimacy between Abraham and Lazarus and a formal father-son relationship between Abraham and the rich man.

 

Gignac concludes, “At last, our  story leads the reader toward other stories.”

 

Luke 16:23-24

Edward F. Siegman, C.PP.S, "Teaching in Parables: (Mk 4:10-12; Lk 8:9-10; Mt 13:10-15)"[24]

First mentioned 102926, i.e. Reading 138C for 2010.

Siegman born in 1908, died in February 1967, as President of the Catholic Biblical Association.  Of him, biblical scholar Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. wrote,

 

His election [to the Presidency of the Catholic Biblical Association] was in recognition of his dedicated service and achievement in the field of biblical scholarship in the United States, and it was received with full agreement and sympathy by colleagues who recognized the value of his work at the [sic] Catholic University of America (although his services were not appreciated by the administration of that institution).

 

Siegman wrote, “ . . . the procedure of present-day Scripture studies.  The results of this procedure have been viewed with alarm by some.”  In a footnote, Siegman cites articles by F. J. Connell and J. C. Fenton in the American Ecclesiastical Review, and F. L. Filas in The Priest.  Siegman goes on, The views they attribute to the Scripture teachers sound like caricatures.”

 

In this 1961 article, Siegman is making the point, “We know that the evangelists have not always lined up their data in chronological order,” something with which Jeff Cavins still seems to struggle.

 

I do not know Sacred Scripture well enough to make sense out of the comment Siegman makes about Luke 16:23-34, “After the quotation from Is 6:9-10 = 13:14-15 [in Matthew], an apocalyptic logion [saying] is inserted, which in Lk 16:23-24 precedes the parable of the Good Samaritan: . . . “

 

Luke 16:23, 31

Elsa Tamez, “A Rereading of Luke 16:19-31”[25]

In a nutshell, Tamez explains, “The first scene [about Lazarus] must be changed, that of the reality of daily life, in order to erase the second one [about Dives].

 

Luke 16:25

Edith M. Humphrey, “To Squeeze the Universe into a Ball—Playing Fast and Loose with Lazarus?”[26]

Humphrey concludes, “By this pragmatic parable, we are provided with a microcosm, `the world squeezed into a ball’ (as T. S. Eliot puts it), and asked to consider what Patrick Reardon has called `the apocalyptic perspective’—`more is going on than seems to be going on.’”

 


 

Luke 16:26, 29, 31, 16-30

K. K. Yeo, “A Confucianist, Cross-cultural Translation of Luke 16:19-31”[27]

Toward the end of his article, Yeo reflects,

 

Depending on the textual traditions of the ancient or modern readers, the story of Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man will have a different intertextual relationship with readers—in my case with Confucian texts . . .  Only the scriptural narrative of Christ has the power to inscribe a new story of salvation.

 

 

For more on sources see the Appendix file.  A complete set of Personal Notes, dating from the Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time, July 14, 2002 to the present, is on the web site at www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes. 

 

 

The Responsorial Antiphon for this Sunday is Praise the Lord, my soul!.[28]

 

In the gobbledygook prayer at Sunday Mass immediately following mention of forgiven sins, the Faithful hearing the 2011 Roman Missal can listen for “ showing mercy.”[29]

 



[1] Edward F. Siegman, C.PP.S, "Teaching in Parables: (Mk 4:10-12; Lk 8:9-10; Mt 13:10-15)," the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (April 1961) 161.

 

[2] Jeff Cavins, Tim Gray, and Sarah Christmyer, The Bible Timeline:  The Story of Salvation (West Chester, Pennsylvania:  Ascension Press, 2004, 2011).

 

[3] Theological Studies, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2012) 772.

 

[4] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament XII: Ezekiel, Daniel, (ed.) Carl L. Beckwith (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 246.

 

[5] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3 (July 2011) 479.

 

[6] https://www.google.com/search?q=the+Iron+AGe&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (accessed July 28, 2013).

 

[7] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament XII: Ezekiel, Daniel, (ed.) Carl L. Beckwith (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 342.

 

[8] N.a., International Commission on English in the Liturgy: A Joint Commission of Catholic Bishops’ Conferences, The Roman Ritual: Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and published by Authority of Pope Paul IV: Order of Christian Funerals: Including Appendix 2: Cremation: Approved for use in the Dioceses of the United States of America by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (New Jersey: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1998) 307.

 

[9] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 409.

 

[10] Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan, 1996, 157, 274, 277, 621 (source of the quote).

 

[11] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament I: Genesis I—II, (ed.) John L. Thompson (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 34.

 

[12] Huntington, IN 46750:  Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division:  Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000, 20.

 

[13] http://www.aaup.org/our-programs/academic-freedom/censure-list (accessed July 28, 2013).

 

[14] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 210-211.

 

[15] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 104, 105.

 

[16] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 112-113.

 

[17] https://www.google.com/search?q=Chaucer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (accessed July 28, 2013).

 

[18] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 3 (July 2012) 535-536.

 

[19] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January 2013) 89, 90, 91 (source of the quote).

 

[20] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 127, 131.  The quote is from page 130.

 

[21] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 93, 94 (source of the Aland quote), 95, 97, 101, 103, 105, 108, 109,110 (source of the Robinson quote).

 

[22] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197.

 

[23] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 201, 202, 204, 205.

 

[24] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (April 1961) 170.

 

[25] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 322-323.

 

[26] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 311.  The quote is from page 313.

 

[27] in Translating the New Testament:  Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (eds.) (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 316, 317, 318.

 

[28] National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Roman Missal Restored by Decree of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican and Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI: Lectionary for Mass:  For Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America:  Second Typical Edition:  Volume I:  Sundays, Solemnities, Feasts of the Lord and the Saints (Collegeville, Minnesota:  The Liturgical Press, 1988) 808.  Personal Notes refers to this book as the Lectionary.

 

[29] n.a., The Roman Missal:  Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II:  English Translation According to the Third Typical Edition:  For Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America:  Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (Washington, DC, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011) 486.  Personal Notes refers to this book as the Missal.