Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament
Ebook2,194 pages35 hours

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

5/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

to read more about the New Testament study bible and to download the study questions.

The only Catholic Study Bible based on the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament brings together all of the books of the New Testament and the penetrating study tools developed by renowned Bible teachers Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.

This volume presents the written Word of God in a highly readable, accurate translation, excellent for personal and group study. Extensive study notes, topical essays and word studies provide fresh and faithful insights informed by time-tested, authentically Catholic interpretations from the Fathers of the Church and other scholars. Commentaries include the best insights of ancient, medieval and modern scholarship, and follow the Church?s guidelines for biblical interpretation. Plus, each New Testament book is outlined and introduced with an essay covering questions of authorship, date of composition, intended audience and general themes. The Ignatius Study Bible also includes handy reference materials such as a doctrinal index, a helpful cross-reference system, and various maps and charts.

LanguageEnglish
Release dateMay 6, 2010
ISBN9781681490755
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament
Author

Scott Hahn

Scott Hahn is Professor of Theology and Scripture at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, in Steubenville, Ohio. He also holds the Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation at St. Vincent Seminary in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. He is author of The Lamb's Supper, Lord Have Mercy; Swear to God: The Promise and Power of Sacraments; and Letter and Spirit: From Written Text of Living Word in the Liturgy.

Read more from Scott Hahn

Related to Ignatius Catholic Study Bible

Related ebooks

Christianity For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Ignatius Catholic Study Bible

Rating: 4.822580258064516 out of 5 stars
5/5

31 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - Scott Hahn

    INTRODUCTION TO THE IGNATIUS STUDY BIBLE

    You are approaching the word of God. This is the title Christians most commonly give to the Bible, and the expression is rich in meaning. It is also the title given to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Son. For Jesus Christ became flesh for our salvation, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God (Rev 19:13; cf. Jn 1:14).

    The word of God is Scripture. The Word of God is Jesus. This close association between God's written word and his eternal Word is intentional and has been the custom of the Church since the first generation. "All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ¹" (CCC 134). This does not mean that the Scriptures are divine in the same way that Jesus is divine. They are, rather, divinely inspired and, as such, are unique in world literature, just as the Incarnation of the eternal Word is unique in human history.

    Yet we can say that the inspired word resembles the incarnate Word in several important ways. Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate. In his humanity, he is like us in all things, except for sin. As a work of man, the Bible is like any other book, except without error. Both Christ and Scripture, says the Second Vatican Council, are given for the sake of our salvation (Dei Verbum 11), and both give us God's definitive revelation of himself. We cannot, therefore, conceive of one without the other: the Bible without Jesus, or Jesus without the Bible. Each is the interpretive key to the other. And because Christ is the subject of all the Scriptures, St. Jerome insists, Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ² (CCC 133).

    When we approach the Bible, then, we approach Jesus, the Word of God; and in order to encounter Jesus, we must approach him in a prayerful study of the inspired word of God, the Sacred Scriptures.

    Inspiration and Inerrancy  The Catholic Church makes mighty claims for the Bible, and our acceptance of those claims is essential if we are to read the Scriptures and apply them to our lives as the Church intends. So it is not enough merely to nod at words like inspired, unique, or inerrant. We have to understand what the Church means by these terms, and we have to make that understanding our own. After all, what we believe about the Bible will inevitably influence the way we read the Bible. The way we read the Bible, in turn, will determine what we get out of its sacred pages.

    These principles hold true no matter what we read: a news report, a search warrant, an advertisement, a paycheck, a doctor's prescription, an eviction notice. How (or whether) we read these things depends largely upon our preconceived notions about the reliability and authority of their sources—and the potential they have for affecting our lives. In some cases, to misunderstand a document's authority can lead to dire consequences. In others, it can keep us from enjoying rewards that are rightfully ours. In the case of the Bible, both the rewards and the consequences involved take on an ultimate value.

    What does the Church mean, then, when she affirms the words of St. Paul: All Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16)? Since the term inspired in this passage could be translated God-breathed, it follows that God breathed forth his word in the Scriptures as you and I breathe forth air when we speak. This means that God is the primary author of the Bible. He certainly employed human authors in this task as well, but he did not merely assist them while they wrote or subsequently approve what they had written. God the Holy Spirit is the principal author of Scripture, while the human writers are instrumental authors. These human authors freely wrote everything, and only those things, that God wanted: the word of God in the very words of God. This miracle of dual authorship extends to the whole of Scripture, and to every one of its parts, so that whatever the human authors affirm, God likewise affirms through their words.

    The principle of biblical inerrancy follows logically from this principle of divine authorship. After all, God cannot lie, and he cannot make mistakes. Since the Bible is divinely inspired, it must be without error in everything that its divine and human authors affirm to be true. This means that biblical inerrancy is a mystery even broader in scope than infallibility, which guarantees for us that the Church will always teach the truth concerning faith and morals. Of course the mantle of inerrancy likewise covers faith and morals, but it extends even farther to ensure that all the facts and events of salvation history are accurately presented for us in the Scriptures. Inerrancy is our guarantee that the words and deeds of God found in the Bible are unified and true, declaring with one voice the wonders of his saving love.

    The guarantee of inerrancy does not mean, however, that the Bible is an all-purpose encyclopedia of information covering every field of study. The Bible is not, for example, a textbook in the empirical sciences, and it should not be treated as one. When biblical authors relate facts of the natural order, we can be sure they are speaking in a purely descriptive and phenomenological way, according to the way things appeared to their senses.

    Biblical Authority  Implicit in these doctrines is God's desire to make himself known to the world and to enter a loving relationship with every man, woman, and child he has created. God gave us the Scriptures not just to inform or motivate us; more than anything he wants to save us. This higher purpose underlies every page of the Bible, indeed every word of it.

    In order to reveal himself, God used what theologians call accommodation. Sometimes the Lord stoops down to communicate by condescension— that is, he speaks as humans speak, as if he had the same passions and weakness that we do (for example, God says he was sorry that he made man in Genesis 6:6). Other times he communicates by elevation—that is, by endowing human words with divine power (for example, through the prophets). The numerous examples of divine accommodation in the Bible are an expression of God's wise and fatherly ways. For a sensitive father can speak with his children either by condescension, as in baby talk, or by elevation, by bringing a child's understanding up to a more mature level.

    God's word is thus saving, fatherly, and personal. Because it speaks directly to us, we must never be indifferent to its content; after all, the word of God is at once the object, cause, and support of our faith. It is, in fact, a test of our faith, since we see in the Scriptures only what faith disposes us to see. If we believe what the Church believes, we will see in Scripture the saving, inerrant, and divinely authored revelation of the Father. If we believe otherwise, we see another book altogether.

    This test applies not only to rank-and-file believers but also to the Church's theologians and hierarchy, and even the Magisterium. Vatican II has stressed in recent times that Scripture must be the very soul of sacred theology (Dei Verbum 24). As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI echoed this powerful teaching with his own, insisting that, "The normative theologians are the authors of Holy Scripture (emphasis added). He reminded us that Scripture and the Church's dogmatic teaching are tied tightly together, to the point of being inseparable: Dogma is by definition nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture." The defined dogmas of our faith, then, encapsulate the Church's infallible interpretation of Scripture, and theology is a further reflection upon that work.

    The Senses of Scripture  Because the Bible has both divine and human authors, we are required to master a different sort of reading than we are used to. First, we must read Scripture according to its literal sense, as we read any other human literature. At this initial stage, we strive to discover the meaning of the words and expressions used by the biblical writers as they were understood in their original setting and by their original recipients. This means, among other things, that we do not interpret everything we read literalistically, as though Scripture never speaks in a figurative or symbolic way (it often does!). Rather, we read it according to the rules that govern its different literary forms of writing, depending on whether we are reading a narrative, a poem, a letter, a parable, or an apocalyptic vision. The Church calls us to read the divine books in this way to ensure that we understand what the human authors were laboring to explain to God's people.

    The literal sense, however, is not the only sense of Scripture, since we interpret its sacred pages according to the spiritual senses as well. In this way, we search out what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us, beyond even what the human authors have consciously asserted. Whereas the literal sense of Scripture describes a historical reality—a fact, precept, or event—the spiritual senses disclose deeper mysteries revealed through the historical realities. What the soul is to the body, the spiritual senses are to the literal. You can distinguish them; but if you try to separate them, death immediately follows. St. Paul was the first to insist upon this and warn of its consequences: God . . . has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:5-6).

    Catholic tradition recognizes three spiritual senses that stand upon the foundation of the literal sense of Scripture (see CCC 115). (1) The first is the allegorical sense, which unveils the spiritual and prophetic meaning of biblical history. Allegorical interpretations thus reveal how persons, events, and institutions of Scripture can point beyond themselves toward greater mysteries yet to come (OT), or display the fruits of mysteries already revealed (NT). Christians have often read the Old Testament in this way to discover how the mystery of Christ in the New Covenant was once hidden in the Old, and how the full significance of the Old Covenant was finally made manifest in the New. Allegorical significance is likewise latent in the New Testament, especially in the life and deeds of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. Because Christ is the Head of the Church and the source of her spiritual life, what was accomplished in Christ the Head during his earthly life prefigures what he continually produces in his members through grace. The allegorical sense builds up the virtue of faith. (2) The second is the tropological or moral sense, which reveals how the actions of God's people in the Old Testament and the life of Jesus in the New Testament prompt us to form virtuous habits in our own lives. It therefore draws from Scripture warnings against sin and vice, as well as inspirations to pursue holiness and purity. The moral sense is intended to build up the virtue of charity. (3) The third is the anagogical sense, which points upward to heavenly glory. It shows us how countless events in the Bible prefigure our final union with God in eternity, and how things that are seen on earth are figures of things unseen in heaven. Because the anagogical sense leads us to contemplate our destiny, it is meant to build up the virtue of hope. Together with the literal sense, then, these spiritual senses draw out the fullness of what God wants to give us through his Word and as such comprise what ancient tradition has called the full sense of Sacred Scripture.

    All of this means that the deeds and events of the Bible are charged with meaning beyond what is immediately apparent to the reader. In essence, that meaning is Jesus Christ and the salvation he died to give us. This is especially true of the books of the New Testament, which proclaim Jesus explicitly; but it is also true of the Old Testament, which speaks of Jesus in more hidden and symbolic ways. The human authors of the Old Testament told us as much as they were able, but they could not clearly discern the shape of all future events standing at such a distance. It is the Bible's divine Author, the Holy Spirit, who could and did foretell the saving work of Christ, from the first page of the Book of Genesis onward.

    The New Testament did not, therefore, abolish the Old. Rather, the New fulfilled the Old, and in doing so, it lifted the veil that kept hidden the face of the Lord's bride. Once the veil is removed, we suddenly see the world of the Old Covenant charged with grandeur. Water, fire, clouds, gardens, trees, hills, doves, lambs—all of these things are memorable details in the history and poetry of Israel. But now, seen in the light of Jesus Christ, they are much more. For the Christian with eyes to see, water symbolizes the saving power of Baptism; fire, the Holy Spirit; the spotless lamb, Christ crucified; Jerusalem, the city of heavenly glory.

    The spiritual reading of Scripture is nothing new. Indeed the very first Christians read the Bible this way. St. Paul describes Adam as a type that prefigured Jesus Christ (Rom 5:14). A type is a real person, place, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something greater in the New. From this term we get the word typology, referring to the study of how the Old Testament prefigures Christ (CCC 128-30). Elsewhere St. Paul draws deeper meanings out of the story of Abraham's sons, declaring, This is an allegory (Gal 4:24). He is not suggesting that these events of the distant past never really happened; he is saying that the events both happened and signified something more glorious yet to come.

    The New Testament later describes the Tabernacle of ancient Israel as a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 8:5) and the Mosaic Law as a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1). St. Peter, in turn, notes that Noah and his family were saved through water in a way that corresponds to sacramental Baptism, which now saves you (1 Pet 3:20-21). Interestingly, the expression that is translated corresponds in this verse is a Greek term that denotes the fulfillment or counterpart of an ancient type.

    We need not look to the apostles, however, to justify a spiritual reading of the Bible. After all, Jesus himself read the Old Testament this way. He referred to Jonah (Mt 12:39), Solomon (Mt 12:42), the Temple (Jn 2:19), and the brazen serpent (Jn 3:14) as signs that pointed forward to him. We see in Luke's Gospel, as Christ comforted the disciples on the road to Emmaus, that beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Lk 24:27). It was precisely this extensive spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament that made such an impact on these once-discouraged travelers, causing their hearts to burn within them (Lk 24:32).

    Criteria for Biblical Interpretation  We too must learn to discern the full sense of Scripture as it includes both the literal and spiritual senses together. Still, this does not mean we should read into the Bible meanings that are not really there. Spiritual exegesis is not an unrestrained flight of the imagination. Rather, it is a sacred science that proceeds according to certain principles and stands accountable to sacred tradition, the Magisterium, and the wider community of biblical interpreters (both living and deceased).

    In searching out the full sense of a text, we should always avoid the extreme tendency to over-spiritualize in a way that minimizes or denies the Bible's literal truth. St. Thomas Aquinas was well aware of this danger and asserted that all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal (STh I, 1, 10, ad 1, quoted in CCC 116). On the other hand, we should never confine the meaning of a text to the literal, intended sense of its human author, as if the divine Author did not intend the passage to be read in the light of Christ's coming.

    Fortunately the Church has given us guidelines in our study of Scripture. The unique character and divine authorship of the Bible calls us to read it in the Spirit (Dei Verbum 12). Vatican II outlines this teaching in a practical way by directing us to read the Scriptures according to three specific criteria:

    1. We must [b]e especially attentive 'to the content and unity of the whole Scripture' (CCC 112).

    2. We must [r]ead the Scripture within 'the living Tradition of the whole Church' (CCC 113).

    3. We must [b]e attentive to the analogy of faith (CCC 114; cf. Rom 12:6).

    These criteria protect us from many of the dangers that ensnare readers of the Bible, from the newest inquirer to the most prestigious scholar. Reading Scripture out of context is one such pitfall, and probably the one most difficult to avoid. A memorable cartoon from the 1950s shows a young man poring over the pages of the Bible. He says to his sister: Don't bother me now; I'm trying to find a Scripture verse to back up one of my preconceived notions. No doubt a biblical text pried from its context can be twisted to say something very different from what its author actually intended.

    The Church's criteria guide us here by defining what constitutes the authentic context of a given biblical passage. The first criterion directs us to the literary context of every verse, including not only the words and paragraphs that surround it, but also the entire corpus of the biblical author's writings and, indeed, the span of the entire Bible. The complete literary context of any Scripture verse includes every text from Genesis to Revelation— because the Bible is a unified book, not just a library of different books. When the Church canonized the Book of Revelation, for example, she recognized it to be incomprehensible apart from the wider context of the entire Bible.

    The second criterion places the Bible firmly within the context of a community that treasures a living tradition. That community is the People of God down through the ages. Christians lived out their faith for well over a millennium before the printing press was invented. For centuries, few believers owned copies of the Gospels, and few people could read anyway. Yet they absorbed the gospel—through the sermons of their bishops and clergy, through prayer and meditation, through Christian art, through liturgical celebrations, and through oral tradition. These were expressions of the one living tradition, a culture of living faith that stretches from ancient Israel to the contemporary Church. For the early Christians, the gospel could not be understood apart from that tradition. So it is with us. Reverence for the Church's tradition is what protects us from any sort of chronological or cultural provincialism, such as scholarly fads that arise and carry away a generation of interpreters before being dismissed by the next generation.

    The third criterion places scriptural texts within the framework of faith. If we believe that the Scriptures are divinely inspired, we must also believe them to be internally coherent and consistent with all the doctrines that Christians believe. Remember, the Church's dogmas (such as the Real Presence, the papacy, the Immaculate Conception) are not something added to Scripture, but are the Church's infallible interpretation of Scripture.

    Using This Study Guide  This volume is designed to lead the reader through Scripture according to the Church's guidelines—faithful to the canon, to the tradition, and to the creeds. The Church's interpretive principles have thus shaped the component parts of this book, and they are designed to make the reader's study as effective and rewarding as possible.

    Introductions: We have introduced the biblical book with an essay covering issues such as authorship, date of composition, purpose, and leading themes. This background information will assist readers to approach and understand the text on its own terms.

    Annotations: The basic notes at the bottom of every page help the user to read the Scriptures with understanding. They by no means exhaust the meaning of the sacred text but provide background material to help the reader make sense of what he reads. Often these notes make explicit what the sacred writers assumed or held to be implicit. They also provide scores of historical, cultural, geographical, and theological information pertinent to the inspired narratives—information that can help the reader bridge the distance between the biblical world and his own.

    Cross-References: Between the biblical text at the top of each page and the annotations at the bottom, numerous references are listed to point readers to other scriptural passages related to the one being studied. This follow-up is an essential part of any serious study. It is also an excellent way to discover how the content of Scripture hangs together in a providential unity. Along with biblical cross-references, the annotations refer to select paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These are not doctrinal proof texts but are designed to help the reader interpret the Bible in accordance with the mind of the Church. The Catechism references listed either handle the biblical text directly or treat a broader doctrinal theme that sheds significant light on that text.

    Topical Essays, Word Studies, Charts: These features bring readers to a deeper understanding of select details. The topical essays take up major themes and explain them more thoroughly and theologically than the annotations, often relating them to the doctrines of the Church. Occasionally the annotations are supplemented by word studies that put readers in touch with the ancient languages of Scripture. These should help readers to understand better and appreciate the inspired terminology that runs throughout the sacred books. Also included are various charts that summarize biblical information at a glance.

    Icon Annotations: Three distinctive icons are interspersed throughout the annotations, each one corresponding to one of the Church's three criteria for biblical interpretation. Bullets indicate the passage or passages to which these icons apply.

    Notes marked by the book icon relate to the content and unity of Scripture, showing how particular passages of the Old Testament illuminate the mysteries of the New. Much of the information in these notes explains the original context of the citations and indicates how and why this has a direct bearing on Christ or the Church. Through these notes, the reader can develop a sensitivity to the beauty and unity of God's saving plan as it stretches across both Testaments.

    Notes marked by the dove icon examine particular passages in light of the Church's living tradition. Because the Holy Spirit both guides the Magisterium and inspires the spiritual senses of Scripture, these annotations supply information along both of these lines. On the one hand, they refer to the Church's doctrinal teaching as presented by various popes, creeds, and ecumenical councils; on the other, they draw from (and paraphrase) the spiritual interpretations of various Fathers, Doctors, and saints.

    Notes marked by the keys icon pertain to the analogy of faith. Here we spell out how the mysteries of our faith unlock and explain one another. This type of comparison between Christian beliefs displays the coherence and unity of defined dogmas, which are the Church's infallible interpretations of Scripture.

    Putting It All in Perspective  Perhaps the most important context of all we have saved for last: the interior life of the individual reader. What we get out of the Bible will largely depend on how we approach the Bible. Unless we are living a sustained and disciplined life of prayer, we will never have the reverence, the profound humility, or the grace we need to see the Scriptures for what they really are.

    You are approaching the word of God. But for thousands of years, since before he knit you in your mother's womb, the Word of God has been approaching you.

    One Final Note. The volume you hold in your hands is only a small part of a much larger work still in production. Study helps similar to those printed in this booklet are being prepared for all the books of the Bible and will appear gradually as they are finished. Our ultimate goal is to publish a single, one-volume Study Bible that will include the entire text of Scripture, along with all the annotations, charts, cross-references, maps, and other features found in the following pages. Individual booklets will be published in the meantime, with the hope that God's people can begin to benefit from this labor before its full completion.

    We have included a long list of Study Questions in the back to make this format as useful as possible, not only for individual study but for group settings and discussions as well. The questions are designed to help readers both understand the Bible and apply it to their lives. We pray that God will make use of our efforts and yours to help renew the face of the earth! «

    INTRODUCTION TO THE

    1966 EDITION

    This [1966] edition of the New Testament from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

    The Revised Standard Version itself needs no lengthy introduction, being already well known and widely read. It is an authorized version of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611 (Preface to the RSV). In Britain the King James Version is more commonly called the Authorized Version. It occupies a unique place in English Biblical and indeed literary tradition. The Standard Bible of 1901 was the work of an American committee revising it in the light of modern textual criticism. In 1937 it was decided to make a revision of the Standard Version which should embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship and preserves those qualities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in English literature. The New Testament in this new version was published in 1946 and the whole Bible in 1952.

    The remarkable success which attended the new revision on its appearance seems to be ample justification of the revisers' aims and it has been acclaimed on all sides as a translation which combines accuracy and clarity of meaning with beauty of language and traditional diction.

    For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other's translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suppositions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all—Protestants and Catholics alike. Thus, for example, Catholics no longer make their translations from the Latin Vulgate; though it is arguable that before the development of textual criticism it was in certain respects a better way of making a translation than to make it from late and in some places corrupt Greek manuscripts as was done by some of the Reformers. Today, and indeed since the appearance in 1943 of the Encyclical Letter Divino Afflante Spiritu encouraging Biblical studies, Catholics like everyone else go back to the original languages and base their translations on the same critical principles.

    Although twenty years have passed since the Encyclical Letter first appeared, there is [in 1966] still no Catholic translation of the whole Bible from the original languages available to English-speaking readers, though at least two are well on the way to completion. It was in fact with a view to filling this rather obvious gap in the shortest possible time that some Catholic scholars considered the possibility of so editing the Revised Standard Version, on its appearance in 1952, as to make it acceptable to Catholic readers.

    Following up these advances in Biblical knowledge comes the great improvement in relations between the Christian Churches of which we are witnesses at the present time and which is not without its influence in still further narrowing the margin of difference between Bible translations. This is not to say that all differences have disappeared. There is frequently more than one way of translating a word or phrase with the critical evidence for each interpretation fairly evenly balanced. In such cases each man will translate according to his background and training. Thus a Roman Catholic might and indeed usually would give more weight to a reading or an interpretation which was traditional in his Church.

    The main difference of course between Bibles lies in the attitude towards the books known to Protestants as the Apocrypha and to Catholics as the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament. Catholics in fact regard them as inspired and canonical Scripture, while others, as is clear from the name Apocrypha, do not.

    With the improvement in inter-denominational relations and the advance of Bible knowledge, the possibility of producing a Bible common to all Christians was mooted as far back as 1953. It was felt that if such a thing could be achieved, it would be of incalculable benefit in wiping away remaining misconceptions and prejudices and in fostering still further good relations between the churches. The Word of God would then be our common heritage and a unifying link not only in theory but also in fact, and those engaged in theological discussion could appeal to the same authoritative text. This objective could be achieved in the quickest and most practical way by editing the Revised Standard Version for Catholic use. It would also provide Catholics with a complete version of the Bible from the original languages.

    A small committee of members of the Catholic Biblical Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave a warm welcome to the proposal. Here was a wonderful opportunity to make a real step forward in the field of ecumenical relations. However, ideas of this kind take time to penetrate all levels and many difficulties and delays ensued. But a change of mind has taken place and what seemed to many in 1953 to be a novel idea of doubtful value, or even of no value at all, is now generally recognized to be a legitimate and desirable goal.

    In the present edition the aim has been to make the minimum number of alterations and to change only what seemed absolutely necessary in the light of Catholic tradition. It has not been the aim to improve the translation as such. There are some places, however, where, the critical evidence being evenly balanced, considerations of Catholic tradition have favored a particular rendering or the inclusion of a passage omitted by the RSV translators.

    The thanks of Catholics are due to their Bishops who have approved this edition and to the American Standard Bible Committee, who have throughout given an unfailing and generous support in spite of difficulties and delays.

    May this edition of the New Testament contribute both to the increase in knowledge of God's Word and to better understanding between Christians according to the mind of our Savior, who prayed that they may be one, even as we are one (Jn 17:11).

    INTRODUCTION TO THE

    REVISED STANDARD VERSION,

    SECOND CATHOLIC EDITION

    The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament is based on the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. The Revised Standard Version is, of course, one of the more-highly-regarded modern translations of the Bible.

    The New Testament of the RSV Second Catholic Edition differs somewhat both from the New Testament of the RSV and from that of the RSV Catholic Edition. It differs from the RSV—as the Introduction to the 1966 edition of the Catholic RSV notes—in that, in certain places where scholarship alone cannot determine the translation or the text, considerations of Catholic tradition have favored a particular rendering or the inclusion of a passage omitted by the RSV translators. It differs from the RSV Catholic Edition in that archaisms (e.g., thee and thou, along with their accompanying verbs, which the RSV uses when God is addressed) have been replaced by standard modern English.

    The RSV Second Catholic Edition has also been revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam, the Vatican's instruction concerning vernacular languages in the Sacred Liturgy.

    Abbreviations for the Books of the Bible

    THE OLD TESTAMENT (OT)

    Gen          Genesis

    Ex          Exodus

    Lev          Leviticus

    Num          Numbers

    Deut          Deuteronomy

    Josh          Joshua

    Judg          Judges

    Ruth          Ruth

    1 Sam        1 Samuel

    2 Sam        2 Samuel

    1 Kings        1 Kings

    2 Kings        2 Kings

    1 Chron        1 Chronicles

    2 Chron        2 Chronicles

    Ezra          Ezra

    Neh          Nehemiah

    Tob          Tobit

    Jud          Judith

    Esther          Esther

    Job          Job

    Ps          Psalms

    Prov          Proverbs

    Eccles         Ecclesiastes

    Song          Song of Solomon

    Wis          Wisdom

    Sir          Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

    Is          Isaiah

    Jer          Jeremiah

    Lam          Lamentations

    Bar          Baruch

    Ezek          Ezekiel

    Dan          Daniel

    Hos          Hosea

    Joel          Joel

    Amos          Amos

    Obad          Obadiah

    Jon          Jonah

    Mic          Micah

    Nahum          Nahum

    Hab          Habakkuk

    Zeph          Zephaniah

    Hag          Haggai

    Zech          Zechariah

    Mal          Malachi

    1 Mac        1 Maccabees

    2 Mac        2 Maccabees

    THE NEW TESTAMENT (NT)

    Mt          Matthew

    Mk          Mark

    Lk          Luke

    Jn          John

    Acts          Acts of the Apostles

    Rom          Romans

    1 Cor        1 Corinthians

    2 Cor        2 Corinthians

    Gal          Galatians

    Eph          Ephesians

    Phil          Philippians

    Col          Colossians

    1 Thess        1 Thessalonians

    2 Thess        2 Thessalonians

    1 Tim        1 Timothy

    2 Tim        2 Timothy

    Tit          Titus

    Philem          Philemon

    Heb          Hebrews

    Jas          James

    1 Pet          1 Peter

    2 Pet          2 Peter

    1 Jn          1 John

    2 Jn          2 John

    3 Jn          3 John

    Jude          Jude

    Rev          Revelation (Apocalypse)

    INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPELS

    by Curtis Mitch

    The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the foundational documents of historic Christianity. Most of what is known about the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth is known from these four books. Interlaced with their factual information about Christ is also the faith of the Church, the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah of ancient expectation and the eternal Son of God come in the flesh.

    It is no surprise, then, that Christian tradition gives the four Gospels pride of place among the books of Sacred Scripture. They are placed first in the collection of New Testament writings, much as the five books of Moses, being the formative religious texts of Israel, stand at the head of the Old Testament. Without the Gospels, the Church would lack not only crucial information about her divine Founder but a vital source of strength and inspiration for her mission in the world.

    Authority of the Gospels   Because the Gospels give us unique access to the words and deeds of Jesus, they possess the very highest authority. The Church acknowledges this in various ways, most obviously in the liturgy, where the Gospels are held aloft in procession, perfumed with incense, and proclaimed as the word of God. Selections from all parts of the Scriptures are represented in the Church's lectionary, but the Gospel reading is always featured as the highpoint of the Liturgy of the Word. The belief is that Jesus is made present to his people in word and sacrament, both in the inspired accounts of the evangelists and in the consecrated elements of the Eucharist.

    The authority of the Gospels is ultimately grounded in their divine inspiration, as is the case with all the books of the Bible. However, in addition to this theological conviction, the Church also maintains the historical conviction that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John bear witness to the preaching of the apostles. As recently as Vatican II, this teaching was reaffirmed with clarity and emphasis: The Church has always and everywhere maintained, and continues to maintain, the apostolic origin of the four Gospels (Dei Verbum 18). Unlike the many apocryphal gospels that proliferated in the second and third centuries, the four canonical Gospels come directly from the apostolic age. They express in written form what the apostles were preaching and teaching about Jesus in the earliest decades of Christian history.

    Numerous ancient writers contend that the four Gospels represent the authority of four apostles of Christ. Virtually everyone in earliest times held that the first and the fourth Gospels were penned by the apostles Matthew (the tax collector) and John (the son of Zebedee), both of whom were companions and eyewitnesses of Jesus during his historical ministry (Mt 9:9; 10:2-3; Mk 1:19-20; Jn 19:35). The situation is different in the case of the second and third Gospels, which primitive testimony ascribes to two apostolic associates, Mark (also called John; see Acts 15:37) and Luke (the physician; Col 4:14). These individuals were not personal companions of Jesus but worked in close collaboration with the apostles Peter and Paul (see Col 4:11, 14; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13). So whereas the Gospels of Matthew and John are apostolic writings in the strict sense, the Gospels of Mark and Luke are said to embody the apostolic witness of Peter and Paul, respectively.

    One of the great strengths of these traditions of authorship is their unanimity. It is remarkable that there are no rival claims either disputing the apostolic origin of the four Gospels or purporting to identify different individuals as responsible for writing them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are consistently named as the Gospel writers throughout Christian antiquity.¹ Indeed, there is no variation at all in the ancient Greek manuscripts with respect to the names that appear in the headings of the four Gospels (The Gospel according to Matthew, The Gospel according to Mark, etc.).

    Scholars often assert that the Gospels initially circulated without titles and that only around A.D. 125 were they supplied with superscriptions giving the names of the evangelists. But this claim, while theoretically possible, is historically unlikely. First of all, every extant Gospel text with a surviving title page includes a superscription with the name of the evangelist as given by tradition. If untitled Gospels ever existed, none has survived to confirm the assertion. Second, given the need to tag and identify books stored in church libraries and archives, there is reason to suppose that the Gospels were quickly supplied with some kind of heading (perhaps standardized into a common format at a later point) around the time of their publication. Such a need would be felt as soon as two or more Gospels were in circulation within the Christian community. Third, there was need to verify the authority of works read in the Christian liturgy alongside the books of the Old Testament. Since many produced written accounts about Jesus in the first century (see Lk 1:1), identifying the evangelist was one way to ensure that a given book was an authentic expression of apostolic testimony. In the end, no other scenario satisfactorily explains how the titles of the four Gospels were consistently used from the second century onward.² In all probability, the names of the four evangelists represent a tradition that goes back to the first century.

    Another strength of the tradition of Gospel authorship is its unlikelihood as guesswork. Some would argue that the titles and traditions linked with the Gospels are historically unreliable. But if the Gospels were initially disseminated as anonymous works, and only decades later ideas about their origin began to crystallize and take hold throughout the Christian community, then we are left with a situation that is very difficult to explain. Not only are the names of the evangelists unanimously attested in the second century, but one is hard-pressed to account for why these names and not others were chosen and universally agreed upon. The apostle John may be thought an obvious choice to credit with a Gospel, given the extent of his influence in early Christianity. By why attribute the other Gospels to figures such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Even though Matthew was one of the Twelve, he appears only a few times in the New Testament and never in such a way that later generations would conclude that he was a figure of towering importance. Even more, it is unlikely that a Gospel addressed to readers from a Jewish background would be attributed to a tax collector, since tax collectors were generally despised by Jews as morally corrupt, ritually unclean, and politically traitorous. The problem is even more acute in the case of Mark and Luke, neither of whom was an apostle and neither of whom appears in the writings of the New Testament as a prominent authority figure in the earliest Christian community. If churchmen in the second century were merely speculating about the authorship of the Gospels, one might reasonably expect them to have preferred more illustrious personalities such as Peter or Paul. At the very least, one would expect more than one opinion to have made itself heard in the annals of Christian history.

    Canon of the Gospels Christianity recognizes and reveres four Gospels, no more and no less. Only the texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are accepted as inspired witnesses to the life of Jesus and to what he accomplished for our salvation. These four writings stand as four pillars supporting the Church's faith and proclamation for all time.

    In contrast, several heresies that sprouted up in the second century A.D. made the mistake of reducing or expanding the Church's fourfold Gospel collection. Some went astray by seizing upon a single Gospel to the neglect or outright rejection of the others. For example, it is said that the Ebionites made exclusive use of (some form of) Matthew. Likewise, Marcion and his band of followers acknowledged none but a mutilated and downsized version of Luke. Others moved in the opposite direction by composing spurious gospels to stand alongside the canonical Gospels. This was the fault of various Gnostic communities, who produced an array of pseudo-gospels in the second and third centuries, none of which has a serious claim to preserve eyewitness testimony from the first century.

    Even within the Church it was necessary to safeguard the integrity of the fourfold Gospel. This need was first felt when Tatian, a student of St. Justin Martyr, compiled the Diatessaron, a work in which the four Gospels were woven together into a single, continuous narrative of the life and ministry of Jesus (ca. A.D. 170). Even this pious attempt to harmonize the Gospel accounts was deemed unacceptable by the Church. The integrity of the four Gospels as four distinct witnesses to Jesus Christ was not to be compromised.

    The evidence of early Christian writings suggests that the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was widely acknowledged by the middle of the second century. By this time it was already an established custom to read the Gospels, called the memoirs of the apostles, alongside the books of the Old Testament in the Church's liturgy (see St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67). Indeed, it is probable that the canon of the four Gospels was the first part of the New Testament canon to become a universal tradition in the Church. Doubts lingered about the authenticity of several biblical books during the early centuries, and the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books was not ratified by regional synods until the late fourth and early fifth centuries. But the collection of Gospels deemed worthy of liturgical proclamation and instruction was a settled matter long before that.

    So established was the fourfold Gospel canon by the late second century that writers such as St. Irenaeus were beginning to reflect on its theological significance (A.D. 180). For him, the Church's acceptance of four Gospels signified that the good news was to spread forth in all directions—to the four winds, as it were (Against Heresies 3, 11, 8). Irenaeus also correlated the four living creatures in Rev 4:6-7 with the four evangelists: Matthew, he said, was represented by the man, Mark by the eagle, Luke by the ox, and John by the lion (Against Heresies 3, 11, 8). Later this tradition would develop and change. So, for example, St. Jerome would see Matthew as the man, Mark as the lion, Luke as the ox, and John as the eagle (Against Jovinianus 1, 26), whereas St. Augustine preferred to see Matthew as the lion, Mark as the man, Luke as the ox, and John as the eagle (Harmony of the Gospels 1, 6, 9). However the correlation is made, the belief is that each book in the collection of four Gospels has a unique message that highlights a different dimension of the mystery of Christ.

    Formation of the Gospels   The Gospels stand as the outcome of a historical process that unfolded over the course of many years. Understanding the formation of the Gospels thus requires some awareness of the stages, literary and preliterary, that led to their composition. These formative stages began with Jesus, extended through the ministry of the apostles, and culminated with the evangelists writing out their inspired accounts. The Pontifical Biblical Commission underlined the importance of these stages in 1964 in its Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (Sancta Mater Ecclesia 7-9). A summary of these follows.

    (1) Stage I begins with the person of Jesus, who conveyed his teaching to a handpicked group of disciples known as the apostles. Though he often addressed the crowds in general, he made the apostles his constant companions and invested himself in their formation. To them he revealed the deepest mystery of his identity through his preaching, private instruction, and the performance of miracles. He also provided them with a constant example of prayer and a life of heroic sacrifice.

    (2) Stage II covers the ministry of the apostles, who were both commissioned and uniquely qualified to bear witness to all that Jesus had said and done. Illumined by the Spirit, they possessed a true understanding of the mystery of Christ and were empowered by the grace of God to testify on his behalf. Through oral proclamation, they made known the purpose of his dying and rising as well as the significance of his living among men. The faith of the apostles did not obscure their memory but rather helped to keep the remembrance of these events alive. Their testimony to Jesus was proclaimed in various forms, including narratives of his life, catechetical instructions, prayers, and hymns.

    (3) Stage III is the writing of the Gospels as lasting monuments of the apostolic witness to Jesus. The four evangelists composed these written records in order to provide an authentic record of the Lord's sayings and doings and to instruct the faithful in the elements of Christian doctrine and morals. To this end they selected episodes from the life of Jesus that most served their purpose, they synthesized these traditions on occasion, and they wrote with the situation of their readers in mind. Most importantly, the Church believes and teaches that the writers of the four Gospels set down their narratives under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    Genre of the Gospels   Scholarship has long wrestled with the question: What kind of books are the four Gospels? Some scholars consider them an example of midrash, a form of homiletic exposition in which texts of the Old Testament are applied to new situations in the life of God's people. Others classify them as aretalogies, in which Jesus appears as a heroic divine man who performs superhuman feats. Still others see them as literary dramas that weave together comic and tragic motifs along lines developed by the classical playwrights. Additional attempts at genre analysis have identified the Gospels as apocalypses, as historical monographs, and as a form of folk literature known as cult legends. Many twentieth-century scholars, owing to the considerable influence of form criticism, declared the Gospels sui generis—unique, one of a kind, in a class by themselves.

    Not until the late twentieth century did a more promising avenue open for a literary classification of the Gospels. Thanks to ongoing historical and literary research, an increasing number of scholars are now claiming that the Gospels are a species of Greco-Roman biography. These were not like many modern biographies, which tend to concentrate on a person's appearance, habits, personality type, psychological development, etc. These works, known in the Hellenistic world as lives (Greek bioi or Latin vitae), did not so much analyze their subjects abstractly as display their character through a narration of their significant words and actions. Prominent biographies of this type were written by Greek authors such as Xenophon and Plutarch, by Roman authors such as Tacitus and Suetonius, and by Hellenistic Jewish authors such as Philo of Alexandria.

    Characteristic of these Greco-Roman lives are the following features: they focus attention on a single individual; they are broadly chronological but sometimes arrange their materials topically or thematically; and oftentimes only one period of the subject's life dominates the presentation. The subjects of biographical writing tended to be figures of renown and influence—statesmen, philosophers, military men, literary figures, and the like. Most importantly, the greatness of the biographical subject is revealed through heroic acts of virtue and memorable words of wisdom. Several biographies even undertake a careful examination of the subject's death and the circumstances surrounding it.

    Insofar as the Gospels appear to stand within the literary category of ancient biography, there is good reason to suppose that the Gospels were written with historiographical intent. In other words, adoption of the biographical genre implies that the evangelists aimed to tell us about the historical life and accomplishments of Jesus. The basis of such a presentation would rest on personal recollections, whether their own or someone else's (see Lk 1:1-4; Jn 19:35). This being so, the Gospel writers were free to interpret the significance of Jesus for their readers, but they would not have felt free to invent stories and sayings of Jesus out of whole cloth, nor would they have knowingly falsified or distorted the facts about his life as they knew them from experience or had received them through the most ancient channels of tradition. Ancient authors, no less than modern ones, knew the difference between history and historical fiction.

    Finally, in addition to being historiographical works, the Gospels are also evangelical works. That is to say, they also aim to produce faith in their readers. This is made explicit in the Gospel of John, where the evangelist addresses his audience with the words: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name (Jn 20:30-31). Most agree that this purpose behind the Gospel of John lies behind the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as well. If anything is unique about the Gospels in comparison with Greco-Roman biographies, then, it is their aim to make believers out of their readers. Other ancient biographies held up their subjects as objects of admiration and imitation. The Gospels do likewise, but they go beyond this by making Jesus an object of religious faith and by inviting readers into a personal relationship with him.

    Historicity of the Gospels   The Church has always affirmed the historicity of the Gospels. None of the four accounts can be reduced to a form of fictional writing in which realistic narratives serve merely as allegories of the life of the early Church or as vehicles to impart religious teaching in concrete and memorable ways. On the contrary, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John report about real events of the past and about real people who had a part in them. This is not to deny them the theological and spiritual richness that is theirs. It is only to insist, in concert with Vatican II, that the Gospels tell us what Jesus really did and taught for our salvation (Dei Verbum 19).

    For the historian, the reliability of the Gospels means that their stories are generally accurate in bearing witness to Jesus and his times. The historian might admit the presence of slight errors and minor misstatements of fact, while concluding that the overall presentation of the main events is a trustworthy description of history. For the Church, however, the historical reliability of the Gospels means something more than this. Since the Bible is inspired by God, it can never be said that its human authors assert as true anything that is untrue, whether the affirmation be made about doctrine, morals, or the events of history. Of course, careful study is needed to ascertain the intention of the author, lest we mistake a non-historical narrative such as a parable for a historical one. And even historical narratives have a theological relevance and purpose behind them. But where an author's intent to record history can be established, the factual accuracy of the account is guaranteed as part of the mystery of divine inspiration. The Pontifical Biblical Commission reaffirmed this point in 1964, when it said that the four Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Spirit, who preserved their authors immune from all error (Sancta Mater Ecclesia 11). By implication, this is also the meaning of Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation when it states that everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held as asserted by the Holy Spirit (Dei Verbum 11).

    What, then, are we to make of the apparent mistakes and contradictions that appear in the Gospels? It can hardly be denied that numerous difficulties face the interpreter who would try to reconcile the four Gospels in detail. There are several places where a story in one Gospel seems to conflict with the same story as told in another. Sometimes the words of Jesus recorded in one Gospel seem to disagree with his words recorded in another. And occasionally the evangelists make historical claims that contradict the testimony of secular sources regarding the events and circumstances of the period.

    The Church's approach to resolving such discrepancies has never been to compromise her belief in the divine inspiration and the historical truthfulness of the Gospels. Her faith is firmly maintained in spite of the difficulties that confront us. In practical terms, this means that interpretation proceeds with the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in mind, and it falls to the Church's scholars to find ways to alleviate tensions and to reconcile discordant accounts to the best of their ability (see Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 45; Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu 46). The attempt to harmonize the Gospels will not always produce satisfactory results. Nevertheless, it is good to remember that numerous difficult passages of the Bible have been clarified over time thanks to the efforts of scholars toiling to vindicate the truthfulness of Scripture. As for those problematic passages still in need of a solution, there are several considerations to keep in mind when one stumbles across apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the Gospels.

    (1) Biblical scholars have long recognized that the Gospels do not always present the story of Jesus in strict chronological order. Certainly the main outline of his life, ministry, and final days is kept intact. In this sense, the story line is broadly chronological. But some of the short episodes within this larger framework are moved around and repositioned according to the aim of each evangelist. Thus, one notices that episodes sharing a common theme are sometimes grouped together, as are sayings that touch upon a related topic of discussion.

    The freedom to rearrange sayings and stories in a non-chronological sequence does not mean that the essential historicity of the Gospels is compromised. This is something that ancient biographers and historians were accustomed to doing in their writings. Besides, it is important to remember that the evangelists, in addition to preserving the memory of Jesus' words and deeds, were also preachers of the good news. Their aims and interests as authors were evangelical and catechetical as well as historiographical. One result is that chronology is sometimes subordinate to theology in the narrative depiction of Jesus' life. Such adaptations of chronology can be explained by the Gospel writers' use of the literary techniques of their age to communicate the historical truth about Jesus.

    (2) An examination of parallel passages shows that the four Gospels frequently record the words of Jesus in different ways. This is not surprising, since Jesus delivered much of his teaching in Aramaic, whereas the Gospels record his sayings in Greek. No doubt some variations in wording were bound to arise in the process of translation from one language to another. Also, it sometimes appears that the evangelists offer an interpretive paraphrase of Jesus' sayings in order to highlight a particular theme or teaching they deem especially relevant to their readers. The Gospel authors can thus clarify the meaning of a saying, or even place a certain emphasis on this detail or that, all the while preserving the substance of what Jesus said on the occasion.

    Although this procedure may strike us as questionable, given our modern preference for exact quotation, the best historians of the ancient world typically allowed a measure of freedom in recording spoken discourse. They permitted an author to paraphrase, abbreviate, or even bring out the meaning of a person's words, so long as the original sense of the words was faithfully conveyed. Still, this was a liberty that operated within strict limits. The historian's aim was not always to preserve the exact words of a saying but rather the speaker's intended meaning.

    With respect to the Gospels, it can be said that the evangelists preserved the authentic voice of Jesus, even though their reports are not always verbatim transcripts of his exact words. The Pontifical Biblical Commission has acknowledged this by saying that the authors of the Gospels employed different words to express what he said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving the sense (Sancta Mater Ecclesia 9). So the essence of Jesus' message is accurately expressed in the Gospels even though there are variations in the way each evangelist wrote it down.

    (3) When it comes to reconciling Gospel accounts of the same event, it is important to distinguish between contradictory testimony and complementary testimony. One is dealing with contradictory testimony when two reports of a single occurrence are in direct conflict and cannot be reconciled. For example, if one author places an individual at a specific time and location, and another author places the same individual at a different location but at the exact same time, then it must be presumed that at least one of the witnesses is either lying or mistaken. Both cannot be true at the same time.

    On the other hand, complementary testimony is non-contradictory. If two authors describe an individual engaged in two different activities at the same time and place, we need not conclude that either is lying or mistaken, for the situation may be more complex. Suppose one witness says that Jesus was teaching at sunrise, while another witness claims that he was walking to Jerusalem at that time. Neither of these activities makes the other impossible or even unlikely, for Jesus could have been doing both at the same time. Being complementary rather than contradictory testimony, both reports can be taken as an accurate description of reality. The challenge is to piece together a coherent picture of what took place in all its complexity.

    (4) Attempts to reconcile disparate Gospel accounts must reckon with the fact that all historical writing is necessarily selective and incomplete. No one can record everything that takes place at a given moment in time, so a complete history of any event is strictly impossible. By the same token, a partial history

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1