Bothered by NAB intros for new testament books

[paul_c]

Tradition with a capital “T” is revealed truth, something which was revealed to us by God and part of the deposit of faith.

True

The words in the Bible are revealed truth. Information about who the human authors were is not revealed truth, not part of the deposit of faith. There may have been traditionally held beliefs about who wrote certain books but that is not part of Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith.

You are right that if it could be proven that Matthew didn’t write the first gospel, that wouldn’t render the truths within it invalid or untrue. But there are other things within the intros that subtly undermine the faith → like questioning the date of Matthew’s gospel because if it couldn’t have happened prior to the fall of Jerusalem as if Jesus, the son of God, couldn’t have predicted that in advance.

If the notes and introduction to the NAB bothers people then they shouldn’t read it. That’s all. Just get something you like better and read that.

-Tim-

The issue isn’t whether I can personally ignore the notes and intros to the NAB. I can and I have. The issue is that they are included on the USCCB website which carries the implication that they are supported by the US Catholic Bishops. People therefore will and should take them as supported statements. I just personally find it problematic because I find some of the statements seem to be counter to what I understand as established Catholic thought.

 

[TimothyH]

True

You are right that if it could be proven that Matthew didn’t write the first gospel, that wouldn’t render the truths within it invalid or untrue. But there are other things within the intros that subtly undermine the faith → like questioning the date of Matthew’s gospel because if it couldn’t have happened prior to the fall of Jerusalem as if Jesus, the son of God, couldn’t have predicted that in advance.

The issue isn’t whether I can personally ignore the notes and intros to the NAB. I can and I have. The issue is that they are included on the USCCB website which carries the implication that they are supported by the US Catholic Bishops. People therefore will and should take them as supported statements. I just personally find it problematic because I find some of the statements seem to be counter to what I understand as established Catholic thought.

Jesus’ flesh is still true food. John 6 hasn’t changed. And Jesus is still the second person of the Trinity and still rose from the dead. If someone’s faith in these things is undermined by the notes in the NAB, then their faith probably wasn’t too strong to begin with. Such a person is probably at higher risk of falling victim to the door-to-door Jehovah’s Witnesses than it is threatened by the notes in the NAB.

I’m not worried or bothered by it.

-Tim-

 

[Ignatius]

Is anyone else bothered by the tone and content of the intros used in the NAB for the new testament books. Its particularly distressing to me that they all seem to call into question the traditional authorship of the new testament Why does the USCCB approve an introduction that says that the Traditional authorship of the bible is untenable? And why does it folllow that Matthew had to be written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Why isn’t it possible for Our Lord to have successfully prophesized this? Don’t we believe He’s God?

Is it just me? Or do these intros seem to lack the basic faith in Jesus?

I use the Ignatiius Study Bible, douay rheims, the Navarre Study Bible, the RSC-CE or the Knox Bible now.

It would be very beneficial to The Faithful if the USCCB would discontinue the NAB and NABRE and use the RSV-CE or one of the other’s I mentioned.

 

[RobbyS]

Is anyone else bothered by the tone and content of the intros used in the NAB for the new testament books. Its particularly distressing to me that they all seem to call into question the traditional authorship of the new testament books. For instance in the intro to Matthew, it says:

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66–70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mt 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Why does the USCCB approve an introduction that says that the Traditional authorship of the bible is untenable? And why does it folllow that Matthew had to be written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Why isn’t it possible for Our Lord to have successfully prophesized this? Don’t we believe He’s God?

Is it just me? Or do these intros seem to lack the basic faith in Jesus?

Much is this is speculative. Certainly the priority of “Mark” is speculative. As to the dating of the Gospels, there is certainty no conclusive proof that they werecomposed after the destruction of the temple. In 1976, Anglican bishop John A.T.Robinson decided to take a whole new look at the available evidence and concluded that the “consensus.”of scholars about the dating of the Gospels was based on assumptions that cannot be proved. When you play with old texts, you can come up with all kinds of theories about them. Just look at the matter of the authorship of the plays of Shakespeare. IAC, I ask, like you, why the bishops allow this kind of stuff to appear without a warning that what they are about to read is opinion.

 

[rotlex]

The intros to the NAB must be right.
That’s exactly what they teached us a loonie-vercity.
And they learned us real good. (I even remember “Q”.)

(No. No sarcasm there.)

LOL, I thought I was the only one that went to that “school”.

 

[paul_c]

Much is this is speculative. Certainly the priority of “Mark” is speculative. As to the dating of the Gospels, there is certainty no conclusive proof that they werecomposed after the destruction of the temple. In 1976, Anglican bishop John A.T.Robinson decided to take a whole new look at the available evidence and concluded that the “consensus.”of scholars about the dating of the Gospels was based on assumptions that cannot be proved. When you play with old texts, you can come up with all kinds of theories about them. Just look at the matter of the authorship of the plays of Shakespeare. IAC, I ask, like you, why the bishops allow this kind of stuff to appear without a warning that what they are about to read is opinion.

Not only is it speculation, but in my mind its speculation by people hostile to the Catholic Church. It seems to me that one of the goals of Markan priority is to undermine the Apostolic authorship of Matthew and with that the fundamental text of Matthew 16, where Peter is made the rock on which the Church is founded.

 

[po18guy]

Not only is it speculation, but in my mind its speculation by people hostile to the Catholic Church. It seems to me that one of the goals of Markan priority is to undermine the Apostolic authorship of Matthew and with that the fundamental text of Matthew 16, where Peter is made the rock on which the Church is founded.

For 1,900 years the focus was sharp, the knowledge and belief certain. Then, very slowly at first, the picture began to blur. Doubt and division entered in. Who is the source of all doubt, discouragement and division?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Is anyone else bothered by the tone and content of the intros used in the NAB for the new testament books. Its particularly distressing to me that they all seem to call into question the traditional authorship of the new testament books. For instance in the intro to Matthew, it says:

Is it just me? Or do these intros seem to lack the basic faith in Jesus?

Blessings in the LORD, Paul C!

I’ve been collecting comments about the NAB footnotes here in this forum for a while. I’ve added this thread to my list. I hope to be able to one day share them with my bishop, Archbishop Lori. They are scandalous for many.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think you misunderstand my concern. I’m all for doing scholarly work on the bible. What I am against is unproven theories being advanced as superior to what Tradtion holds as if they are the truth.

De-emphasis, mine.

For instance, the “Q” theory is advanced as if it is a proven fact, when in fact, no one has ever unearthed any reference to Q prior to the late 1800s.

Historical critical scholarship didn’t exist before then; no one was attempting to dig up information before then.

Pope Benedict XVI states in his latest book on the infancy narratives that unless there is proof of an alternative, we should accept the Traditions of the Church as truth.

Ahh… look up how the capitalization was (or wasn’t) done in his comment.
If it was "T"radition, then the “unless” comment is rather scandalous…

I would expect that to include the fact that the Church Fathers believed that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles bearing his name (and if he used a secretary to actually put the words to paper, that still counts - they were his words).

Yes it still counts. They are his words, with corrected spelling, and grammar… of course!

The NAB editors conclude that Petrine authorship is unlikely because he couldn’t have written to gentiles while Paul was alive, ignoring the fact that Peter was Pope and could do as he pleased. To make such a conclusion in a Catholic bible is inappropriate because it is an unsubstantiated theory.

I agree; Speculative commentary is inappropriate, in a bible proposed to both the learned and unlearned, in a non-study bible context.

If there is something to be LEARNED from the speculation, that is faith ORIENTED exceptions may be appropriate; but I see nothing beneficial to faith being explicitly taught by questioning Peter’s authorship. It’s just a “random” factoid.

Faith is often undermined in a gradual fashion; each time a person looks for a solid guide to misgivings – and finds unbridled and untenable speculation; the more tempted they will become toward hopelessness and disbelief.