Examples of NAB liberal commentaries

[morey]

Hi

I often read on this forum about NAB’s liberal or lousy commentaries/notes. Would any one be so kind to show me a few examples ?

Thanks.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Let’s begin with the human authorship of the Gospels. According to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Relation of Vatican II, paragraph 18:The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing; the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The liberal commentary found in the NAB denies that any of the Gospels were written by an Apostle:

From the NAB Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew:
“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see 10, 3) is untenable …”

“… Mt [Matthew] was composed certainly after that [A.D. 70] date… and probably at least a decade later…”

From the NAB Introduction to the Gospel of Mark:“Modern research often proposes as the author [of Mark] an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.”

From the NAB Introduction to the Gospel of Luke:

“The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples…”

“…the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that [A.D. 70] date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition.”
From the NAB Introduction to the Gospel of John:
"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. … Although tradition identifies this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.

“The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100.”

 

[drforjc]

It’s not only in the book introductions, but in the footnotes to the text itself.

Take for example, the footnote on 1 Cor 11:27-28 “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.”

According to the footnote, the unworthiness that we are to examine ourselves for consists not in personal sin but in whether we “have grasped and internalized the meaning of his death…”

 

[peoplemaker39]

Many scripture scholars do not find that a different author necessarily contradicts the apostolic tradition.

 

[Strider]

peoplemaker39:

Many scripture scholars do not find that a different author necessarily contradicts the apostolic tradition.

However, as post # 2 by Todd makes clear, a “different author” of one of the Gospels, let alone all four, contradicts Magesterial teaching.
Also, did you notice how the NAB moves the authorship of the Gospels later, all after AD 70? This is a trend of liberal theologians - the farther away from the actual events, the more error they can claim - and makes no sense, since the destruction of Jerusalem and especially the Temple is not mentioned anywhere in the Gospels.
For a better commentary, try the Navarre Bible. If it’s good enugh for Fr. Corapi, it’s good enough for me.
One last observation: a thousand scripture scholars cannot contradict the Magesterium.

 

[twf]

I understand that a fragement of Matthew has been found that is believed to PRE-DATE AD 70 upon analysis. Can anyone verify this? (This would blatantly contradict the liberal scholarship of the NAB…the authorship issue is just one of many comments I have come across in the footnotes that made my blood boil. A few months a go, my pastor arranged for me to meet with the bishop while he was visiting our parish, as I will be received into the Church by him on January 30…I mentioned to the bishop that I find the NAB commentary quite liberal, and even heretical sometimes, and he agreed with me! I’m blessed to have an orthodox pastor and bishop!).

 

[chb03c]

you all must remember that the Gospels were verbally said before they were written down. So the Gospel according to Mathew was probably the Gospel that Mathew preached to the Jews and Gentiles. later on one of his disciples or maybe even himself decided to write down what Mathew was saying. This does not change the fact that Mathew was the one preaching this Gospel. All the NAB is suggesting is that it may have been dictated by Mathew.

 

[Fidelis]

chb03c:

you all must remember that the Gospels were verbally said before they were written down. So the Gospel according to Mathew was probably the Gospel that Mathew preached to the Jews and Gentiles. later on one of his disciples or maybe even himself decided to write down what Mathew was saying. This does not change the fact that Mathew was the one preaching this Gospel. All the NAB is suggesting is that it may have been dictated by Mathew.

No reasonable person would get that meaning from this:

“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see 10, 3) is untenable …”

“… Mt [Matthew] was composed certainly after that [A.D. 70] date… and probably at least a decade later…”

If I preach about something today, and it is written down after I’m dead by someone else, I am not the author. It is the Tradition from the earliest times of the Church that Matthew was the author of his gospel. Sacred Tradition is not the same as made up stories: it has a basis in fact based on carefully handed on information. I prefer to believe the early Church rather than modern scholars. But that’s just me.

 

[twf]

Another member on this board, via PM, has provided me with this link: bridegroompress.com/snippets/newdiscovery.doc
It’s on that fragment of Matthew that I mentioned which may prove that the Gospel was written prior to AD 70.

God bless,
In Christ,
Tyler

 

[mlchance]

twf:

Another member on this board, via PM, has provided me with this link: bridegroompress.com/snippets/newdiscovery.doc
It’s on that fragment of Matthew that I mentioned which may prove that the Gospel was written prior to AD 70.

Actually, at best, it demonstrates that some form of Matthew’s Gospel existed prior to A.D. 70. This really isn’t that earth-shattering of a claim, nor does it contradict that favorite whipping boy, the dreadedly “liberal” NAB. The NAB’s commentaries on authorship are generally concerned with final authorship.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Sirach14]

drforjc:

It’s not only in the book introductions, but in the footnotes to the text itself.

Take for example, the footnote on 1 Cor 11:27-28 “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.”

According to the footnote, the unworthiness that we are to examine ourselves for consists not in personal sin but in whether we “have grasped and internalized the meaning of his death…”

’ The Council of Trent, recalling what St. Paul says in vv. 27-28, teaches that ’ no one who has a mortal sin on his conscience shall dare to receive the Holy Eucharist before making a sacramental confession, regardless of how contrite he may think he is. This holy Council declares that this custom is to be kept forever’ ( De SS. Eucharistia, chap. 7; cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 916).

 

[drforjc]

Sirach14,

Yes, I agree totally. This was only one among many examples of this kind of “liberal” commentary.

When I have a question about the meaning of a verse, I use the Navarre Bible instead of the NAB.

 

[twf]

Mark Chance:
Actually, at best, it demonstrates that some form of Matthew’s Gospel existed prior to A.D. 70. This really isn’t that earth-shattering of a claim, nor does it contradict that favorite whipping boy, the dreadedly “liberal” NAB. The NAB’s commentaries on authorship are generally concerned with final authorship.
That may be so…however, as time goes on, it seems to me that conservative stances are validated again and again. Why must they insist that Matthew was not written by Matthew! Why contradict Tradition without a very good reason to do so…without hard evidence. We have hard evidence that Matthew did write a Gospel prior to AD 70, and the infallible decree of the Church that the Gospels are of Apostolic authorship…so why do liberals have to insist that tradition is wrong?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mlchance:

Actually, at best, it demonstrates that some form of Matthew’s Gospel existed prior to A.D. 70. This really isn’t that earth-shattering of a claim, nor does it contradict that favorite whipping boy, the dreadedly “liberal” NAB. The NAB’s commentaries on authorship are generally concerned with final authorship.

– Mark L. Chance.

== Why is there such a phobia of “liberalism” ? You’re quite right; but the Fundamentalist horror of scholarship that one finds in some strata of USA Protestantism, seems to have spread to Catholicism. Which is lamentable, and very bad news for Catholic scholarship. I don’t want to be a member of a Fundamentalist sect; that it is not what I joined when I became a Catholic. I would far rather be in a Church not terrified of the modern world, such as Anglicanism. Not in a Fundy mega-sect (For a very fine analysis of this pathological aberration, read “Fundamentalism” by James Barr. Everyone ought to read it; it is quite outstanding.) ==

 

[JimG]

I like this one:
From the NAB Introduction to the Gospel of John:

"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. …

I suppose that the apostle John, who knew Jesus the Son of God, would find it ironic that in our day, we do not think him capable of highly developed theology.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

twf:

Mark Chance:
Actually, at best, it demonstrates that some form of Matthew’s Gospel existed prior to A.D. 70. This really isn’t that earth-shattering of a claim, nor does it contradict that favorite whipping boy, the dreadedly “liberal” NAB. The NAB’s commentaries on authorship are generally concerned with final authorship.
That may be so…however, as time goes on, it seems to me that conservative stances are validated again and again. Why must they insist that Matthew was not written by Matthew!

== Because the gospel’s internal evidence does not favour the traditional ascription of authorship - which is in any case based on mere hearsay, from many decades after Matthew’s floruit.

People don’t dispute traditional ascriptions of authorship for the hell of it - what would be the point of that ? They dispute them because they don’t see the alleged authorship as being suported in the text, or because the text is utterlyirreconcilable with the alleged authorship

What doctrines are harmed or altered ? None at all. A few ill-supported rumours are knocked on the head; that is all.

Even if all the NT had been written only in 130 AD, it would still be inspired. ==

Why contradict Tradition without a very good reason to do so…without hard evidence. We have hard evidence that Matthew did write a Gospel prior to AD 70, and the infallible decree of the Church that the Gospels are of Apostolic authorship…so why do liberals have to insist that tradition is wrong?

== There is no such infallible decree about Matthean authorship; nor any decree insisting that “Matthew” was written by an apostle. The Gospel text appears to suggest that the author was a Jew who wished to insist that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and that he wrote before the final breach with Judaism; IOW, before AD 90 or so. ==

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JimG:

I like this one:From the NAB Introduction to the Gospel of John:

"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. …

I suppose that the apostle John, who knew Jesus the Son of God, would find it ironic that in our day, we do not think him capable of highly developed theology.

== You’re taking as fact what is not certainly fact - that John son of Zebedee was the author of the Johannine Gospel.

“Developed”, means here, “having had time to develop from earlier Christologies” - that’s all. Nothing is being said about the author’s ability to have an elaborate theology - the note is concerned with the history of very early Christian doctrine; not with the ability of an evangelist to think. ==

 

[Nichevo]

Gottle of Geer:

I don’t want to be a member of a Fundamentalist sect; that it is not what I joined when I became a Catholic. I would far rather be in a Church not terrified of the modern world, such as Anglicanism. Not in a Fundy mega-sect

“I would be part of a religion that seeks to change the world rather than be changed by it.”

• G.K. Chesterton

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

From the introduction to Matthew

The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

And this is the text they are referring to.
2 “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast 2 for his son. 3 3 He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come. 4 A second time he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those invited: “Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast.”’ 5 Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. 6 The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them. **7 4 The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. **8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come. 9 Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’ 10 The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, 5 and the hall was filled with guests. 11 6 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. 12 He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. 13 7 Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ 14 Many are invited, but few are chosen.” 15 Now how do they get that this refers to the destruction of Jeruselem? Since this was a parable of Jesus does it mean that Jesus was crucified after the destruction?

 

[JimG]

Ann Cheryl:

Since this was a parable of Jesus does it mean that Jesus was crucified after the destruction?

I’ve always wondered about that. I don’t think that any of the Gospels mentions the destruction of Jerusalem as an already accomplished fact, which is why I’ve always thought that they must have been composed before 70 AD.