Examples of NAB liberal commentaries

[JimG]

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

True, and I realize this isn’t necessarily accepted by bible scholars. But the Gospel of John does end with a claim by the one known as “the beloved disciple,” to be both a witness and author:

“It is this same disciple who is the witness to these things; it is he who wrote them down, and his testimony, we know, is true.”
–John 21:24

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

I really wasn’t asking. Just trying to point out how ridiculous it is. The thing that gets me is they always say scholars say without naming these so called scholars. It is akin to saying “they” say and no one asks who they are.

 

[MaggieOH]

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.

However, the NAB contradicts the Church tradition which has always followed Eusebeus and therefore Papias that “first came the Gospel of Matthew in the language of the Hebrew”. Eusebeus then states that this is no longer extant. That is why we only have the Greek manuscript from around AD 80.

At the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew the commentators wrote: “Although the majority of scholars now reject the opinion about the time of composition…”. The "majority of scholars are no doubt those scholars who unequivocally accept the idea of the “Q” document, even though the theory of this document has never been substantiated. The alleged rejection of the majority of scholars is based upon the notion that Matthew copied his Gospel account from Mark. For example the commentary on Matt 28:

“Except for vv 1-8, based on Mk 16, 1-8, the material of this chapter is peculiarly Mt. Even where he follows Mk, Matthew has altered his source so greatly that a very different impression is given from that of the Marcan account.” (taken from the New Catholic Translation of the NAB)

MaggieOH

 

[BayCityRickL]

twf:

…the authorship issue is just one of many comments I have come across in the footnotes that made my blood boil.

You, too? Garry Wills was on CSPAN book review yesterday and was answering questions about all his books. He’s written a lot, and he says he received the most reactions to the two books about the Church – Why I Am A Catholic, and Papal Sin: Structures of Deceipt. Most people were thanking him for saying things that needed to be said.

He remarked on a related subject that in the fourth century, most of the bishops in the Church accepted the Arian heresy, and that it was the laity who maintained and preserved the orthodoxy of faith. We should not forget this lesson from the history of our Church.

He also made a statement that you know but that you don’t hear very much, that it is not the Pope, but it is Christ who is the Head of the Church. It’s good to keep that in mind in all contexts.

 

[MaggieOH]

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?

The commentators said the following, which I find to be untenable:

" The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based in large part on the Gospel according to Mark, and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would 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 commentary then claims that the parable in Matt 22 : 1-14 is from Q. (refer notes in Chapter 22) and with this claim that the parable comes from Q the commentators then draw the long bow by claiming from this “fact” we can come to the conclusion that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that Matt 22:7 is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (obviously after the event so that there is no chance that the parable might have been prophetic, how convenient).

The commentary itself is really quite narrow in its scope because of the way that it links these parables to the destruction of Jerusalem as though they could not have been written before that date. It is narrow because it fails to take into consideration the Salvation History of Israel. Thus it is an extremely poor commentary lacking in true interpretation of the Gospel message.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

JimG:

True, and I realize this isn’t necessarily accepted by bible scholars. But the Gospel of John does end with a claim by the one known as “the beloved disciple,” to be both a witness and author:

“It is this same disciple who is the witness to these things; it is he who wrote them down, and his testimony, we know, is true.”

–John 21:24

And here is the misleading statements that come from the NAB commentary that deny that the Apostle John is the Evangelist:

“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person.”

and

“Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in the present form by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style”

and

“Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this…”

The real clincher is the final comment in John’s Gospel:

“The whole scene takes on more significance if the disciple is already dead…”

“Who… has written them: this does not necessarily mean he wrote them with his own hand.”

Personally, I find these conclusions, that have been made without complete evidence to the contrary as untenable.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

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.

You are right, the Navarre is much more satisfactory as a Bible commentary. I have been collecting the Navarre as well as the Jeff Cavins and Scott Hahn commentaries that are based upon the RSVCE.

MaggieOH

 

[Church_Militant]

The really cool thing is that I don’t have to agree or believe any of those notes if they don’t square with Church teaching. Scholars are just human and they can be wrong. Thank God for all the good guys out there teaching the truth and showing that faith is far from dead. I’m not at all afraid of scholars, and that’s a good point made about them above…liberals don’t scare me…we’ve survived everything that 2,000 years has slung at us and the current world is no different. Jesus has kept and will continue to keep His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. So as one of my favorite characters in Bud Macfarlanes books says, “Bring it on!”

Pax vobiscum all!

http://pages.prodigy.net/hauxfan/Signs/Group_3/30.gif

 

[twf]

Ann Cheryl: Interesting how we are no longer permitted to believe in prophecy.

Gottle of Gear: Why is a traditional understanding of Scripture so dangerous in your mind? Why would you rather the Church, as you implied, cave on moral issues than on a liberal understanding of Scripture? Surely no one will be damned by believing Matthew wrote the Gospel that bares his name, but many may be damned for embracing homosexuality and the like.

Not all would agree that Matthew looks like it was written later. Are you not appealing to liberal scholars? This fragment is yet another piece of evidence that Matthew pre-dates AD 70…why would anyone tamper with a Gospel (if someone else edited it later, as you suggested)? See christian-thinktank.com/litdep3.html. (Again, Protestant…sorry…but that doesn’t mean we have to throw it out the window by default). There is a quote in there where a conservative scholar asserts that there is good reason to place the authorship of Matthew between AD 64 and 66…fits pretty well with that fragment.

As for infallibly defining the authorship of Matthew…I admitt that I was wrong. Looking at the* Apostolic Constution on Divine Revelation * I see that it affirms the Apostolic origin of the Gospels, but does not actually say that the Apostles wrote the Gospels. (But neither does it say that they did not write them!)

God bless.
In Christ and Mary,
Tyler

 

[mlchance]

twf:

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?

I think we need to be a bit more careful about using the word “tradition.” It is traditional to say that Matthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name, but it is not a matter of Tradition. Now, that point aside, let’s look at your questions.

Why must “they” insist that Matthew wasn’t written by Matthew? Well, there isn’t one reason. There are at least two. First, there are scholars who have studied the documents and histories, and have honestly reached the conclusion that there isn’t much evidence to support said authorship. There is, OTOH, a lot of hearsay. This hearsay might be right; it might not be. These scholars aren’t a problem.

It’s the second group that is a problem. These scholars, such as most associated with the Jesus Seminar, have an explicit anti-Christian agenda. They seek to rewrite tradition in order to cast doubt on Tradition. It is guilt-by-association, so to speak. “The Church was wrong about Matthew’s authorship,” they say. “What else has the Church been wrong about? Maybe about sexual morality?”

And here’s why we need to more precisely separate tradition (i.e., issues of authorship) from Tradition (i.e., moral teaching about, say, sexuality). It is not possible that Tradition can err. OTOH, what is merely traditional can be in error.

== Why is there such a phobia of “liberalism” ? ==

It is engendered in large part by the unavoidable fact that too many “liberal” scholars are either outright heretics (i.e., John Dominic Crossan) or else are too loose with their explanations (i.e., the NAB commentaries, which attempt to summarize too much in too little space while assuming that the average reader has the knowledge to fill in the gaps). Matters are somewhat complicated by mainstream media hacks writing bogus material and trying to pass it off as unbiased reporting (i.e., Newsweek’s recent cover story about the Nativity).

IOW, too many people on both sides of the “debate” are treating Scripture less like a record of God’s revelation to man and more like an opportunity to score points in a political snit.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BayCityRickL]

The late Fr. Raymond E. Brown is undoubtedly like John Dominic Crossan in arguing that he is correct until you prove him wrong. That is exactly what Brown said in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary.

I don’t find the liberal/skeptical views of scripture authorship or even the related issues of skepticism of scriptural historicity to be particularly useful exegesis. We all know that there is skepticism documented internally in the gospels, and we should be in no ways surprised or overly concerned with external (i.e. modern) skepticism. An occasional footnote about skepticism would suffice.

I haven’t found an intellectual yet who would tell me exactly which pages to tear out of my Bible.