Gospel authorship question: are the NAB notes definitive?

[paul_c]

As I think has been noted in this thread, you (we, Catholics) are free to believe just about anything you want regarding the authorship and dating of the Gospels. The majority of contemporary scholarship would not come to the conclusions you do, but that’s fine. No problem. Same with “Q.” We’re free to consider it a valuable resource for Scripture scholarship, or think it’s complete drivel. To be fair, though, no matter what one individually thinks about it, “Q” is far more than a workaround to explain an order beginning with Mark. Even if one assumes Matthew is first, there is legitimate scholarly reason to hypothesize about Q. Again, though, no one has to agree with it, disagree with it, or even care, to be Catholic.

Are we still on topic with your original posting and the original subject line in the thread you started here?

Sure, the question is on Gospel authorship and whether or not the NAB version is definitive. This concerns the debate on authorship

 

[tobinatorstark]

As I think has been noted in this thread, you (we, Catholics) are free to believe just about anything you want regarding the authorship and dating of the Gospels. The majority of contemporary scholarship would not come to the conclusions you do, but that’s fine. No problem. Same with “Q.” We’re free to consider it a valuable resource for Scripture scholarship, or think it’s complete drivel. To be fair, though, no matter what one individually thinks about it, “Q” is far more than a workaround to explain an order beginning with Mark. Even if one assumes Matthew is first, there is legitimate scholarly reason to hypothesize about Q. Again, though, no one has to agree with it, disagree with it, or even care, to be Catholic.

Are we still on topic with your original posting and the original subject line in the thread you started here?

your delving into pluralism :tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

 

[Pete_Holter]

I have a copy of the New American Bible published by the USCCB. The introduction of each Gospel describes a view of authorship and timing that seems inconsistent with what I understand to be Catholic tradition. Is this really the definitive position on Gospel authorship from the Church? If not, what is it doing in the USCCB sanctioned bible? Anyone have an opinion or better yet, knowledge on this?
Here are the intro notes for each one:

Matthew:

Mark:
.

Luke:

John:

Hi Paul C!

I started interacting with the NAB introductions for John beginning
here and for 2 Peter beginning here. I lost steam and stopped in the middle of my posts on 2 Peter.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What is so hard about believeing that the common source for all the gospel accounts was the Holy Spirit?

 

[paul_c]

What is so hard about believeing that the common source for all the gospel accounts was the Holy Spirit?

That’s fine and accurate but there’s a little more to it than that, don’t you agree?

 

[diggerdomer]

your delving into pluralism :tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

Umm, sure, ok, whatever you say. No idea where you got that from or what you mean, but what’s most important and clear of course is that you’re right. Thanks for adding so much substance to the conversation.

 

[diggerdomer]

Sure, the question is on Gospel authorship and whether or not the NAB version is definitive. This concerns the debate on authorship

ok, thanks, no worries, just checking as I know these threads can easily go in many directions. thanks again.

 

[paul_c]

ok, thanks, no worries, just checking as I know these threads can easily go in many directions. thanks again.

My main concern in starting this thread is that the NAB intros seem contrary to what I read in the 1907 pbc documents as well as what Eusebius says in his Church history. I would appreciate others view on the true authorship of the Gospels as well as some understanding of how these Notes get published and under what kind of scrutiny.

 

[diggerdomer]

My main concern in starting this thread is that the NAB intros seem contrary to what I read in the 1907 pbc documents as well as what Eusebius says in his Church history. I would appreciate others view on the true authorship of the Gospels as well as some understanding of how these Notes get published and under what kind of scrutiny.

Sounds good. Sure, I’d say of course the intros in the NAB are different than a 1907 PBC instruction and different than Eusebius wrote in the 4th century. God does not stop teaching the Church. Thank God! Even the PBC in the 1990s wrote things that were different than they wrote in 1907.

Some see this as contradictory, but the Church doesn’t.

The NAB is ok. Some like it more than others. It’s not perfect (no translation is). Some like it, some like other translations. I know the bishops were particularly critical of the NAB psalm translations. Despite whatever shortcomings it has, it’s the version the Church chose to use at liturgy (in the U.S. at least) so in that respect I sure wouldn’t get overly worried about it. If you have any doubt, look at the opening pages for editors, contributors, etc., and see what Catholic info is there. As with any translation or edition. If you don’t like it for whatever reason, then don’t read it, find another translation you prefer. You’ll still have to listen to it at Mass, I guess, but hopefully that won’t be too much of a burden.

As far as theories regarding authorship, that’s a different issue than the NAB. The theories you’ll find in the NAB are mainstream contemporary scholarly theories, you’ll find Catholics and Protestants in favor of them and you’ll find Catholics and Protestants opposed to them. The Church is not hostile to scholarship, but scholarship does not determine what the Church requires us to believe.

 

[paul_c]

Sounds good. Sure, I’d say of course the intros in the NAB are different than a 1907 PBC instruction and different than Eusebius wrote in the 4th century. God does not stop teaching the Church. Thank God! Even the PBC in the 1990s wrote things that were different than they wrote in 1907.

Some see this as contradictory, but the Church doesn’t.

The NAB is ok. Some like it more than others. It’s not perfect (no translation is). Some like it, some like other translations. I know the bishops were particularly critical of the NAB psalm translations. Despite whatever shortcomings it has, it’s the version the Church chose to use at liturgy (in the U.S. at least) so in that respect I sure wouldn’t get overly worried about it. If you have any doubt, look at the opening pages for editors, contributors, etc., and see what Catholic info is there. As with any translation or edition. If you don’t like it for whatever reason, then don’t read it, find another translation you prefer. You’ll still have to listen to it at Mass, I guess, but hopefully that won’t be too much of a burden.

As far as theories regarding authorship, that’s a different issue than the NAB. The theories you’ll find in the NAB are mainstream contemporary scholarly theories, you’ll find Catholics and Protestants in favor of them and you’ll find Catholics and Protestants opposed to them. The Church is not hostile to scholarship, but scholarship does not determine what the Church requires us to believe.

I have no problem with the actual translation. My issue is with the intros and crib notes. Sometimes I feel like they were written by non-believers. I also have a hard time understanding how the Church view on Gospel writers could change after 1900 years, given no new archeological finds. Now, I understand fully that Church doctrine is not effected by who actually wrote the Gospels, and that’s a good thing. But to me there is a credibility issue and a consistency issue involved. Why do we beleive the doctrinal opinions of the early church fathers, yet discard their views on who wrote the Gospels? To me, this makes no sense.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Umm, sure, ok, whatever you say. No idea where you got that from or what you mean, but what’s most important and clear of course is that you’re right. Thanks for adding so much substance to the conversation.

I suggest you look it up. Catholics are not free to believe what we want to believe

 

[paul_c]

I suggest you look it up. Catholics are not free to believe what we want to believe

I agree with this. This is why I find the NAB intros so troubling…

 

[tobinatorstark]

I agree with this. This is why I find the NAB intros so troubling…

The NAB may be nice for beginners to read and understand, but it lacks when one is serious about their faith and want to enhance it. I am not trying to discourage anyone from reading the NAB, but I am discouraging people from reading the Intros, footnotes and the how to read your Bible. I would however recommend reading the Vatican II Constitution.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have no problem with the actual translation. My issue is with the intros and crib notes. Sometimes I feel like they were written by non-believers. I also have a hard time understanding how the Church view on Gospel writers could change after 1900 years, given no new archeological finds. Now, I understand fully that Church doctrine is not effected by who actually wrote the Gospels, and that’s a good thing. But to me there is a credibility issue and a consistency issue involved. Why do we beleive the doctrinal opinions of the early church fathers, yet discard their views on who wrote the Gospels? To me, this makes no sense.

But there have been a lot of archaeological discoveries! Especially in the 18th-20th centuries.

I’m not sure we discard their views, entirely, on who wrote the Gospels, but we recognize that their opinion and understanding was a product of their times, for better/worse, and not necessarily “objectively” and “historically” true in the sense we tend to use those words.

e.g. Church fathers may have had opinions on biology, but we don’t cling to them unthinkingly in light of scientific advances over 1900 years.

What they claim was true, and the Church has always held as true, is that the Scriptures are true and were authored by the Apostolic Church. It’s not simply either/or (e.g. either the CHurch fathers were right or contemporary scholars are right).

 

[diggerdomer]

Catholics are not free to believe what we want to believe

I never said Catholics were. Look it up yourself.

You are once again either intentionally misreading me, or jumping to conclusions and reading into what I wrote your own presuppositions, or picking and choosing isolated out of context comments and running with them. Or maybe worse, I don’t know, but you throw out lines like that so irresponsibly and inaccurately that it effectively precludes any rational, substantive conversation with you.

Please, if you want to continue any dialogue do a better job of responding to what is being said here, not just what you think someone is saying. If you have a question about what I mean, or am saying, just simply ask me for clarification. No need to assume the worst of people, or throw out unfounded (implicit) accusations (like claiming I think Catholics are free to believe whatever we want).

If not, that is fine too, no worries, just ignore and don’t comment to anything I post.

 

[tobinatorstark]

As I think has been noted in this thread, you (we, Catholics) are free to believe just about anything you want regarding the authorship and dating of the Gospels.

Pluralism and Cafeteria Catholic beliefs

I never said Catholics were. Look it up yourself.

You are once again either intentionally misreading me, or jumping to conclusions and reading into what I wrote your own presuppositions, or picking and choosing isolated out of context comments and running with them. Or maybe worse, I don’t know, but you throw out lines like that so irresponsibly and inaccurately that it effectively precludes any rational, substantive conversation with you.

Please, if you want to continue any dialogue do a better job of responding to what is being said here, not just what you think someone is saying. If you have a question about what I mean, or am saying, just simply ask me for clarification. No need to assume the worst of people, or throw out unfounded (implicit) accusations (like claiming I think Catholics are free to believe whatever we want).

If not, that is fine too, no worries, just ignore and don’t comment to anything I post.

You failed to see your error. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe in Catholicism. If you want see where I have done wrong in this forum, I suggest doing a search on RSV-CE. There you will spot my errors. Believe me there will be a time that we will agree on something. I have to lay down the law and get serious when the faith is at steak. I have God, Fr. Mitch, Fr. Corapi, Mother Angelica among others to thank for their kind words of wisdom for me to bear fruit and you to bear even more fruit.

 

[tobinatorstark]

But there have been a lot of archaeological discoveries! Especially in the 18th-20th centuries.

I’m not sure we discard their views, entirely, on who wrote the Gospels, but we recognize that their opinion and understanding was a product of their times, for better/worse, and not necessarily “objectively” and “historically” true in the sense we tend to use those words.

e.g. Church fathers may have had opinions on biology, but we don’t cling to them unthinkingly in light of scientific advances over 1900 years.

What they claim was true, and the Church has always held as true, is that the Scriptures are true and were authored by the Apostolic Church. It’s not simply either/or (e.g. either the CHurch fathers were right or contemporary scholars are right).

Still we don’t care what the archaeologist think who wrote the scriptures. We care what the Church thinks on who wrote them. Putting man ahead of God is wrong in that sense. We must believe the Church and not man. All trust in God. No trust in man. I assume you what I am talking about when I say trust. If not, read The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A Kempis, if you have ever heard of him and his book.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I have a copy of the New American Bible published by the USCCB. The introduction of each Gospel describes a view of authorship and timing that seems inconsistent with what I understand to be Catholic tradition. Is this really the definitive position on Gospel authorship from the Church? If not, what is it doing in the USCCB sanctioned bible? Anyone have an opinion or better yet, knowledge on this?
Here are the intro notes for each one:

Matthew:

Mark:
.

Luke:

John:

Some of Keating’s theologians might say that the footnotes of the Old and New Testament Committees are binding, and in a sense they are: As expressions of a group approved by a committee of local ordinaries, they are entitled to respect to an articulable extent. But, some of the “local ordinaries” “went south” on us lay people in the Reformation. Therefore, they are subject to the condition that, yes, we are bound “unless in good conscience we can cite an articulable objection to their teaching.”

It would take a ton of work to find an example, but I know that I can: Very occasionally, the footnotes are dead wrong.

So, IMHO, the footnotes are entitled to respect as articulations of the Magisterium unless you can cite an articulable reason why they are wrong. Then, in good conscience, you may disagree.

 

[mccorm45]

Pluralism and Cafeteria Catholic beliefs

You failed to see your error. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe in Catholicism. If you want see where I have done wrong in this forum, I suggest doing a search on RSV-CE. There you will spot my errors. Believe me there will be a time that we will agree on something. I have to lay down the law and get serious when the faith is at steak. I have God, Fr. Mitch, Fr. Corapi, Mother Angelica among others to thank for their kind words of wisdom for me to bear fruit and you to bear even more fruit.

Tobinator,

This has nothing to do with pluralism or cafeteria Catholic beliefs. We are not talking about defined dogmas, ordinary or extraordinary teachings of the Church, creeds, or specific Biblical texts. There are many orthodox Catholics who disagree about certain dating and authorship in particular books of the Bible. That doesn’t make them cafeteria Catholics. The main thing that we must adhere to is that the Biblical books that have been defined as being in the Biblical canon are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are truly the Word of God.

Perhaps you don’t agree with the various methods of Biblical scholarship, like the historical-critical method. Are there some out there that abuse it? Yes, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. Pope Benedict, in his recent book “Jesus of Nazareth”, states that the Historical Critical method “is an indispensable tool” (XVI). Certainly use of the Historical Critical method, which helps us determine authorship and dating, need to be used in tandum with the principles set down by Dei Verbum:

1. Be attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture. (Canonical criticism basically)
2. Reading the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church
3. Be attentive to the analogy of the faith. (Those coherence of truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation)

Perhaps, you should do yourself a favor and do a little reading to see what the Church teaches. Here are a few suggestions:

Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

Historicity of the Gospels:
ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcgospl.htm

 

[tobinatorstark]

Tobinator,

This has nothing to do with pluralism or cafeteria Catholic beliefs. We are not talking about defined dogmas, ordinary or extraordinary teachings of the Church, creeds, or specific Biblical texts. There are many orthodox Catholics who disagree about certain dating and authorship in particular books of the Bible. That doesn’t make them cafeteria Catholics. The main thing that we must adhere to is that the Biblical books that have been defined as being in the Biblical canon are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are truly the Word of God.

Perhaps you don’t agree with the various methods of Biblical scholarship, like the historical-critical method. Are there some out there that abuse it? Yes, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. Pope Benedict, in his recent book “Jesus of Nazareth”, states that the Historical Critical method “is an indispensable tool” (XVI). Certainly use of the Historical Critical method, which helps us determine authorship and dating, need to be used in tandum with the principles set down by Dei Verbum:

1. Be attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture. (Canonical criticism basically)
2. Reading the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church
3. Be attentive to the analogy of the faith. (Those coherence of truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation)

Perhaps, you should do yourself a favor and do a little reading to see what the Church teaches. Here are a few suggestions:

Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

Historicity of the Gospels:
ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcgospl.htm

Thanks for the links. I love reading material