A
angel12
Guest
Not if they thought it was by St.Peter.
Why do People Dislike the New American Bible (NAB)?
- Thread starter catholic03
- Start date
- Status
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Ditto. I know a lot of people that don’t care for the NRSV-CE, but I am grateful for it, as it got me into reading the Bible. As for the original post, I don’t know, the footnotes seem to be a problem, and I feel kind of like it talks down to me, like “you’re not smart enough to read a more literal version”. That’s just my opinion. Different people have different preferences.
But if the Church now believes it was not from St. Peter, then it needs to be removed from the Bible right away. Fortunately, the Church and most of the faithful still believe that the letter is from St. Peter so to express contrary thoughts and speculation (and that’s what it really is: just academic speculation) into the introduction of the letter of St. Peter’s letter is simply appalling.PeterT:
Not if they thought it was by St.Peter.
D
Dovekin
Guest
There are many accounts of these events.
Based on the testimony of “the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”
“Everything from the beginning” means at least “what was handed down to us.” It may also mean more, but why would he ignore the existing accounts based on initial eyewitness testimony? If he did ignore them, how could he claim to have investigated everything?
Given the overlap of Luke with Mark and with Matthew, it appears the accounts he used included them or some earlier version of them. And he cut and pasted at least from from Mark. Compare chapters 4 & 5 of Mark with Luke 8.
The synoptics are called synoptics because they see events with the same eyes, syn-optics. John is not a synoptic because he sees things differently, which means it is hard to make a case that he is copying from the others. While he used parts of the Passion, they are portrayed as glorifiication in a away not seen in the synoptics. So I do not know what you are trying to say here.
A
angel12
Guest
I’d rather have honest scholarship. If St. Peter didn’t physically write it himself, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t inspired by his teaching, or even by earlier letter/letters that he did write and are now lost.
The honest scholarship that you refer to is just academic conjecture and speculation with the hubris of the modern scholars thinking that they know more of the authorship of those letters than the educated men and scholars of the Early Church closer to the time that those letters were written.PeterT:
I’d rather have honest scholarship. If St. Peter didn’t physically write it himself, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t inspired by his teaching, or even by earlier letter/letters that he did write and are now lost.
Simply put, there’s no hard proof that Saint Peter didn’t write it.
And in specific regards to the 2nd Letter of Saint Peter, because of its contents (the author of that letter claims to be an eyewitness to Christ’s Transfiguration), if the author was NOT St. Peter (or possibly St. John or St. James), then the author of that letter BOAR FALSE WITNESS and the author committed a grave sin against the 8th Commandment. And how can any document that states a flat out lie be considered sacred and holy by God’s church?
That’s why if the Church did discover that the 2nd Letter of Saint Peter was NOT written by him, it should be duty bound to remove that letter from the Holy Canon of the Bible.
C
C.Longinus
Guest
As I stated, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written independently from each other for different audiences.
John, however seems to be written by someone who has accurate knowledge of the Synoptics and has a keen intent on filling in the blanks.
C
C.Longinus
Guest
Christian tradition puts Peter and Paul in Rome. So it might be that Luke had time to talk to Peter while in Rome. So not necessarily copy and paste, just similar source material.
One thing to note about the four Gospel: three of the four were based on eyewitness accounts told to the writers of the actual gospels. That’s why in the Catholic Church, the Gospels are always called: “The Holy Gospel according to …” not “The Holy Gospel written by…”
The Gospel of Matthew is based on the eyewitness testimony of St. Matthew. Did Matthew write the initial version of his Gospel? That’s debatable, but that gospel is based — in most part— on Matthew’s testimony and eyewitness account.
The Gospel of John likewise is based on the eyewitness testimony of St. John. That’s doesn’t mean that St. John necessarily wrote the actual words of his Gospel but only that the Gospel according to John was based on St. John’s testimony and teachings.
The Gospel of Mark is traditionally thought to be based on the testimony of St. Peter, who Mark assisted and was one of his travel companions. It’s pretty clear though that Mark was the author of this Gospel, otherwise why would the authorship be attributed to him: a mere assistant to St. Peter but not an apostle himself.
Only the Gospel of Luke appears to be a compilation of second-hand sources, thoroughly vetted by St. Luke before being included into his Gospel. Luke was a companion of St. Paul, but like St. Paul, he never was an eyewitness to Christ before Our Lord’s resurrection.
Last edited:
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
& that’s all it is. No reason to pull it out of the bible. Does not mean you have to believe it. Really not worth the animosity it’s getting. It’s just recognition there is a discussion & the “evidence” is plausible.
ralfyman
New member
By “incomplete,” I mean corrections and other revisions that need to be made, that is, following statements like, “Because no translation of the Bible is perfect or is acceptable to all groups of readers, and because discoveries of older manuscripts and further investigation of linguistic features of the text continue to become available…” There are some examples starting with the paragraph that starts with, “For the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament…”
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
John A.T. Robinson and Michael J. Kruger both make great cases for the traditional authorship of 2 Peter. The NAB smugly affirms that our first Pope had nothing to do with it. But then again, the NAB rarely affirms any traditional authorship for any book of the Bible.
D
DoGodsBidding1
Guest
Just purchased the RSV based on this comment. Found a nice travel version that I will be using later this year. I have looked ar a couple of passages from the New Testament and I see a slight difference. I am looking forward to getting deeper into this Bible.
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
Every time an RSV or other orthodox version of a Bible is purchased and used in place of the NAB is a victory for Catholics.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I have NAB and now I’m starting to feel ashamed. The footnotes always seemed off too.
Last edited:
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
I just read it again. It does not smugly affirm anything. It states there was opposition to inclusion in the canon as early as the third century. It affirms it is different from 1 Peter in several ways which is why the question of authorship arose in the first place. Then affirms it was decided that it should be included regardless.
The translation of the current version of the NAB, the NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition) is fine overall. There’s still some rough spots like Genesis 1:2, but I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. Just skip the Introductions and take the footnotes with a large grain of salt.
Catholics just need to purchase the Catholic Editions of the RSV (either the RSV-CE or the RSV-2CE). Both Catholic editions of the RSV are widely available.
One should note that when the Vatican quotes Holy Scripture in its documents (including the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)), it uses the RSV (CE or 2CE) for the English translation of the document. It’s doesn’t use the NAB (and its variants) nor the Jerusalem Bible (JB) and its variants nor the NRSV-CE. The Vatican’s English translation of choice is the RSV.
- Status