Why Do the Notes and Introductions in the NAB read like a non believer wrote them?

[Estevao]

Most “catholic” colleges are not worth the name. Take for instance Notre Dame. Top pop atheist Sam Harris and William Lane Craig had a debate there in 2011, and after Sam Harris was paid a speaking fee of $25,000 along with other expenses and then proceeded to dodge the topic of the debate entirely and talk about his sophmoric views on Christianity, bash several Catholic teachings, and bring up a slew of other red herrings, the students at this so-called Catholic university got up and demonstrated what a so-called Catholic education is doing for them by asking typical new atheist gotcha questions during the Q&A.

Given this state of affairs, I wouldn’t be so hopeful that the notes of the new NAB by whatever “catholic” organ produces it would be any better. However, after studying the frantic speculation of modern biblical “scholarship” take failed form after failed form for centuries now, while orthodox views still stand strong and get continually confirmed by outside evidence, I’m not really worried. As Christ said, his church will not fail.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

.
Can it not still be considered sacred scripture, even if it was written in the 5th Century?

.

That would be up to a church council. And they were not written in the 5th century.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

Are these Theology/Religion courses supposed to be classes teaching the Catholic faith and Catholic orthodoxy? Like RCIA?
Even though they are courses given in Catholic-linked Universities, I think these specific courses are not meant to stick to what the church teaches…but to examine the evolution of religion step-by-step from a historical, psychological, political, contextual perspective–which often yields a different point of view on some ideas, yes, from what a church might teach.

I spotted several items on your list that I think are true. And the professors who teach these times do give research, reason, and support for them that, IMO, are solid.

I strongly disagree that there are some courses “specifically designed to get young students to lose their faith”.
These schools and professors have no interest, time, or energy to concern themselves with such an endeavour. This is not some sort of conspiracy.
If a person’s faith is strong, why would one academic course get in the way of that? Faith isn’t based on proven facts and academia.

At the same time, we have learned, excavated, discovered a lot of new facts in the last few centuries about the past…and if a professor is teaching something new that has very good evidence that supports it to be true, would you not want to know about it?
Or would you want people to just close their eyes and mind to it?

If belief in a religion is so tenuous that one has to be afraid to hear other opinions and isolate themselves in order to keep it…what good is that?

On the flip side…there is a chance, ya know, that if such a majority of learned scholars who have studied religion and sacred scriptures in detail, intensity, in different languages, and inside-out for their entire careers are agreeing on an issue and standing up in front of thousands of people to teach it…there is a decent chance that they *just might *know something that you don’t–
–whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not.

.

Either you are naive or you are one of them.

 

[Gorgias]

Either you are naive or you are one of them.

That seems to be an uncharitable conclusion. DaddyGirl doesn’t identify as a Catholic; therefore, she is neither a naive Catholic nor necessarily someone trying to deceive Catholics. I can’t say that I agree with her assertions, but if she’s honestly discerning, then I think we owe her the opportunity to talk about what she’s having problems with, so that we might have the chance to talk about why we believe what we believe.

 

[pnewton]

That seems to be an uncharitable conclusion. DaddyGirl doesn’t identify as a Catholic; therefore, she is neither a naive Catholic nor necessarily someone trying to deceive Catholics. I can’t say that I agree with her assertions, but if she’s honestly discerning, then I think we owe her the opportunity to talk about what she’s having problems with, so that we might have the chance to talk about why we believe what we believe.

Perhaps simply “mistaken” would have been a better term. I think the basic underlying assumption in the list above is that they are all logical conclusions if one discounts the existence of God and any possibility of the miraculous.

I think the problem arises when this sort on information is presented in the context of acceptable Catholic theology as opposed to an intrusion of atheism. Professors do operate from a position of authority and can be wolves in sheep’s clothes who deliberately lead astray young minds. Yes, if one has a strong faith they will see the underlying fallacy. Not all young person has such faith. Blaming them is akin to saying that young men molested by priests wouldn’t have been if they had just stood up for themselves. Authority has a way of preying on the weak when it is misused.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Perhaps simply “mistaken” would have been a better term. I think the basic underlying assumption in the list above is that they are all logical conclusions if one discounts the existence of God and any possibility of the miraculous.

I think the problem arises when this sort on information is presented in the context of acceptable Catholic theology as opposed to an intrusion of atheism. Professors do operate from a position of authority and can be wolves in sheep’s clothes who deliberately lead astray young minds. Yes, if one has a strong faith they will see the underlying fallacy. Not all young person has such faith. Blaming them is akin to saying that young men molested by priests wouldn’t have been if they had just stood up for themselves. Authority has a way of preying on the weak when it is misused./g. Authority has a way of preying on the weak when it is misused. Boy, ain’t that the truth!

 

[LegoGE1947]

Perhaps simply “mistaken” would have been a better term. I think the basic underlying assumption in the list above is that they are all logical conclusions if one discounts the existence of God and any possibility of the miraculous.

I think the problem arises when this sort on information is presented in the context of acceptable Catholic theology as opposed to an intrusion of atheism. Professors do operate from a position of authority and can be wolves in sheep’s clothes who deliberately lead astray young minds. Yes, if one has a strong faith they will see the underlying fallacy. Not all young person has such faith. Blaming them is akin to saying that young men molested by priests wouldn’t have been if they had just stood up for themselves. Authority has a way of preying on the weak when it is misused.

Authority has a way of preying on the weak when it is misused.

Boy! You said a mouthful there!

 

[ianjmatt]

There is a difference between catechesis and academic theology. One is disseminating the teaching of the Church whereas theology needs to allow free and full debate, unafraid of enquiry, scepticism and doubt. A theologian needs to be able to face difficult and challenging arguments head-on. As such, examining theories about the development of religion, critical textual analysis and similar disciplines are all valid.

 

[CalCatholic]

In front of the whole class the following has been asserted by my theology teacher :

The Trinity was an invention.
The gospels come from a Roman culture of many gods, they are not Jewish in origin.
None of the NT writers knew Jesus.
There was no structural church until Constantine. He changed the face of Christianity and invented many beliefs.
The church was only one strand of Christianity. They brutally repressed other strands and the NT is no more authoritative than rejected texts such as The Gospel of Thomas.
The Catholic Church ‘always wants to be different’ that is why they have different books in their bible as compared to protestants.
There are no miracles. Neither in biblical times nor today. They are believed by unsophisticated ‘pious’ folk.
There was no prophecy in the Bible pointing to Jesus. This was all read in afterwards by ‘pious’ folk.
The gospels evolved over time with each community changing them to suit their current needs and prejudices.
Luke’s gospel was largely written by women. If the Church had known this they wouldn’t have included it in the cannon of scripture.
The story of Adam and Eve was originally a story of how snakes came to be and the snake was originally a good character who wanted the best for mankind before the story was changed.
The movie ‘Life of Brian’ is a better resource for understanding religion than the bible. She told us how she had spoke with her husband the night before about screening the movie during Theology class.
John Cornwell’s book Hitler’s Pope is a fair and important critique of the Catholic Church.
The movie The Da Vinci code does a good job at uncovering a lot of errors in the Catholic church.
Mary was not a virgin. The virgin birth makes no sense, there was no prophecy about a virgin giving birth, Mary bore other children, not just Jesus. James was the full brother of Jesus.
The patriarchal Church made up the virgin story to control and repress women.
Jesus also had 12 women apostles but they were ‘written-out’ of the gospels by a women hating male Church.
Priests are not allowed to marry so that they will be easier to control.
The gospel genealogies through Joseph makes no sense unless Jesus was the biological son of Joseph.
The idea that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph was probably written in later to ‘give’ Jesus more authority and fit incorrect interpretations of ‘pious’ ideas of prophecy.
It was Peter’s faith that Jesus sad the Church will be built on. This was not Jesus instituting the Papacy.
The Catholic Church started the wars of the Crusades against a peaceful Islamic civilisation and this is a big part of the current problems with terrorism.
Other world religions should be taught during Catholic religion class so as to give students a more rounded understanding of religion.
and at another time … it might be better to remove Jesus from the religion class and assert a more universal teaching of secular ethics so that students do not grow up different from their secular peers.
Her university students have a much more educated view of Christianity than the average priest.

**There are extremists in every field of study, and IMHO your theology professor is absolutely one of them! **But this is not representative of the mainstream Catholic historical-critical teachings that I have come into contact with or have studied.

I came into the Church as a convert ten years ago, with historical-critical teachings as the base of my instruction. I attended a three Catholic Bible Institute at a local Catholic University. The Bible Institute was historical-critical based instruction, which included instructors such as; Fr. Donald Senior (editor of the Catholic Study Bible), Fr. Lawrence Boadt and numerous other scholars from around the country (who teach the with the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation). I also have continually attended numerous other classes and seminars over the last ten years, and I have to say that almost all that your theology professor taught above, I have never been taught or heard it discussed.

***I highlighted the above topics that I have heard discussed in a classroom setting or read in my studies.

I am sorry that you or anyone else should have been subjected to the above bitter ideological rant!

 

[pnewton]

There is a difference between catechesis and academic theology.

The thought occurred to me that the list above may have been presented as academic difficulties. I guess since I wasn’t there, I can only say that no Catholic professor should be presenting most of those as real possibilities.

 

[glendab]

Keep in Mind that those who study the Koran till they have degrees are also considered Scripture Scholars and Doctors of Divinity. A PhD doesn’t mean a person is either right nor infallible. Anyone with enough time and money and the inclination to do so can get a degree in Theology. Faithfulness doesn’t come with it. They can tie you up in words quicker than spit but those words are the product of smarts not hearts.

I came to the Church after reading a Bible. I was such a smart-as*** skeptic that I read a Bible cover to cover like a novel to find out if it was right. At least that was my intention. By the time I got to the Gospels I was knocked to my knees and pounding on the Rectory door to ask about becoming a Catholic. I read an old copy of a King James Version with the Olde English and all the yeas and Thous and nays in it. I needed my Shakespeare Dictionary to get through it all. It was hilarious. THE MESSAGE CAME THROUGH because God is the Author of the Scriptures and His WORD is ALIVE and cuts to the heart and does the work for which He was sent. When I enrolled in RCIA I was given a copy of the NAB and was shocked by some of the things said in the notes. I was so upset I began to look for answers.

This thread reminds me of some of the stuff I went through searching for my answer. It lead to me getting more than one Bible and studying and even taking up Latin so I could compare stuff in the NAB to the Latin and other copies. I’ve learned quite a bit since then. Once in a while I still get caught up in the debates and critiques of Scripture and the problems it can cause for some. But then I have to remember the whole reason for reading the Bible: to get to know God better so I can love Him better. Without love the Bible is just a dead letter and the book itself could be used for a doorstop. Support you Scripture studies with prayer. And don’t be a fool. The NOTES WERE WRITTEN BY MEN and aren’t supposed to be taken as Scripture.

Please Eyes, don’t let 'em get to you. Love the Word. He already loves you. And don’t forget why you coming to the Church. Not every one in the pews believes the same as you but you gotta love 'em anyway. Sad but true.

Glenda

 

[LegoGE1947]

Keep in Mind that those who study the Koran till they have degrees are also considered Scripture Scholars and Doctors of Divinity. A PhD doesn’t mean a person is either right nor infallible. Anyone with enough time and money and the inclination to do so can get a degree in Theology. Faithfulness doesn’t come with it. They can tie you up in words quicker than spit but those words are the product of smarts not hearts.

I came to the Church after reading a Bible. I was such a smart-as*** skeptic that I read a Bible cover to cover like a novel to find out if it was right. At least that was my intention. By the time I got to the Gospels I was knocked to my knees and pounding on the Rectory door to ask about becoming a Catholic. I read an old copy of a King James Version with the Olde English and all the yeas and Thous and nays in it. I needed my Shakespeare Dictionary to get through it all. It was hilarious. THE MESSAGE CAME THROUGH because God is the Author of the Scriptures and His WORD is ALIVE and cuts to the heart and does the work for which He was sent. When I enrolled in RCIA I was given a copy of the NAB and was shocked by some of the things said in the notes. I was so upset I began to look for answers.

This thread reminds me of some of the stuff I went through searching for my answer. It lead to me getting more than one Bible and studying and even taking up Latin so I could compare stuff in the NAB to the Latin and other copies. I’ve learned quite a bit since then. Once in a while I still get caught up in the debates and critiques of Scripture and the problems it can cause for some. But then I have to remember the whole reason for reading the Bible: to get to know God better so I can love Him better. Without love the Bible is just a dead letter and the book itself could be used for a doorstop. Support you Scripture studies with prayer. And don’t be a fool. The NOTES WERE WRITTEN BY MEN and aren’t supposed to be taken as Scripture.

Please Eyes, don’t let 'em get to you. Love the Word. He already loves you. And don’t forget why you coming to the Church. Not every one in the pews believes the same as you but you gotta love 'em anyway. Sad but true.

Glenda

The same applies to any “study” Bible. It is only the Bible text that is Scripture, not any notes. In fact, originally the Bible wasn’t even divided into chapters and verses! And in some cases no punctuation either!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How do you think the vote total would be if the USCCB had an up or down vote on the NAB’s notes and introductions?

I would trust the bishops to write better notes and introductions than the people who wrote the notes and introductions for the NAB.

I wonder how many notes would be eliminated or changed if it was up to Pope Francis?