[quote=J_Chrysostomos]Let’s try this again (didn’t work last time, I think)
I am new here. I am a Reformed Christian who has recently been attending some functions at a Catholic church and am interested in learning about Catholicism from Catholics. I look forward to some good discussions here.
Now, here is my question. I own a copy of both the NAB Bible and the NJB. I must confess that I don’t care for a lot of the editorial introductions and notes, and this has nothing to do with them being Catholic. It seems the editors of both of these have accepted the radical view of Biblical criticism propounded by liberals a century ago and do not even consider traditionalist views.
St. Thomas Aquinas was greatly influenced by Jews & Muslims - if something is bad or suspect because its source is not Catholic, most of his works should be destroyed.
The same could be said of many of the Fathers - and of the Bible. And of much more.
For some reason, people only notice that ideas don’t come from unquestionably Catholic sources if those sources are no more than a century or two old - if a thirteenth-century professor of theology is influenced by heathens, Muslims, & Jews, that’s fine; if a twentieth-century theologian (not, of course, any theologian whom one admires; only those whom one does not admire) is influenced by non-Catholics, all Hell breaks loose.
Weird, that - and very inconsistent. Jesus was pretty radical - so were the Apostles: allowing the admission of Gentiles to the Church without requiring them to be circumcised first, caused a major rumpus. ##
:mad: My big beef (among many) is how they treat the book of Daniel. If Daniel was written by who it said it was and at that time, then it is a marvelous proof of God’s sovereignty and His control over and knowledge of the future. However, the NAB and NJB says that it was written by someone else during the Maccabean period and was presenting the past as “future”. (Those who think Daniel talks about the coming of Christ are just ignorant fundamentalists I guess.)
“Ill-informed” would be a kinder word. The book has nothing to do with the coming of Christ, any more than Esther has, or Proverbs. Yet all three books are ultimately related to Him, because He is the grand theme of the Bible. This does not mean there are no subsidiary themes in it, or that all books must be immediately Christ-related.
If this is true, then Daniel is a forgery and a fraud;
That doesn’t follow, so there’s no need to worry about *that *
would this mean that there is no place for it in the Bible? Their Holinesses Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus) and Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu) both came out in favor of the view that the Bible is inerrant. (I’m no fundamentalist - I believe in interpreting the Bible literally but NOT literalistically) Don’t these “scholars” not only malign God’s Word, but also go against what these Pontiffs have said? Are there still priests, bishops, and scholars who believe Daniel wrote Daniel?
It’s not a forgery or a fraud - it is merely not a prophetic book. It’s still inspired, “written for our learning”, and so on. It’s an example of apocalyptic writing - as is the Revelation (apocalypsis = “unveiling” = “revelation”); and some other passages in the Bible.
And inerrancy, even if true (I have to say that I find the reasoning for it utterly unconvincing - but I’m open to persuasion, if someone would only make a case for inerrancy that makes sense & is not full of holes :() is irrelevant to the date of the book. What matters is that the book is canonical & inspred: that it is part of Scripture; not its date or authorship. It is, after all, not as though the name of Daniel appears as that of the author.
The Bible is not being maligned; nor is anyone going against Papal teaching: far from it - they have been encouraged to undertake this kind of scholarly work since at least 1943. This kind of work has been called “indispensable”, in a document on the Bible in the Church that was published in 1993. They are not disobeying the Popes, but obeying them. If anyone has been maligning anyone, the less well-informed critics are the maligners; for these critics, knowing nothing of the scholars they criticise except that they do not like what they are doing, nor of why they do it, frequently accuse them of heresy; with no good reason. They do malign people - but the scholars malign no one: they have better things to do.
Other documents on the Bible: catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/index.html