No, it’s a brand new translation, a fact which Bob spends several pages promoting in the first volume.
Uh … does anyone else think this is a little weird? CAI’s “Media Technician” is fielding questions about the canonical issues involved in issuing a new translation and commentary?
Was Bob not available for comment, again?
Wonderful! So when can we expect Bob to issue a recall of volume 1, and refund everyone their money? Or, at the very least, when can we expect him to stop selling the illicit product on his web site?
No, he needs to pull the product and recall the canonically illicit text.
Think he’ll do that, Mark?
You say you’ve read CASB 2 “cover to cover”, and at least parts of CASB 1. Did you notice that Bob did an about-face in his interpretation of apocalyptic events and dating issues?
Here’s what he says in CASB 1:
The opposing view holds that although much of the New Testament was written prior to 70 AD, the Apocolypse was written about 95-96 AD. Evidence fo this view originates with Irenaeus in Against Heresies (5, 30, 3) and is reiterated by Eusebius in Church History (Bk 3, Ch 32). It is admitted by proponents of this view, however, that Irenaeus’ language is ambiguous and that he is the lone witness for the assertion, thus leaving doubt as to its significance
Oddly enough, this very same view, which in CASB 1 is said to be based on “ambiguous” language from a “lone witness” whose work leaves “doubt as to its significance,” is now the stated view of Bob Sungenis in CASB 2:
The traditional view is that the Apocalypse was written between the years 95 AD and 97 AD, during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. One of the major patristic witnesses to this late dating is Irenaeus who, in his monumental work, ‘Against Heresies’, states that the Apocalypse was written ‘toward the end of Domitian’s reign’ … [other patritic witnesses are mentioned] …It is this traditional dating that the CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS STUDY BIBLE, THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN, adopts as its guiding authority as such, the apocalypse will not be interpreted as the demise of Israel.
So, from “lone witness” and “doubtful significance” and “ambiguous language”, we have now arrived at “traditional view”, “monumental work”, “major patristic witness”, and “guiding authority”.
Let’s look at another issue!
Here is Bob, circa 2006-2007, in CASB 2:
… there are two kinds of apocalyptic language. The first speaks of the effects upon the sun and the moon, while the second of the effects upon the sun, the moon and stars. Whenever the stars are involved in the cataclysm, we can be rather certain that the text is describing the physical end of the world.
Got that? When the stars are involved, we’re talking about the end of the world - and not, as the first quote said, about the “demise of Israel.”
Now let’s ask the Bob Sungenis who wrote CASB 1 what he thinks:
“Many of the references to the darkening of the sun, stars and moon are used as figures of judgment upon Israel (Is 5:30; 24:23, 34:4, Jl 2:10, 3:15), although each can be understood as literally fulfilled at the end of time when the universe will be destroyed. The complete destruction is denoted by the specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated (Is 13:10; Jl 2:10, 3:15, :l 21:25; Ac 27:20; Ap 6:13)”
Notice what passages he references as examples of “figures of judgment upon Israel”?
And notice what passages he references as examples of “complete destruction”?
In both cases, he refers to Joel 2:10 and 3:15, so apparently verses that have the “specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated” (ie. Jl 2:10, 3:15) can also be understood “as figures of judgment upon Israel.”
At least, that is, if you’re reading CASB 1. If you’re reading CASB 2, it’s a different story.
Two volumes. Two different translations, one of them failing to live up to what the author promised. Two different views of how to interpret prophecy and understand the dating of the Apocalypse.
And yet … one author.
Who in their right mind would recommend this CASB?