Well I definitely agree with you that translations can be problematic, biased and agenda-ridden.

You leave the impression that the only teachings binding on Catholics are infallible declaration by popes. According to most authorities, there have only been two such teachings—the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. There is an entire body of Catholic dogma and doctrine to which Catholics must assent that has nothing to do with papal pronouncements or the assertion of papal infallibility.

No one is obliged to accept the scholarly notes in the NAB as dogmatic or doctrinal statements. I believe you objected earlier because the NAB does not affirm that the Gosspel of Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle. Here is an excerpt from the Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew:

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

As far as I am aware, nothing said above conflicts with any authoritative teaching of the Church, nor does this kind of scholarly investigation claim to be binding Catholic teaching. You are free to believe that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel that bears his name, and other Catholics are free to believe the consensus view of modern scholars as described in the NAB.

What seems to me problematic for conservative Catholics is to accuse the USCCB of promulgating heresy by approving the NAB. (I am not saying you have made such accusations, but I have seen others say such things.) It is one thing to accuse the bishops of the USCCB of being too accepting of modern scholarship. It is quite another thing to accuse bishops of heresy!

The magisterium laid out the limits of infallibility in the first vatican council of 1870. It does not extend to not criticizing a bible translation sponsored by the USCCB. So I am not deciding whether or not this is an issue where I may disagree with the bishops. The church has said it is.

Randy, this is an old post but statements like this are beyond frustrating to me.

"The New American Bible is a bit of a fiasco. Stuff like that happens. Infallibility does not guarantee the church never makes a misstep. It guarantees the church will eventually be led into truth. "

Here you have set yourself up as the arbiter of truth, setting yourself above the bishops and pope. You're creating your own version of Christianity here and labeling as orthodox.

Doesn't matter to me if you start your own flavor of Christianity, but to imply that your and only your version of Christianity is correct? That's hubris.

I see this as you playing the shell game with Truth.
First, The bible is the authority.
Then, wait, tradition is also an authority on matters the bible doesn't explicate.
And the Magisterium is the authority when the Bible/and or tradition are not clear.
Fine. But now Randy is the authority when Randy doesn't agree with the Magisterium?

I'm all for arguing with the Church, but your position is setting up your own religion.

The church is “too certain” because by definition that’s what they do. They ARE certain because of their undoubting faith. Faith is certainty regardless of any proof.

The concept of "likely" is more intuitive.

I can work with that.

Adding numbers to it does not make it less so.

What the numbers add is a way to test our intuitions for consistency. If I affirm in good faith that I have no more prima facie reason to disbelieve than to believe the proposition that the traditional attributions of gospel authors are correct (meaning that I accept a prior probability of 0.5), and if I also affirm the reasonableness of any intuition making P(E|H) > P(E|~H), then I contradict myself if I deny the reasonableness of believing the traditional attributions. If the consequent probability turns out to be (just to pick a number) 0.7, and I still insist, “No disciple of Jesus had anything to do with writing the gospels,” then logically speaking, I’m in a heap of trouble.

Sometimes it helps when you have some evidence that has really solid probability numbers associated with it.

It helps to settle disputes about whether or how much the evidence actually supports the hypothesis. If the disputants both accept a certain prior probability for the hypothesis but cannot agree at all on appropriate estimates for P(E|H) or P(E|~H), then they at least have exposed the actual basis of their disagreement about the consequent probability. And if they wish to continue their dialogue, then they now know exactly what it should focus on.

You mentioned in a previous post:

I program computers for a living. People say that it does not matter if all the numbers you enter are guesswork. Once you put them in a computer and output it in a fancy way nobody dares argue with it.

That sometimes happens, but a conspicuous counterexample would be the controversy over The Limits to Growth following its publication in 1972. A computer model, like any other model, has some assumptions built in to it, and you can question any output by questioning the assumptions on which it depends. But if you’re going to do that, it’s a really good move to identify the particular assumption you’re challenging and offer a reason for challenging it. The simple objection “One of your assumptions must be wrong” isn’t going to get you very far, at least for rhetorical purposes.

The concept of "likely" is more intuitive. Adding numbers to it does not make it less so. Sometimes it helps when you have some evidence that has really solid probability numbers associated with it. Then you can calculate how sure you have to be about your intuitive data to tip the scales the other way.

I am not sure if there was a Hebrew version of Matthew out there and of the Greek version is the same or not. It is an interesting question. My point is Irenaeus defended the 4 gospels not because that was the official Christian position. It wasn't yet. He simply knew what he knew based on what the previous generation of Christians knew. He talks about being schooled by Polycarp. Scholars tend to distrust Christians simply because they are Christians.

You seem to be very focused on the majority of scholars. It seems like you are incapable of being counter-cultural. The truth is there are many fine scholars shut out of the big name universities because they are Christian. So it a gerrymandered majority. Like the Bolsheviks in Russia. Chesterton talks about the degrading slavery of being a child of your times. You can't avoid it unless you stop caving in to the majority of scholars line.

Did Matthew copy from Mark? I think it more likely they both copied from oral tradition. Some segments of each gospel might have been circulated before the whole thing was complete and they could have both copied from each other. The Hebrew/Greek thing makes this more complex. I have heard much of Mark translates easily into Hebrew perhaps indicating someone with Hebrew as a first language was involved. Maybe Peter. These are wild speculations that might be completely inaccurate. Yet it is fun.

If I want to arrive at the conclusion that Matthew was the author then I just need to assign a high number to that evidence.

We can leave it at that if you wish. But then, what do you mean by "likely" when you say evidence makes some proposition "more likely"?

I program computers for a living. People say that it does not matter if all the numbers you enter are guesswork. Once you put them in a computer and output it in a fancy way nobody dares argue with it.

I work with computers too, and in my field what you say here certainly isn't the case, and I don't believe it's the case in any computer field. What exactly are you programming?
I make digital devices control buildings, from hvac, to lights, to doors. People flip out if my stuff doesn't work exactly as they expect it too. Obviously the IRS doesn't care if you accounts come from a computer, they understand the GIGO rule (garbage in, garbage out).