I certainly have nothing against scholarship and there is much interesting and illuminating Biblical criticism. But the fundamental view of that particular school, Higher Biblical Criticism and its offshoots (originally a Protestant invention, btw), was that the Scriptures were rather quaint documents that had been systematically either linguistically misunderstood or twisted over the centuries and were really only significant as cultural/historical artifacts. Much of this was actually aimed specifically at cutting apart the Church and the Scriptures, since Protestants had a vested interest in undermining the claims of the Church as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture and, furthermore, in rejecting historical interpretations that showed the Scriptures and the Church as inextricably entwined.
The practical impact of dynamic equivalency in translation, furthermore, was essentially to put even the literal text at the mercy of the “scholars,” many of them with an agenda, who then decided exactly what the “equivalent” (but actually different) text was going to be, based on subjective and even political concerns.
Why this approach became so popular among Catholics in the 60’s is probably related to Vatican II, or at any rate to some of the unfortunate Protestantizing, secularizing “Spirit of Vatican II.” Vatican II itself was the product of certain intellectual currents that were not bad in themselves, but were easily manipulated when the authority of the Church was rejected. And the “Spirit of Vatican II” was all about rejecting the authority of the Church, in every area ranging from doctrine to liturgy to Biblical scholarship.
My sister and I, both converts, noticed this in the reading of the Passion.
I wasn't sure whether it came from the translation used or if the publishers of the missalette our parish had been using were offering their own creative interpretation.