Are the NIV Footnotes Approved?

[Neil_Anthony]

I find the footnotes and comments in my NIV translation of the bible are a bit questionable sometimes. Maybe historical-critical method, or a bit rationalist? Were these approved by the church or is it up the each publisher to write those comments?

 

[Todd_Easton]

The NIV (New International Version) is not a Catholic Bible.

 

[Athanasius]

I find the footnotes and comments in my NIV translation of the bible are a bit questionable sometimes. Maybe historical-critical method, or a bit rationalist? Were these approved by the church or is it up the each publisher to write those comments?

Are you perhaps thinking of the New American Bible?

 

[mtr01]

If you want solid Catholic notes and commentary, all you have to do is go here and look up book, chapter and verse.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are you perhaps thinking of the New American Bible?

Yes thats what I meant! DUH:blush:



Example: Today on EWTN a theologian was explaining what rationalism is, and he gave the example of how rationalists would claim that Isaiah must have been written much later than Isaiah lived, because it refers to Cyrus King of persia in a prophecy. And a rationalist would never believe that a prophet could actually tell the future.

Sure enough, the notes in my New American Bible say that Isaiah 40-55 are sometimes called the Deutero-Isaiah and were probably written later around the end of the babylonian exile.

That’s just one example, I’ve often wondered when reading those footnotes if the people who wrote them actually believed any of the stuff written in the bible

 

[Sabda]

Yes thats what I meant! DUH:blush:



Example: Today on EWTN a theologian was explaining what rationalism is, and he gave the example of how rationalists would claim that Isaiah must have been written much later than Isaiah lived, because it refers to Cyrus King of persia in a prophecy. And a rationalist would never believe that a prophet could actually tell the future.

Sure enough, the notes in my New American Bible say that Isaiah 40-55 are sometimes called the Deutero-Isaiah and were probably written later around the end of the babylonian exile.

That’s just one example, I’ve often wondered when reading those footnotes if the people who wrote them actually believed any of the stuff written in the bible

The footnotes in the NAB drive many Catholics nuts. There are many of us who have stopped reading the NAB because of this or because of the text. One issue I have with the NAB footnotes is in Revelation12.

2 [1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13-17); cf Isaiah 50:1; 66:7; Jeremiah 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

The footnote in my NAB Bible simply says the woman is Israel. Now any Catholic who has studied this knows that the woman is traditionally understood to be mainly about Mary. Not just Israel or Israel and the Church. For a Catholic Bible to simply state in the footnote that it’s about Israel or Israel and the Church with no mention of Mary is problematic as that is not the traditional understanding.

Once I discovered these problems I changed my main Bible to the RSV-CE. I have intentions of getting the Douay as it holds the traditional views in the footnotes and has been the Bible for English speaking Catholics for centuries. Honestly, we need to do a better job with our newer translations when it comes to the footnotes as well as the text itself. The footnotes should hold to traditional CATHOLIC understandings.

My advice is if you have issues with your Bible get a different translation. It never hurts to have more than one.

 

[Athanasius]

I won’t post my thoughts on the NAB (That topic has been discussed a million times on these forums). However, I would highly suggest checking out the link that mtr01 posted. It is a wonderful commentary.

 

[Manfred]

Yes thats what I meant! DUH:blush:



Example: Today on EWTN a theologian was explaining what rationalism is, and he gave the example of how rationalists would claim that Isaiah must have been written much later than Isaiah lived, because it refers to Cyrus King of persia in a prophecy. And a rationalist would never believe that a prophet could actually tell the future.

Sure enough, the notes in my New American Bible say that Isaiah 40-55 are sometimes called the Deutero-Isaiah and were probably written later around the end of the babylonian exile.

That’s just one example, I’ve often wondered when reading those footnotes if the people who wrote them actually believed any of the stuff written in the bible

It’s always dangerous to do this, but I had read somewhere that the NIV New Testament was available in a “Catholic” edition. The Old Testament could not receive Catholic approval since the evangelicals who brought about the NIV do not accept the Deutero-canonical books as inspired Scripture.

I’ve never seen the NIV “Catholic” edition, nor would I want to. It’s bland and contemporary, not to mention poorly-translated in some spots (e.g., use of the word “teachings” instead of “tradition” in Thessalonians, so as to avoid giving credence to a “Catholic” interpretation). But the bigger issue is: who is the “Catholic” official who gave his approval for this? And WHY? It can’t be “ecumenism”, since we already have approved - and rightfully so - the RSV-CE, and the bishops don’t seem to back it much. Want some substantiation for this? The bishops withdrew permission to use in the Mass any version (e.g., the 1966 JB or the RSV-CE) other than their beloved NAB.

 

[Contarini]

Example: Today on EWTN a theologian was explaining what rationalism is, and he gave the example of how rationalists would claim that Isaiah must have been written much later than Isaiah lived, because it refers to Cyrus King of persia in a prophecy. And a rationalist would never believe that a prophet could actually tell the future.

Of course, the EWTN theologians do not speak for the Magisterium any more than the scholars who put together the NAB footnotes do. Perhaps less.

There are reasons to believe in “two Isaiahs” (or even three) other than the assumption that a prophet couldn’t tell the future. It has to do with the way Cyrus is referred to, as if the readers are expected to know who he is. Furthermore, there’s really no indication in the text itself that this is by Isaiah–the earlier parts of Isaiah mention the prophet’s name all over the place, but from chap. 40 on you don’t find it. This isn’t rationalism, though it is rational!

Edwin

 

[Brian_C]

My last Bible I purchased as a Baptist was the NIV Life Application Study Bible. I must say, re-reading it a few months back, I was impressed that it’s footnotes provide and support the traditional Catholic view such as that on Matthew 16:18 (Thou art Peter and upon this rock…). It did mention there were conflicting views but…

 

[Verbum]

Hi Neil,

Maybe historical-critical method, or a bit rationalist?

We should not confuse the historical-critical method with rationalism, although it has often been used this way. Cardinal Ratzinger in a speech to the Pontifical Biblical Commission pointed the importance of this method, while emphasizing that its use must be subject to the tenets of the faith.

You can find the text of this speech at

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=1065

Verbum

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

The fact that these footnotes and introductions are posted on the USCCB and Vatican websites is seen as an official approval of them by The Church.

 

[Manfred]

The fact that these footnotes and introductions are posted on the USCCB and Vatican websites is seen as an official approval of them by The Church.

Unfortunately, it is. But did you happen to notice that the NAB’s revised edition of the Psalms is NOT there? Why is the USCCB not concerned enough to fix this? They COULD post the original 1970 version of the Psalms, but, for whatever lame reason, have not. Better - the Vatican could just throw the NAB off its site and get permission to put, say, the RSV-CE there.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I just don’t get it, how could the church approve of the footnote to Matthew 16:21-23… (see jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html)

It just doesn’t make sense to me, specifically where it says that Matthew 17:22-23 is not something Jesus really said. I thought the Church insisted that whatever we conclude about the gospels, they are True.