Are there any problems with the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hmikell7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hmikell7

Guest
Hi, I recently purchased a copy of the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible and have noticed some people saying that the book goes outside of Church teaching in it’s usage of historical-critical views. They didn’t really say what this meant of what specifically they were referring to though.

It also has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur for both the OT and NT. So I’m a bit confused as to what’s going on? Anyone here know of anything wrong with it? Should I get a different study bible?

EDIT: I was also under the impression that the historical-critical method was deemed acceptable in the build-up to Vatican II and that Benedict XVI had even endorsed it’s usage?
 
Last edited:
The LRCSB is a NAB translation with added entries about different topics. I do not have one but have read enough reviews. I believe the NAB translations all share the same or similar footnotes which are notoriously skeptical and really stretching the limits of the historical-critical method. The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur only mean that nothing is directly contrary to the faith. But the footnotes by no means give a balanced treatment of Scripture. Unfortunately the majority of clergy giving their Nihil Obstat / Imprimatur went through seminary at the time the historical-critical theory was all the rage and they all too gladly accepted the skepticism without ever reading more faithful and orthodox commentaries on Scripture. The historical-critical method is acceptable to a degree as long as there is a balanced approach which also takes into account traditional Church teachings and the commentaries of the Fathers. But the NAB translations do not do so. Pope Benedict XVI applied it correctly which is evident in his “Jesus of Nazareth” book series.

For a more orthodox Catholic Study Bible, I suggest the Ignatius edition. But unfortunately, only the NT is available as a whole. The OT is still sold as individual books since the collection is not yet complete.
 
So not something to throw out altogether then, but something that I should be very skeptical of when reading the commentaries in it?
 
Yes, I would say take a balanced approach. If you read the footnotes you will certainly come across many where you know that it doesn’t sound right or sounds too skeptical. So it would be good to have another more orthodox bible on hand to cross-check some of these errant footnotes.

Here is a link to some of the overarching problems with the NAB editions. Some people have found this article reactionary but I think it brings to light just how skeptical and nontraditional many of the NAB entries are: https://www.fisheaters.com/thenewamericanbibleherisies.pdf

And I just say these things as advice, because if someone without a strong background in the faith and the Scriptures just picks up an NAB and reads it as if it communicates the only truth about Scripture, their faith can be shaken very quickly and easily.
 
Didn’t the USCCB recently decide to make the switch from the RSV-CE to the NAB-RE version for use in the churches in the United States? Why would they do this if there are so many issues with it?

Not trying to be snarky, honestly just curious
 
The translation is different than the footnotes.

But it is indeed unfortunate that the NAB as available on the USCCB website includes all of the lousy introductions and footnotes. The bishops are not Scriptural scholars by any means. It would be nice if they consulted some modern American Catholic Biblical scholars like Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, Brant Pitre, Michael Barber and John Bergsma to provide additional learning materials for the faithful instead of dated, skeptical materials from the 1970s.
 
Last edited:
bobperk said:
if someone without a strong background in the faith and the Scriptures just picks up an NAB and reads it as if it communicates the only truth about Scripture, their faith can be shaken very quickly and easily.
Click to expand...
I am shocked—shocked—to find that the NAB can cause this. Shocked I say.
 
After just a few minutes of reading I’ve already found something in the way of commentary for 1 Chronicles 10 that I just don’t think holds water.
“There are a small number of suicides reported in the OT. Although suicide presents a moral problem in today’s world, these deaths were not in violation of any stated Mosaic law and do not receive much additional attention in the Bible. In fact, in the story of of the Jerusalem elder, he is praised for his manly courage.”
Click to expand...
This seems to be suggesting that suicide was morally acceptable then but isn’t now? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Especially considering suicide was never condemned in the NT either, and the idea that is is a mortal sin derived from an interpretation of the Ten Commandments (Mosaic law) that “thou shalt not kill” applies to your own person as well as others.
 
hmikell7 said:
Didn’t the USCCB recently decide to make the switch from the RSV-CE to the NAB-RE version for use in the churches in the United States? Why would they do this if there are so many issues with it?

Not trying to be snarky, honestly just curious
Click to expand...
The Latin Church Lectionary of 1998/2002 uses the New American Bible OT 1970 and revised New American Bible NT 1986 as a basis. The 1970 NAB NT is used in the Liturgy of the Hours. The NABRE (revised OT) was finished in 2010 and is not used in the Lectionary, but there are plans to develop one version for Bible study and Lectionary and Liturgy of the Hours.

The Byzantine Catholic Church uses the NAB 1970 OT/NT, 1963 Grail Psalms as a base.
 
From Catholic.com:
“Scott Hahn on the Politicized Bible” Karl Keating September 01, 1996

www.catholic.com

Scott Hahn on the Politicized Bible

I found Scott Hahn in the Maze. From the entry hall in his home, you take the stairs to the basement and pass through an unobtrusive door. Beyond it is one of t...
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com

The last paragraph of this excellent summary of how we got into this darkness of heart shows the way out of the present mess.

“HAHN: I see Scripture being appropriated in terms of our tradition, growing interest in spiritual exegesis, the daily contemplation of the lectionary texts, Bible study faithful to the magisterium, memorization of key texts of Scripture, the faithful proclamation of the Word by priests-as these expand, the inevitable outcome will be the gradual dissolution of what future generations may regard as twentieth-century “hysterical criticism.””
 
Last edited:
The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the “word of God in human language,” has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it.
Click to expand...
This quote from he Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church gives you the basic orientation for scripture study. People who try to undercut the importance of historical criticism are not faithful to what the Church teaches.

There can be excesses with historical criticism, but the response to them is usually to go deeper into the history rather than avoid it.

There are other methods that can be used alongside historical criticism, seeking a more personal meaning or something more faithful to “tradition.” These need to be approached with some care if they try to deflect you from the basic purpose of understanding the literal sense of scripture according to the author’s intent and the context of the works.

I generally have learned a great deal from the few things I have read by Scott Hahn. I am appalled to hear him use derogatory language like “hysterical criticism.” He may have legitimate complaints, but the belittling nature of that remark is regrettable, and a warning of the problems you might encounter with him.
 
The H-C method is the “indispensable method” (but not the only method) of the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Dr. Hahn’s comment seems to criticize those scholars who took the H-C method and reduced Jesus to a failed prophet, the Gospels as embellished legends, and then opened the door to various fringe treatments of Holy Scripture.

The NAB footnotes approach what may be more correctly termed “skeptical criticism” in very many areas. The introductions to some books of supposedly disputed authorship do not give a balanced treatment of the subject. The footnotes in the Gospels will use terms like “here, the Lucan Jesus” or “here, Matthew has Jesus” as if Jesus were just some character in the Gospel narratives, not the actual Christ whose life and ministry were witnessed by anyone. The narrative of Jesus meeting the disciples on the road to Emmaus is brushed off as an apologetic story not rooted in a real event.
 
bobperk said:
The narrative of Jesus meeting the disciples on the road to Emmaus is brushed off as an apologetic story not rooted in a real event.
Click to expand...
The note on the USCCB website says:
“This episode focuses on the interpretation of scripture by the risen Jesus and the recognition of him in the breaking of the bread. The references to the quotations of scripture and explanation of it (Lk 24:25–27), the kerygmatic proclamation (Lk 24:34), and the liturgical gesture (Lk 24:30) suggest that the episode is primarily catechetical and liturgical rather than apologetic.”

It is explaining the intent of the author in telling the story, ie to illuminate liturgical and catechetical practice in the Church. It says nothing about the historicity of the passage. If you don’t want to know why St Luke chose to tell his story this way, you are missing the point. You risk turning the Gospel into a series of historical events that have no meaning for us.

The NAB was commissioned by the USCCB, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, including the notes. I have problems with some of them, but they are what US bishops have approved. They deserve respect and at least an effort to understand what they are saying and why.
 
hmikell7 said:
So I’m a bit confused as to what’s going on? Anyone here know of anything wrong with it? Should I get a different study bible?
Click to expand...
LR is a great series. I used it for 10 years as a bible study leader at my old parish.

What is going on is some people think they are more Catholic than the Pope, or the bishop if the diocese of Little Rock.

LR is fine to use. I never had any problems with it doctrinally. It uses the Collegeville Commentary which is solid and widely used.

It is a great bible study for groups. I’ve also used Great Adventure timeline bible study. For personal bible study I’ve liked Navarre (the gold standard in bible study) and Ignatius.
 
Acknowledging that there is some academic dispute over details is not the same as arguing that certain things are false or open for interpretation. I am very thankful that my training as a historian helps me to know the difference.

I appreciate that the NABRE study Bible acknowledges debate within theology on certain issues. I don’t see these notes as stumbling blocks. Rather, I see them as opportunities for further study.
 
Dovekin said:
You risk turning the Gospel into a series of historical events that have no meaning for us.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the NAB footnotes doubt the historicity of many passages. The footnotes of Luke 1-2 demonstrate this, when it is said that the birth narrative is largely Luke’s composition, a hodgepodge of OT allusions, legendary details, and literary ornamentation. So the NAB footnote authors don’t think that any of it actually happened. Of course it is done in the veiled language of academia, so at first blush one cannot tell if they accept the stories as true or not. But it is evident that they don’t.

The NAB contributors take the position that the Bible is largely made up of largely unhistorical events that somehow still have meaning for us.

Most clergy are not biblical scholars. Most who approved the NAB probably went through seminary when new and liberating studies on Scripture were all the rage. Unfortunately, many American Catholics have been treated to watered-down versions of Scripture and exegesis over the last few decades.

The Ignatius series study Bible and the Didache are much better modern choices for a more balanced approach to Scripture.

@hmikell7 , I would at least spend the other $22 to get a copy of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (New Testament) to complement your LRSB.
 
bobperk said:
The Ignatius series study Bible and the Didache are much better modern choices for a more balanced approach to Scripture.
Click to expand...
This is bobperk’s opinion. You may know him better than I do, and can evaluate this opinion based on your knowledge of him. I do not really know anything about him so I do not know why he is saying these things.

The US bishops sponsored the NAB and own the copyright. They commissioned biblical scholars to direct the project. The people working on a new revision are all members of the Catholic Biblical Association, and I suspect past scholars were chosen in a similar way. It is a good translation with insightful notes. The Little Rock Scripture study is similarly placed, though I have no experience to judge it by.

The Ignatius Bible also has a good translation, based on the RSV. It is largely directed by people disaffected with modern translation techniques and philosophy. Rather than help the bishops, or knowing their help would not be accepted, they decided to publish their own study bible to push their agenda. (not really meant as a criticism, just as a description.)

Either bible with notes is probably helpful for your purposes. I wouldn’t be deterred by the baggage carried by the Ignatius Bible, but it does help to know it is there. The NAB’s baggage is more conventional — bishops and scholars.
 
From what I’ve seen and heard, the LRCSB is more scientific in its commentaries and analysis, whereas the Ignatius edition is more intellectual in its composition. While I can acknowledge the importance of both of those things, I have to admit that an intellectual and scholarly approach to the Bible is more of interest to me, and more of what I was looking for in a study Bible in the first place.

That being said, I am finding the LRCSB very useful and informative, so I’ll probably end up using both it and Ignatius study Bible to study and read.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top