Bothered by NAB intros for new testament books

[Huiou_Theou]

I wonder if Cardinal Dolan, the president of the USCCB would be receptive to investigating this (or whether he simply has bigger fish to fry).

Dolan needs to hear the complaint, even if there is no immediate solution.
If enough people join together to let him know, he will remember it for a future time.

I also wonder if we could agree on which parts of the introduction are at odds with tradition and good Catholic teaching.
For instance, the intro that initially got me to start this thread was the one for 1Peter :

I’m too short on time right now (I have to get kids in an hour… and the weekend will not likely have spare time…); so my comments now are going to be shallow; perhaps Monday I’ll get a chance to think this through more. If you are serious, we need to study the comments a bit.

1st: The persecution of Nero is mentioned in connection with A.D. 64, followed by saying that “widespread persecution didn’t occur until 81-96 A.D.”; That’s mild folly, for the Romans didn’t distinguish between Jews and Christians before 70A.D.; Yet the fall of the temple shows it was in full swing against Jews by 70A.D. – and by implication, Christians as well.

So, you need to do a little research to find out what scholars claim 81-96 A.D., and locate the particular persecutions in Peter which they are comparing.

2nd) Comments which are merely a survey of scholars aren’t really worth attacking; eg “Some scholars say” is fine; although, you may want to look for scholarly opinions which are being ignored; and you might want to think about the more subtle issue of the appearances of these comments to the unlearned vs. requiring some kind of summary reference to what the faithful must believe, vs. what is optional or speculative.

3rd) I’m partially in the camp of those who believe the objections can be met by appeal to a secretary; For, do you think the Gospel of Mark is unworthy of belief because it wasn’t written by Peter’s hand? See where in 1Peter it mentions silvanous? Notice who’s name is mentioned there as well eg: “my son”.

We are fortunate that Mark’s name is attached to Peter’s Gospel, for it would be perfectly legitimate to say it is the Gospel according to Peter; and that would be another point historical critical scholars would attack on account of modern ignorance that our strict rules of naming an author don’t apply to the time-period of the bible.

Historical critical authors do come to the conclusion that the Gospel of Mark has priority; but they don’t seem to notice that this merely bolsters the authority of the Pope, rather than some nebulous Q document that has never been found.

Always bear in mind that it is possible to come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

In my view, this intro concludes that contrary to 2000 years of tradition, St Peter couldn’t have written this letter. And the reasoning is: Peter, the first pope, hand picked by Jesus to bring the message to the gentiles, would somehow be inhibited from writing to the gentiles because Paul was still alive. Doesn’t such a view lead to two questions from the faithful?

1. If the letter isn’t apostolic, why should we believe it
2. If Peter was somehow subservient to Paul in relation to the gentiles, how can the Bishop of Rome claim the primacy.

I don’t see how the bishops could sanction such a view on their website and in the bibles they sell to the faithful. Am I missing something?

1st) St. Peter was unlearned and “probably” couldn’t write; hence Mark and Silvanous were necesary – although they were assuredly faithful to what they were told. Even today, (when the pope is capable of writing…) the Vatican has an array of offices to carry out the tasks assigned to them by the pope, and he has editors and secretaries to look over his rough drafts.

Surely, when the next pope comes to office; he knows what the secretaries of the previous pope did… If this were published after Peter’s death, we would need to consider what the purpose of the succeeding pope (Also, Peter, in his office) would have been in writing apocalyptically. (I’m not saying he did…!)

Your point #2 – is for another time…

 

[COPLAND_3]

So why don’t they redo the intros so they are at least consistent with Church Tradition. Who cares what the majority of Bible scholars think? What does the Church teach. That’s what should be in the intros in a bible version referenced on The USCCB website. The bishops, afterall, are responsible for teaching the flock, right?

It would be beneficial to at least have another version that was traditional. I think that the best thing that us lay folks can do is to lead others and promote those better choices of Bibles.

Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay Rheims put excellent footnotes in that version, if only he had added a lot more!

 

[po18guy]

Well I think the Douay-Rheims has had its copyright expired. I may be wrong. Indeed however, the Douay Rheims is probably the best translation in english, followed by either the Knox Bible or RSV-CE (Catholic Edition).

Go on eBay and seek out a used Confraternity (CCD) bible. It is a 20th century America English translation (1941-1969) that is based on the D-R/Vulgate. I have come to love this bible, which was a work in progress, and was eventually completed but never published under a single cover. It was doomed by 1969 upon the acceptance of the NAB

I note that the list of editors and revisers of the CCD bible were exclusively clergy. Look at those involved in the NAB/RE: Many non-clerical PhDs and others are sprinkled into the mix. This means modern secular “scholars” and “theologians” who have been raised on the “Q” theory and historical-critical analysis. And, not surprisingly, they have arrived at a radically different viewpoint.

 

[po18guy]

Your point #2 – is for another time…

Peter was in management. Paul was in sales. OK, grossly simplified, but…

 

[edward_george]

While I certainly have my issues with the views of some scholars (most of whom are perfectly open to debating their well-researched scholarly opinions), I don’t quite agree with the reservations of some on here about the notes in the NAB. Certainly some of them do make some attempt to demythologize the texts; examples could be multiplied. But to bring up the authorship, for instance, of a particular letter, claiming that to say that while Irenaeus said Peter wrote something while later scholarship might show that it is plausible that he did not goes against 2000 years of tradition represents a serious problem with both how scholarship is viewed and with what tradition is. Tradition, Sacred Tradition, as is handed down and preserved by the Church, does not necessarily concern itself with the authorial particularities of the writings of Sacred Scripture so much as it does their inspiration and canonicity. So what if Peter never put pen to paper with 1 and 2 Peter? That doesn’t change the content of the faith one bit. That doesn’t change the canonicity or inspiration of 1 and 2 Peter one bit, either. Peter may have written it, he may have asked an associate to write it, it may have been based on his thought and written later (I, for one, have not studied 1 and 2 Peter in enough depth to dismiss either of these plausible situations, and so I would hope that people here could be honest enough to realize the same–just quoting Irenaeus and saying that that’s the end of it doesn’t exactly qualify as what I would think is an exhaustive study of the matter, but I could be wrong).

Again, I do have reservations about some of the excesses of the modern methods, but clearly there is something good to be found in them–otherwise we’d not have heard from the Holy Father that:

Before all else,* we need to acknowledge the benefits that historical-critical exegesis and other recently-developed methods of textual analysis have brought to the life of the Church.[97] For the Catholic understanding of sacred Scripture, attention to such methods is indispensable*, linked as it is to the realism of the Incarnation: “This necessity is a consequence of the Christian principle formulated in the Gospel of John 1:14: Verbum caro factum est. The historical fact is a constitutive dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology, but a true history, and it should thus be studied with the methods of serious historical research”.[98] The study of the Bible requires a knowledge of these methods of enquiry and their suitable application. While it is true that scholarship has come to a much greater appreciation of their importance in the modern period, albeit not everywhere to the same degree, nonetheless the sound ecclesial tradition has always demonstrated a love for the study of the “letter”.

From the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of Pope Benedict XVI.

If you read as well what has been said in the recent magisterial documents on Scripture, you will see not a rejection of modern methods of scholarship, still less a wholesale demonization, but rather a qualified acceptance. Certainly there are pitfalls, but there are additionally pitfalls to failing to study Scripture in its historical context–both sort of problems are carefully treated in the Church’s documents on the matter. For your further reading, I suggest checking out these links:

Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII, 1893.

Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, 1943.

Sancta Mater Ecclesia, On the Historical Truth of the Gospels, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1964.

Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of II Vatican Council, 1965.

On the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1994.

And again, Verbum Domini, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Benedict XVI, 2010, linked above.

Now, I’m not saying you should sit down tonight and read all of this. What I am saying is that the kneejerk reaction to modern scholarship just because it is modern scholarship is not exactly what the Church has in mind when it comes to how to study Scripture, and this is made clear by what the documents have to say. We cannot take a heavy-handed approach that denies the tools available to us. What I would suggest is instead of being bothered by the NAB notes or any other things that are too “modern” (which tends to be read in the connotation of “anti-traditional” or just flat out “bad,” for some reason), read what the Church teaches on these things. Learn a little bit more about the research–textual and archaeological–that goes into such scholarly work. Don’t dismiss things out of hand. The Church certainly doesn’t and never has–she follows the exhortation found in 1 Thessalonians–“Test everything, hold on to what is good.” Sometimes, what the modern world and modern scholarship offer us is indeed good and only enhances our encounter with truth.

-ACEGC

 

[CalCatholic]

While I certainly have my issues with the views of some scholars (most of whom are perfectly open to debating their well-researched scholarly opinions), I don’t quite agree with the reservations of some on here about the notes in the NAB. Certainly some of them do make some attempt to demythologize the texts; examples could be multiplied. But to bring up the authorship, for instance, of a particular letter, claiming that to say that while Irenaeus said Peter wrote something while later scholarship might show that it is plausible that he did not goes against 2000 years of tradition represents a serious problem with both how scholarship is viewed and with what tradition is. Tradition, Sacred Tradition, as is handed down and preserved by the Church, does not necessarily concern itself with the authorial particularities of the writings of Sacred Scripture so much as it does their inspiration and canonicity. So what if Peter never put pen to paper with 1 and 2 Peter? That doesn’t change the content of the faith one bit. That doesn’t change the canonicity or inspiration of 1 and 2 Peter one bit, either. Peter may have written it, he may have asked an associate to write it, it may have been based on his thought and written later (I, for one, have not studied 1 and 2 Peter in enough depth to dismiss either of these plausible situations, and so I would hope that people here could be honest enough to realize the same–just quoting Irenaeus and saying that that’s the end of it doesn’t exactly qualify as what I would think is an exhaustive study of the matter, but I could be wrong).

Again, I do have reservations about some of the excesses of the modern methods, but clearly there is something good to be found in them–otherwise we’d not have heard from the Holy Father that:

From the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of Pope Benedict XVI.

If you read as well what has been said in the recent magisterial documents on Scripture, you will see not a rejection of modern methods of scholarship, still less a wholesale demonization, but rather a qualified acceptance. Certainly there are pitfalls, but there are additionally pitfalls to failing to study Scripture in its historical context–both sort of problems are carefully treated in the Church’s documents on the matter. For your further reading, I suggest checking out these links:

Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII, 1893.

Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, 1943.

Sancta Mater Ecclesia, On the Historical Truth of the Gospels, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1964.

Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of II Vatican Council, 1965.

On the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1994.

And again, Verbum Domini, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Benedict XVI, 2010, linked above.

Now, I’m not saying you should sit down tonight and read all of this. What I am saying is that the kneejerk reaction to modern scholarship just because it is modern scholarship is not exactly what the Church has in mind when it comes to how to study Scripture, and this is made clear by what the documents have to say. We cannot take a heavy-handed approach that denies the tools available to us. What I would suggest is instead of being bothered by the NAB notes or any other things that are too “modern” (which tends to be read in the connotation of “anti-traditional” or just flat out “bad,” for some reason), read what the Church teaches on these things. Learn a little bit more about the research–textual and archaeological–that goes into such scholarly work. Don’t dismiss things out of hand. The Church certainly doesn’t and never has–she follows the exhortation found in 1 Thessalonians–“Test everything, hold on to what is good.” Sometimes, what the modern world and modern scholarship offer us is indeed good and only enhances our encounter with truth.

-ACEGC

Well said!

 

[po18guy]

The Church certainly doesn’t and never has–she follows the exhortation found in 1 Thessalonians–“Test everything, hold on to what is good.” Sometimes, what the modern world and modern scholarship offer us is indeed good and only enhances our encounter with truth. -ACEGC

The overall pattern of difficulty with the implementation of Vatican II is that the spirits were not tested - or tested too late in the game. What you and I and every Catholic are doing right now is testing the fruits of that implementation. The NAB is a response to the early implementation of Vatican II. It is a soft translation in my eyes and difficult to use in demonstrating Catholic doctrine to bible Christians. I find this problematic and its value in Evangelizing is reduced. Its notes, the subject of this thread, do not reflect the rock-solid trust in sacred scripture as reflected in Catholic bibles even two generations back. The NAB has been politically corrected out of fear of offending the culture, while seeming not to fear offending the faithful.

The revisers were, in many cases, secular theologians, whereas earlier translations relied strictly on clerical theologians. I see this as a huge difference and potentially a huge problem. Modern or otherwise, it is the non-clerical, secular nature of a good percentage of those revisers that concerns me. The notes set the tone for the translation, which does not produce the degree of clarity in faith as witnessed in prior scripture translations. I personally derive much more spiritual benefit from the confidence expressed in prior translations and the accompanying notes - however brief they may be.

The notes in particular, and the translation itself to a lesser degree, can produce a degree of doubt - not misunderstanding - that lessens trust in those words and ultimately their source. As a practical matter, I compare it to listening to your grandfather’s advice versus that of a neighbor or co-worker. In the latter case, there is more room for doubt. Without making accusation, I am very aware of the source of doubt in this world and his influence even in the Church.

Simply put, America needs a better translation with better notes.

 

[paul_c]

The overall pattern of difficulty with the implementation of Vatican II is that the spirits were not tested - or tested too late in the game. What you and I and every Catholic are doing right now is testing the fruits of that implementation. The NAB is a response to the early implementation of Vatican II. It is a soft translation in my eyes and difficult to use in demonstrating Catholic doctrine to bible Christians. I find this problematic and its value in Evangelizing is reduced. Its notes, the subject of this thread, do not reflect the rock-solid trust in sacred scripture as reflected in Catholic bibles even two generations back. The NAB has been politically corrected out of fear of offending the culture, while seeming not to fear offending the faithful.

The revisers were, in many cases, secular theologians, whereas earlier translations relied strictly on clerical theologians. I see this as a huge difference and potentially a huge problem. Modern or otherwise, it is the non-clerical, secular nature of a good percentage of those revisers that concerns me. The notes set the tone for the translation, which does not produce the degree of clarity in faith as witnessed in prior scripture translations. I personally derive much more spiritual benefit from the confidence expressed in prior translations and the accompanying notes - however brief they may be.

The notes in particular, and the translation itself to a lesser degree, can produce a degree of doubt - not misunderstanding - that lessens trust in those words and ultimately their source. As a practical matter, I compare it to listening to your grandfather’s advice versus that of a neighbor or co-worker. In the latter case, there is more room for doubt. Without making accusation, I am very aware of the source of doubt in this world and his influence even in the Church.

Simply put, America needs a better translation with better notes.

I agree wholeheartedly. It would seem to me that the first priority for a Catholic bible is to provide the reader with an accurate rendering of the scripture. Second priority would be to help the reader interpret scripture in the light of Catholic tradition. Way down the list would be to describe dissent from those norms from current bible scholars, who might not even be catholic. And its very important to describe what is Tradition and what are alternative views in the clearest possible way (and I question why alternative views are even necessary in a catholic bible). I think the NAB editors have failed in this regard and certainly have a problem with their priorities.

 

[Qwerty777]

The NAB is an bible make ecumenically. It is big. As such some errors got through from non-Catholic and ill-trained ones. Just use the Douay-Rheims. It’s 100% Catholic made and in the public domain.

 

[paul_c]

While I certainly have my issues with the views of some scholars (most of whom are perfectly open to debating their well-researched scholarly opinions), I don’t quite agree with the reservations of some on here about the notes in the NAB. Certainly some of them do make some attempt to demythologize the texts; examples could be multiplied. But to bring up the authorship, for instance, of a particular letter, claiming that to say that while Irenaeus said Peter wrote something while later scholarship might show that it is plausible that he did not goes against 2000 years of tradition represents a serious problem with both how scholarship is viewed and with what tradition is. Tradition, Sacred Tradition, as is handed down and preserved by the Church, does not necessarily concern itself with the authorial particularities of the writings of Sacred Scripture so much as it does their inspiration and canonicity. So what if Peter never put pen to paper with 1 and 2 Peter? That doesn’t change the content of the faith one bit. That doesn’t change the canonicity or inspiration of 1 and 2 Peter one bit, either. Peter may have written it, he may have asked an associate to write it, it may have been based on his thought and written later (I, for one, have not studied 1 and 2 Peter in enough depth to dismiss either of these plausible situations, and so I would hope that people here could be honest enough to realize the same–just quoting Irenaeus and saying that that’s the end of it doesn’t exactly qualify as what I would think is an exhaustive study of the matter, but I could be wrong).

Again, I do have reservations about some of the excesses of the modern methods, but clearly there is something good to be found in them–otherwise we’d not have heard from the Holy Father that:

From the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of Pope Benedict XVI.

If you read as well what has been said in the recent magisterial documents on Scripture, you will see not a rejection of modern methods of scholarship, still less a wholesale demonization, but rather a qualified acceptance. Certainly there are pitfalls, but there are additionally pitfalls to failing to study Scripture in its historical context–both sort of problems are carefully treated in the Church’s documents on the matter. For your further reading, I suggest checking out these links:

Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII, 1893.

Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, 1943.

Sancta Mater Ecclesia, On the Historical Truth of the Gospels, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1964.

Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of II Vatican Council, 1965.

On the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1994.

And again, Verbum Domini, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Benedict XVI, 2010, linked above.

Now, I’m not saying you should sit down tonight and read all of this. What I am saying is that the kneejerk reaction to modern scholarship just because it is modern scholarship is not exactly what the Church has in mind when it comes to how to study Scripture, and this is made clear by what the documents have to say. We cannot take a heavy-handed approach that denies the tools available to us. What I would suggest is instead of being bothered by the NAB notes or any other things that are too “modern” (which tends to be read in the connotation of “anti-traditional” or just flat out “bad,” for some reason), read what the Church teaches on these things. Learn a little bit more about the research–textual and archaeological–that goes into such scholarly work. Don’t dismiss things out of hand. The Church certainly doesn’t and never has–she follows the exhortation found in 1 Thessalonians–“Test everything, hold on to what is good.” Sometimes, what the modern world and modern scholarship offer us is indeed good and only enhances our encounter with truth.

-ACEGC

I think you misunderstand my concern. I’m all for doing scholarly work on the bible. What I am against is unproven theories being advanced as superior to what Tradtion holds as if they are the truth. For instance, the “Q” theory is advanced as if it is a proven fact, when in fact, no one has ever unearthed any reference to Q prior to the late 1800s. Pope Benedict XVI states in his latest book on the infancy narratives that unless there is proof of an alternative, we should accept the Traditions of the Church as truth. I would expect that to include the fact that the Church Fathers believed that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles bearing his name (and if he used a secretary to actually put the words to paper, that still counts - they were his words). The NAB editors conclude that Petrine authorship is unlikely because he couldn’t have written to gentiles while Paul was alive, ignoring the fact that Peter was Pope and could do as he pleased. To make such a conclusion in a Catholic bible is inappropriate because it is an unsubstantiated theory.

 

[po18guy]

The NAB editors conclude that Petrine authorship is unlikely because he couldn’t have written to gentiles while Paul was alive, ignoring the fact that Peter was Pope and could do as he pleased. To make such a conclusion in a Catholic bible is inappropriate because it is an unsubstantiated theory.

Martin Luther used such personal doubt in the provenance of certain epistles to justify his attempt to exclude the Letter to the Hebrews, as only a single example, from the sacred scriptures.

What I see as a prime influence in many of today’s scholars is a reliance on science and upon theory as opposed to sacred tradition. As someone who relied on physical evidence in the course of my occupation, I am well aware that it can lead both toward the truth - or away from it.

 

[po18guy]

The NAB is an bible make ecumenically. It is big. As such some errors got through from non-Catholic and ill-trained ones. Just use the Douay-Rheims. It’s 100% Catholic made and in the public domain.

Welcome to the forums! Good advice. I also recommend the little-known Confraternity bible, which is an American translation, based on the Douay-Rheims, for American Catholics. The more I read it, the more I love it.

 

[edward_george]

I should mention that I don’t disagree about some of the issues with the NAB–if you will notice the overall tone of my post is not to simply defend the NAB, but sort of to put the brakes on any discussion that seeks to just chuck the work that’s been done while ignoring that maybe there have been good things to come out of it. I personally use the RSV for the most part, as it follows the Greek and Hebrew texts fairly closely, but I also use the NAB, the JPS, and the Confraternity (usually whatever is at hand), as well as simply looking at the Hebrew and Greek themselves.

Scholarship, Biblical and Theological included, are both processes that a while to come about, and they come about through dialogue. It’s important to at least understand fairly well what’s being said by those one disagrees with, rather than just out of hand dismissing what they might have to say. So there were issues with how Vatican II in general was implemented and specifically as regards Biblical translations and whatnot. This I don’t disagree with. But it takes a while to sort these things out, and it’s important to look carefully at all the issues before just tossing things. Remember that the Church doesn’t move too quickly on things, the fact that we’ve been able to make some of the progress that we have on some issues in such a short time since the Council is quite encouraging (50 years is a sneeze in the life of the Church).

-ACEGC

 

[po18guy]

I should mention that I don’t disagree about some of the issues with the NAB–if you will notice the overall tone of my post is not to simply defend the NAB, but sort of to put the brakes on any discussion that seeks to just chuck the work that’s been done while ignoring that maybe there have been good things to come out of it. I personally use the RSV for the most part, as it follows the Greek and Hebrew texts fairly closely, but I also use the NAB, the JPS, and the Confraternity (usually whatever is at hand), as well as simply looking at the Hebrew and Greek themselves.

Scholarship, Biblical and Theological included, are both processes that a while to come about, and they come about through dialogue. It’s important to at least understand fairly well what’s being said by those one disagrees with, rather than just out of hand dismissing what they might have to say. So there were issues with how Vatican II in general was implemented and specifically as regards Biblical translations and whatnot. This I don’t disagree with. But it takes a while to sort these things out, and it’s important to look carefully at all the issues before just tossing things. Remember that the Church doesn’t move too quickly on things, the fact that we’ve been able to make some of the progress that we have on some issues in such a short time since the Council is quite encouraging (50 years is a sneeze in the life of the Church).

-ACEGC

Yes, indeed. Being rather cautious, I tend to revert to the known while that which is being tested undergoes testing. As well, I take Pope Paul VI’s words to heart regarding the smoke of the evil one seeping into the church through a certain fissure. And, this is not simple suspicion or paranoia, but such is guaranteed us by the very words of our Lord as well as the writers of scripture. In my lifetime, the Church has drifted off course, but that course is even now being corrected. As you say, it takes time to steer a big ship and the Church is the largest of all.

 

[paul_c]

I should mention that I don’t disagree about some of the issues with the NAB–if you will notice the overall tone of my post is not to simply defend the NAB, but sort of to put the brakes on any discussion that seeks to just chuck the work that’s been done while ignoring that maybe there have been good things to come out of it. I personally use the RSV for the most part, as it follows the Greek and Hebrew texts fairly closely, but I also use the NAB, the JPS, and the Confraternity (usually whatever is at hand), as well as simply looking at the Hebrew and Greek themselves.

Scholarship, Biblical and Theological included, are both processes that a while to come about, and they come about through dialogue. It’s important to at least understand fairly well what’s being said by those one disagrees with, rather than just out of hand dismissing what they might have to say. So there were issues with how Vatican II in general was implemented and specifically as regards Biblical translations and whatnot. This I don’t disagree with. But it takes a while to sort these things out, and it’s important to look carefully at all the issues before just tossing things. Remember that the Church doesn’t move too quickly on things, the fact that we’ve been able to make some of the progress that we have on some issues in such a short time since the Council is quite encouraging (50 years is a sneeze in the life of the Church).

-ACEGC

That’s what I’m trying to do. Understand why they say what they do… And the church moved pretty quickly to bring out this version of the NAB after Vatican II, so it shouldn’t take centuries to correct it.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Is anyone else bothered by the tone and content of the intros used in the NAB for the new testament books. Its particularly distressing to me that they all seem to call into question the traditional authorship of the new testament books.

Why does the USCCB approve an introduction that says that the Traditional authorship of the bible is untenable?

It doesn’t bother me and the idea that Saint Matthew wrote the book someone put his name on is untenable. However, I agree with this:

And why does it folllow that Matthew had to be written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Why isn’t it possible for Our Lord to have successfully prophesized this? Don’t we believe He’s God?

Of course Jesus could easily have predicted the fall of Jerusalem. What I’m not sure of is if there are earlier fragments that don’t include the reference. There seem to have been rather a lot of scholars who came out the the Historical/Critical school who have a lot of trouble with miracles and prophesy. One of them was famously refused permission to continue teaching theology. But, a lot of their work is quite good. And like all humans, not perfect.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The NAB still can’t bring itself in Isaiah 7:14 to say “A virgin will conceive”. This epitomizes what is wrong with the NAB.

If a bible can’t get the Hail Mary correct is it really a Catholic bible?

 

[TimothyH]

Tradition with a capital “T” is revealed truth, something which was revealed to us by God and part of the deposit of faith.

The words in the Bible are revealed truth. Information about who the human authors were is not revealed truth, not part of the deposit of faith. There may have been traditionally held beliefs about who wrote certain books but that is not part of Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith.

If the notes and introduction to the NAB bothers people then they shouldn’t read it. That’s all. Just get something you like better and read that.

-Tim-

 

[edward_george]

The NAB still can’t bring itself in Isaiah 7:14 to say “A virgin will conceive”. This epitomizes what is wrong with the NAB.

If a bible can’t get the Hail Mary correct is it really a Catholic bible?

I’m wondering, where in the Hail Mary is “A virgin will conceive?” And why should a Biblical translation conform to a prayer that was composed many centuries after the text you’re talking about?

Anytime one makes a translation, he’s not going to approach it in a vacuum; there will always be things that don’t translate exactly–if you know anything about Hebrew or Greek, you know that trying to render a text in a one-for-one way is impossible (same can be said of any language, really). Because we can’t get exact equivalence on everything, sometimes we have to make decisions about how to translate something. With regards to the word you’re pointing out there, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (the standard for Hebrew Bible work among Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars) has this to say:

עַלְמָה noun feminine young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married); — ׳ע Genesis 24:43 (J), Exodus 2:8 (E), Proverbs 30:19; Isaiah 7:14; plural עֲלָמוֺת Psalm 68:26; Songs 1:3; Songs 6:8; עַלעֲֿלָמוֺת to (the voice of) young women, either literally, or of soprano or falsetto of boys: 1 Chronicles 15:20; Psalm 9:1 (read עַלעֲֿלָמוֺת לַבֵּן [for עַלמֿוּת לַבֵּן], ‘voce virginea a pueris decantandum,’ Thes), Psalm 46:1; Psalm 48:15 (read עַלעֲֿלָמוֺת [for עַלמֿוּת]; translated probably to Psalm 49:1).

“Young woman” is a plausible translation of the word almah, because in Hebrew “young woman” has the sense of a maiden or newlywed. If we just read it as we might in English, of course, this falls apart. But don’t criticize a translation without looking more deeply at it what the rationale behind the choices of the translator might be.

-ACEGC

 

[edward_george]

Tradition with a capital “T” is revealed truth, something which was revealed to us by God and part of the deposit of faith.

The words in the Bible are revealed truth. Information about who the human authors were is not revealed truth, not part of the deposit of faith. There may have been traditionally held beliefs about who wrote certain books but that is not part of Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith.

If the notes and introduction to the NAB bothers people then they shouldn’t read it. That’s all. Just get something you like better and read that.

-Tim-

Thanks for pointing this out. I was trying (rather verbosely, unfortunately) to get this across before–it doesn’t matter one bit whether St. Peter or Jocko the Chainsaw Juggling Circus Clown wrote 1 Peter, as the authorship of 1 Peter is not de fide; no council ever anathematized anyone for saying Peter didn’t write 1 Peter, and it doesn’t change the essence of faith to say that Peter didn’t put pen to paper. That Peter or whomever wrote 1 Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that because it is inspired it is canonical is de fide, and we are obliged to believe it.

-ACEGC