Cain and Abel - Christian Community Bible Footnotes

[civilwar]

I was just browsing a copy of the Christian Community Bible (Catholic Edition), and in Genesis, the footnotes regarding Cain and Abel read as such:

"Originally Cain’s story had nothing to do with
the story of Adam and Eve and their descendants.
The biblical author who took the story
and placed it here, related it to the previous
one by fictitiously making Cain become Adam’s
son. (There is, therefore, no room for questions
about whom Cain and Abel married: the Scripture
does not intend to relate the beginnings of
the human race.)" … "In borrowing this legend the biblical author
gave it another meaning and inserted a dialogue
between God and Cain as judgment on violence"

It would seem to me that that is a fairly heretical thing to say and destabilises/undermines our ability to trust the Sacred Scriptures as the truth and the word of God. So what I’m wondering is how can an approved Catholic version of the Bible contain these types of things (and this is not a once off; there are liberal, heretical footnotes in many Bible versions). Surely Bibles should be well examined by the Church before being approved?

Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues?

Thanks.

 

[porthos11]

This is the same Bible version that says Jesus’ resurrected body is not is earthly body, which they say had dematerialized (contrary to the text of the Scripture itself which clearly says, in the Lord’s own words, that the wounds were still there).

I tell you, the NAB commentaries are nowhere as bad as this version’s.

I’d probably say respectfully burn this version. It’s one of the worst I’ve seen.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not familiar with that particular version. Do the footnotes have an imprimatur? Just because it says “Catholic edition” doesn’t mean it is Catholic approved. It just means it has all 46 Old Testament books.

Also, it could be that the translation is approved, but the approval for the footnotes would be separate.

 

[TimothyH]

This is an example of why I like my Bible without footnotes or commentary - just the sacred texts - nothing man made like footnotes to get in the way.

-Tim-

 

[_thaddeus]

It would seem to me that that is a fairly heretical thing to say and destabilises/undermines our ability to trust the Sacred Scriptures as the truth and the word of God. So what I’m wondering is how can an approved Catholic version of the Bible contain these types of things (and this is not a once off; there are liberal, heretical footnotes in many Bible versions). Surely Bibles should be well examined by the Church before being approved?

I don’t see the problem. I like footnotes; the more the better. If people know more or better than the footnote authors then they perhaps should just ignore them.

This footnote from the JB might help clarify.

4a. This narrative presupposes a developed civilisation, an established form of worship, the existence of men who might attempt Cain’s life, the existence of a clan that would rally to him. It may be that the narrative originally referred not to the children of the first man but to the eponymous ancestor of the Cainites (cf, Nb 24:21+), The ‘Yahwistic’ tradition has moved the story back to the period of man’s beginning, thus giving it a universal significance: after man’s revolt against God we now have man’s war on man; against these two evils is directed the double command that sums up the whole Law–the love of God and of neighbour, Mt 22:40.

This is the unabridged footnote from the CCB (Christian Community Bible).

• 4.1 The story of Cain, a religious story, like the story of earthly Paradise, teaches us the depth of the human condition, by way of comparison. It shows violence as a decisive factor in our history, with its roots deep in the human heart (4:7) and its first victims those who, like Abel, are pleasing to God (4:4). Abel’s spilled blood cries out to God (4:10) who does justice in his way, not as we would with vengeance and violence (4:15).

Originally Cain’s story had nothing to do with the story of Adam and Eve and their descendants. The biblical author who took the story and placed it here, related it to the previous one by fictitiously making Cain become Adam’s son. (There is, therefore, no room for questions about whom Cain and Abel married: the Bible does not intend to relate the beginnings of the human race.)

This is like the national history of the tribe of the Cainites (or Kenites: Jdg 1:16; 4:17) who became part of Israel. As often related in ancient legends, Cain, the founder of the tribe, had killed his brother, who could become his rival, since that was the only way to establish political authority. Later, a society with different functions saw the light (4:19-22); then Lamech would become the spokesman of national pride (4:23); the people would learn how to get even with aggressors.

In borrowing this legend the biblical author gave it another meaning and inserted a dialogue between God and Cain as judgment on violence: “You pretended to act justly: wrong! You have committed a crime.” It is like us saying: “You who pretend to serve the sacred interests of the nation, how long will you eliminate and expel those who do not agree with you?”

In the Bible, Abel is the first and the model of innocent victims who are murdered. This and other passages suggest that they are eliminated because they are just people (Mt 23:35; Heb 11:4; Jn 8:44; 1 Jn 3:12).

 

[Todd977]

Surely Bibles should be well examined by the Church before being approved?

Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues?

I personally don’t find such historical criticism conclusions to be particularly helpful. However, pretty much anything is permitted in Catholic Bible commentary as long as it is not explicitly contrary “to the teaching of the Church concerning faith and morals, as declared by its magisterium.” (Code of Canon Law, Canon 830 §2)

Since, as far as I know, the Magisterium has not declared that Catholics are bound to believe that Cain was the firstborn son of Adam and Eve, there is nothing wrong with a Catholic Bible commentary that says Cain actually lived much later.