I keep hearing negative comments about the notes of the NAB. This is the only bible I’ve had since childhood. I always thought the notes were very helpful. Since I am ignorant of the other bibles out there, I am curious. Are there other examples of the NAB being an inferior bible, or having erroneous notes??
Why would our pastor pass them out to all the 8th graders if this version is not so good?
Like I said, Isaiah’s prophecy of Cyrus, which is a standard evidence for the supernatural origin of the Scripture, is discounted out of hand in the notes as a “later insertion”. On what basis? Probably on the basis that it’s childish to believe in prophecy or miracles, therefore it must be a hoax. That’s the same arid reasoning that causes people to discount the miracles of Lord Jesus as mere moralism (like the multiplication of the loaves and fishes being the result of people having hidden fish !?] in their garments, which they then hauled out and produced after Jesus makes a putatively ineffectual but touchy-feely gesture of telling his disciples to share the stuff around anyway).
I stake my life, soul and existence on the truth that God exists, is good, can do miracles, and tells us the truth in the Holy Scripture. I don’t need some overeducated quasi-agnostic discounting miracles as mere showmanship
because showmanship is all he believes in.
I think the notes in the NAB must largely have been written by cynics. In Job, near the end, God appears to be speaking directly to Job as He tells Job that Job doesn’t have all the answers; to illustrate the point, He tells Job of the mighty creature called Leviathan. This creature breathes fire, has a hide that turns aside the blows of the sword, and is mightier than the prideful.
With a head-exploding combination of blandness and irony, the NAB notes: “a crocodile”. Not only have I never seen a crocodile breathe fire, if you gave me a
sword I bet I could slit that croc up a treat. And then I’d be plenty prideful.
There’s a certain malady of academia… your job is knowing everything, so you assume that everyone who is not you is an idiot. Classic example: a young woman, grad student in classics, had served as a rower on an actual galley that had been designed to ancient specifications. She reports to her professor that because of the dynamics of the water being rowed by the others ahead of you along the craft, a certain rowing station is actually easier than the others. “No it isn’t” he declared with finality. She attempted to prevail upon his reason, to no avail. He had never set foot on such a craft, but his ‘professional’ opinion was delivered and that was it.
Another example: a house is excavated in a Jewish section of a city in the Decapolis. A mosaic is found on the floor with a representation of a figure that the archaeologist takes to be Apollo. Academic conclusion: Jews of the Decapolis incorporated Greek paganism into Judaism. Seriously… I’m not making that up. That was the conclusion. Not: that isn’t Apollo, the residents weren’t Jews, that mosaic just came with the house, everyone was getting mosaics like that, etc.; no, the most irreligious, sensational, outlandish (career-invigorating?) possible conclusion. It’s probably become a History Channel special at this point.
So not only do you have quasi-agnostics who don’t appear to even believe in miracles or prophecy, you’ve got an academic method which lacks all rigor or common sense, you’ve got all sorts of people involved in the process who either don’t believe or believe something in opposition to the faith, and then you’ve got the toughest factor of all… time.
St. Jerome knew these languages extremely well. For one thing, they weren’t dead languages in his day. He was a scholar of monumental accomplishment. So who knows, say, the Latin language better: St. Jerome, or Dr. Maxwell Snideworthy of modern academia?
The modern academic movement of historical criticism is hopelessly confused and corrupt. I trust the sources closest to the originals, and I trust what the eye witnesses and their students had to say. Thus I trust the tradition of the Church.
