Confused by NAB commentary

[Student09]

My RCIA director gave me an NAB bible with the commentary. (Previously I was reading the RSV without any notes.) I’ve been reading the notes and chapter introductions etc, and am confused; the commentary calls into question the authorship of all the Gospels (which perhaps doesn’t matter, but I have read other modern Catholic documents affirming the traditional attribution of authorship, for instance, Peter’s son wrote the Gospel according to Mark and the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John). It suggests that historical truth must be separated out from the theological ideas of the writers, ie. from faith. It insults the literary style of the evangelists and the Apostle Paul, and basically says the early Church was naive in matters of faith and got a lot wrong. It says that all we know is that people saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion, and then his followers had to come up with an interpretation for this. And so on.

I feel confused and frustrated. This is supposed to be a CATHOLIC Bible. What am I supposed to think, as someone attempting to convert, when a Catholic commentary even calls into question the legitimacy of the account of the resurrection?

Is this acceptable practice for Catholic scholars? Is this typical? Am I overreacting?

 

[JeanneH]

Hi,

I have an NAB and find the notes questionable. I wouldn’t trust them especially if you are new to the faith.
If you truly want a Catholic Bible go to the Douay-Rheims. There are some notes here. If you want true traditional catholic commentary go for the Douay-Rheims with Haydock commentary.

You can find it at this site.
haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

Jeanne

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi,

I have an NAB and find the notes questionable. I wouldn’t trust them especially if you are new to the faith.
If you truly want a Catholic Bible go to the Douay-Rheims. There are some notes here. If you want true traditional catholic commentary go for the Douay-Rheims with Haydock commentary.

You can find it at this site.
haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

Jeanne

I agree. It seems whatever the USCCB has put out is literally junk and controversial to Catholicism.

 

[NoelFitz]

I read in this discussion:

I agree. It seems whatever the USCCB has put out is literally junk and controversial to Catholicism.

I find this uncomfortable.

The Church is a hierarchical Church and the opinions of the hierarchy should be considered seriously. It is not correct to say what the bishops put out is junk.

First of all did the USCCB put out the NAB?

I see

The New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms, and with Roman Catholic Deutero-Canon. "New American Bible. Copyright © 1991,1986,1970 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, USA, is used by license of copyright owner.

Thus it seems unfair to blame the USCCB for this translations.

I also see

the commentary calls into question the authorship of all the Gospels (which perhaps doesn’t matter, but I have read other modern Catholic documents affirming the traditional attribution of authorship, for instance, Peter’s son wrote the Gospel according to Mark and the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John). It suggests that historical truth must be separated out from the theological ideas of the writers, ie. from faith. It insults the literary style of the evangelists and the Apostle Paul, and basically says the early Church was naive in matters of faith and got a lot wrong. It says that all we know is that people saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion, and then his followers had to come up with an interpretation for this. And so on.

I feel confused and frustrated. This is supposed to be a CATHOLIC Bible. What am I supposed to think, as someone attempting to convert, when a Catholic commentary even calls into question the legitimacy of the account of the resurrection?

Is this acceptable practice for Catholic scholars? Is this typical? Am I overreacting?

I understand the concern of the writer. But truth is important.

Catholics are free to study and come to their own conclusions on most issues.

There are few doctrines that have to be agreed.

Some may claim that “Peter’s son wrote the Gospel according to Mark” but very few would share this view.

I thinl it is important to try to follow what I have written at the end of this post - “in necessary things unity, in dubious things freedom, in all things charity”

 

[juliamajor]

I read in this discussion:

I find this uncomfortable.

The Church is a hierarchical Church and the opinions of the hierarchy should be considered seriously. It is not correct to say what the bishops put out is junk.

First of all did the USCCB put out the NAB?

I see

Thus it seems unfair to blame the USCCB for this translations.

I also see

I understand the concern of the writer. But truth is important.

Catholics are free to study and come to their own conclusions on most issues.

There are few doctrines that have to be agreed.

Some may claim that “Peter’s son wrote the Gospel according to Mark” but very few would share this view.

I thinl it is important to try to follow what I have written at the end of this post - “in necessary things unity, in dubious things freedom, in all things charity”

As far as I remember John Mark was not Peter’s son but his interpreter .The Gospels had no authors assigned to them - most of the books of the bible have no author attached to them.It comes through tradition of ECF who were not all agreed on who wrote who when and where.Not all believed that they were written by the apostles themselves but their followers and companions.

 

[NoelFitz]

**Juliamajor **

I agree with you to a great extent.

What does ECF stand for?

Mark MAY have been Peter’s interpreter.

However, no matter who wrote the Gospels, they remain the inspired words of God.

 

[COLOS]

…the commentary calls into question the authorship of all the Gospels (which perhaps doesn’t matter,
…

Is this acceptable practice for Catholic scholars? Is this typical? Am I overreacting?

Yeah, you’ll see that from the egg-head theologian types (that’s meant affectionately ). One of the more interesting facets of our faith is the ability to question everything and find solid answers. In professional theological studies you will find it common to question authorship and timelines. It’s a shame that some of this found its way into the NAB, imo. Just recognize it for what it is, professional theological speculation and nothing more. The commentaries are not meant to be definitive instruction.

Trust the teachings of the Church. She won’t lead you astray.

 

[Student09]

However, no matter who wrote the Gospels, they remain the inspired words of God.

I agree, and don’t have an investment in arguing for a certain authorship. I was more irked by comments like this:

What by any Western standard are the limited vocabularies and stylistic infelicities of the evangelists cannot be retained in the exact form in which they appear in the originals without displeasing the modern ear. A compromise is here attempted whereby some measure of the poverty of the evangelists’ expression is kept and placed at the service of their message in its richness. Similarly, the syntactical shortcomings of Paul, his frequent lapses into anacoluthon, and the like, are rendered as they occur in his epistles rather than “smoothed out.”

This (from the preface to the NT) seems like totally unnecessary disrespect aimed at the evangelists. What are they trying to convey with this comment?

I don’t have time right now to go through the notes themselves and try to find ones that struck me negatively. And I don’t want to slam the commentary as a whole or say it’s no good, because I have found many of the notes helpful, if not especially spiritual.

However, I just realized that the thing that bothered me most is not (as far as I can tell) actually part of the NAB itself, but is a sort of introduction to this particular edition of it that I was given. This line bothered me in particular:

“There is no doubt that Jesus died and was seen alive by witnesses. All reports are unanimous on that. But again the New Testament writers chose theological interpretation to teach what the risen Lord means to believers … Remember the golden rule: keep historical facts distinct from their theological interpretations.” ??? What on earth? Aside from being badly written, that’s just a ridiculous thing to tell a believer. Why should we separate history from theology? That’s like saying we should separate the body from the soul. This intro also says that the Bible is inspired just like art is inspired (so all art is the word of God??).

I’m hoping this is just a case of some editor deciding to add a truly lousy introduction to an otherwise bishop-approved edition of the Bible. Maybe my disgust with this one part of the edition bled into my experience of reading the NAB footnotes.

 

[Student09]

Trust the teachings of the Church. She won’t lead you astray.

 

[banjo]

Yeah, you’ll see that from the egg-head theologian types (that’s meant affectionately ). One of the more interesting facets of our faith is the ability to question everything and find solid answers. In professional theological studies you will find it common to question authorship and timelines. It’s a shame that some of this found its way into the NAB, imo. Just recognize it for what it is, professional theological speculation and nothing more. The commentaries are not meant to be definitive instruction.

Trust the teachings of the Church. She won’t lead you astray.

What do you think of Hahn’s “Answering Common Objections?”

 

[adriancombe]

the commentary calls into question the authorship of all the Gospels

Take such claims with a handful rather than a grain of salt. The authorship has been defined. See discussion here.

 

[Ruthie]

ECF = Early Church Fathers.

I also dislike the NAB. I use the RSV-CE2 (Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition) because it is very readable. (It is also the English version used by the Vatican.) It’s online here.

You can find the D-R (Douay-Rheims) online, with commentary by Challoner, here.

The Haydock Commentary, also based on the D-R, but usable with any version, is here.

The D-R, starting with Ps. 10 (I think) numbers the psalms slightly differently from other versions, off by one. The DR’s Psalm 10 is split in other versions, so D-R Ps. 11 = RSV-CE2 Ps. 12.

There are commentaries available in book form. They can get pretty expensive, but are worth it. The Navarre Bible is great, and the Ignatius ones are good too. The Navarre comes in several hardback volumes, covering the whole Bible. The Ignatius comes in slender paperbacks, with one to three NT books in each. I don’t know if they have finished with the NT yet, or started the OT. Both can be bought volume by volume.

Hope this helps,

Ruthie

 

[tobinatorstark]

I read in this discussion:

I find this uncomfortable.

The Church is a hierarchical Church and the opinions of the hierarchy should be considered seriously. It is not correct to say what the bishops put out is junk.

First of all did the USCCB put out the NAB?

I see

Thus it seems unfair to blame the USCCB for this translations.

I also see

I understand the concern of the writer. But truth is important.

Catholics are free to study and come to their own conclusions on most issues.

There are few doctrines that have to be agreed.

Some may claim that “Peter’s son wrote the Gospel according to Mark” but very few would share this view.

I thinl it is important to try to follow what I have written at the end of this post - “in necessary things unity, in dubious things freedom, in all things charity”

The USCCB overlooks the translations, but after that it is sent to the Holy See. In the case of the 1991 Psalms the Holy See sent it back to the USCCB with notes. What is in the Lectionary is not what is in our personal Bibles. The RNAB is used for Liturgy because the 1991 Psalms were rejected for Liturgical use, Yet the Archbishop of Cincinnati, who was President of the USCCB at the time, Daniel Palaryzk issued the Imprimatur. This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have errors. Obviously it did or else Pope John Paul II and others at the Vatican wouldn’t have rejected it for liturgical use. I have nothing against Archbishop Pilarzyk. He has faithfully served his Archdiocese very well. I should know because the Toledo Diocese is included in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. As far as I am concerned I feel that the USCCB needs to overlook thouroughly. The GIRM has so far been the best thing associated with the USCCB. If you look closely how many Protestant translations on this list have been tried as Catholicized in version and in version only. When I look for a translation I look for accuracy and not readability. The USCCB does it the other way around.

 

[juliamajor]

**Juliamajor **

I agree with you to a great extent.

What does ECF stand for?

Mark MAY have been Peter’s interpreter.

However, no matter who wrote the Gospels, they remain the inspired words of God.

ECF=Early Church Fathers-and of course they are inspired no matter who they were written by

 

[Shin]

Is this acceptable practice for Catholic scholars? Is this typical? Am I overreacting?

These are troubled times, where a great deal that should absolutely not be going in, is going on, even in high places and places given good repute.

As long as you cling to that which is unchanging you will do well, and as long as you are aware these are troubled times and that much has to be put to the test.

I’ve heard it said, because of the commentary about all the original authors not being the original authors in the NAB, NAB is short for, ‘Not Actually the Bible’. I find this quite… accurate… in the attitude and lack of traditional exegesis throughout the commentary of the NAB.

So approach the commentary with great reserve if you approach it at all, and stick to the words within. It is the historical-critical method rather than proper Catholic exegesis throughout normally – which is not useful to the spiritual and moral life, all it does is involve one in historical questions, often already answered or that the reader often would be useless at researching or considering in any case.

Replacing it for a Douay, with more traditional commentaries will be the best way to study.

The Haydock is online, and can be bought. The Golden Chain is the same. Much of the Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide (to be relied upon)! is available as well.

[edit]

This audio sermon is very helpful: Unless We Believe in Scripture

 

[NoelFitz]

Colos

You wrote:

Trust the teachings of the Church. She won’t lead you astray.

I agree fully. But the Church does not teach infallibly that, for example, Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles that I am studying ay present. My view wavers, but I tend towards Pauline authorship.

We are free to have opinions, once we stick to the fundamental truth. Pleasee see my signature.

 

[Cashue]

My RCIA director gave me an NAB bible with the commentary. (Previously I was reading the RSV without any notes.) I’ve been reading the notes and chapter introductions etc, and am confused; the commentary calls into question the authorship of all the Gospels (which perhaps doesn’t matter, but I have read other modern Catholic documents affirming the traditional attribution of authorship, for instance, Peter’s son wrote the Gospel according to Mark and the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John). It suggests that historical truth must be separated out from the theological ideas of the writers, ie. from faith. It insults the literary style of the evangelists and the Apostle Paul, and basically says the early Church was naive in matters of faith and got a lot wrong. It says that all we know is that people saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion, and then his followers had to come up with an interpretation for this. And so on.

I feel confused and frustrated. This is supposed to be a CATHOLIC Bible. What am I supposed to think, as someone attempting to convert, when a Catholic commentary even calls into question the legitimacy of the account of the resurrection?

Is this acceptable practice for Catholic scholars? Is this typical? Am I overreacting?

The notes are compiled of the best catholic scholars, I think you should listen to them.

 

[COLOS]

What do you think of Hahn’s “Answering Common Objections?”

Heh, I enjoyed it. Probably time to change my sig again, though.

I always enjoy Dr. Hahn. Listening to him lecture is like standing at ground zero during a B-52 bomber live-fire excercise, lol. So much information given, so little capacity to absorb it all.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The notes are compiled of the best catholic scholars, I think you should listen to them.

That doesn’t mean they are accurate. I prefer the Haydock Bible Commentary, which by no means that they are perfect. Some commentary comes from Doctors and Fathers of the early church.

 

[Shin]

Best? I think not.