Confused by NAB commentary

[Epistemes]

“Only be careful that this freedom of yours does not in any way turn into an obstacle to trip those who are vulnerable.” (1 Cor 8:9)

For the scholars who wrote these notes, there is actually a clear divide between their academic pursuit of the historical truth behind the Gospels and what they actually believe. This is evident in most of their actual books, if you have time to read them. Unfortunately, not everyone has time to read 800+ page tomes of hermeneutic debate, and for the many of us who pick up the NAB with no background in modern biblical research, these notes prove to be a huge stumbling block.

My recommendation for those just entering into the faith is to purchase any other Catholic Bible aside from the NAB. While I don’t believe the notes to be absolutely heretical, they ask more of “faith” than most neophytes can conjure up at the moment.

 

[Student09]

Thank you, this is all very helpful!

My recommendation for those just entering into the faith is to purchase any other Catholic Bible aside from the NAB. While I don’t believe the notes to be absolutely heretical, they ask more of “faith” than most neophytes can conjure up at the moment.

Yes, I think if I were more grounded in the faith I would not feel unsettled. The commentaries that have been recommended here look more like what I was hoping for.

 

[Student09]

I was just looking at the Ignatius commentary on Matthew and there’s a section “Is Matthew’s Infancy Narrative Historical?” addressing the claim made by some scholars that Matthew was not writing history, but a commentary on the OT. This scholarly view is exactly what’s suggested by the NAB notes - not just in reference to the infancy narrative, but throughout all the Gospels. For instance, when Jesus is silent at his trial, the note suggests this is a reference to Isaiah; as if his silence were invented by the evangelist to remind people of Isaiah, rather than Jesus actually having been silent in genuine fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophesy.

I am definitely dropping the NAB for the time being and picking up a commentary that will actually argue for the Catholic faith. It’s somewhat disappointing to me that the Bible handed to me by my RCIA director should be so lukewarm on matters of faith.

 

[Epistemes]

It’s somewhat disappointing to me that the Bible handed to me by my RCIA director should be so lukewarm on matters of faith.

Don’t be too discouraged in the RCIA director: this is what is what we’ve been given to work with, though I’m not sure why other than the history of the NAB and its connection to the long-standing tradition of the Douay-Rheims translation.

I don’t know what type of translation you prefer, but I’ve grown quite fond of the Jerusalem Bible translation and use it quite frequently. The Catholic Truth Society has published an excellent Bible with excellent introductions to each book, sound footnotes, and much more which is all in good faith. You can check it out here:

cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_SC101.html

 

[tobinatorstark]

Don’t be too discouraged in the RCIA director: this is what is what we’ve been given to work with, though I’m not sure why other than the history of the NAB and its connection to the long-standing tradition of the Douay-Rheims translation.

I don’t know what type of translation you prefer, but I’ve grown quite fond of the Jerusalem Bible translation and use it quite frequently. The Catholic Truth Society has published an excellent Bible with excellent introductions to each book, sound footnotes, and much more which is all in good faith. You can check it out here:

cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_SC101.html

That is all they hand out at my church is the NAB. I think a lot has to do with the price of the paperback NAB St. Joseph Medium Size edition

 

[Student09]

Don’t be too discouraged in the RCIA director: this is what is what we’ve been given to work with

Well, I thought that was probably the case. I’m really excited about starting RCIA (soon!); I don’t mean to sound so negative. I must be tired and grumpy.

I don’t know what type of translation you prefer, but I’ve grown quite fond of the Jerusalem Bible translation and use it quite frequently. The Catholic Truth Society has published an excellent Bible with excellent introductions to each book, sound footnotes, and much more which is all in good faith. You can check it out here:

cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_SC101.html

I quite like the RSV. The main thing that’s held me back from really looking into the Jerusalem Bible is the use of “Yahweh”, but it looks like they’ve changed that in the edition you linked to?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Well, I thought that was probably the case. I’m really excited about starting RCIA (soon!); I don’t mean to sound so negative. I must be tired and grumpy.

I quite like the RSV. The main thing that’s held me back from really looking into the Jerusalem Bible is the use of “Yahweh”, but it looks like they’ve changed that in the edition you linked to?

The CTS also uses the Grail Psalms I think 1963 version. Not quite sure. I use Grail Psalms when I pray the LOTH

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Does anyone know when the New Revised Grail Psalms will be published?

 

[bengland]

Does anyone know when the New Revised Grail Psalms will be published?

Is the Revised Grail still awaiting Vatican approval? There doesn’t appear to be much news on it.

As for the original poster… That RSV should be fine. The Old Testament translation is probably easier to read anyway. I agree with the sentiments here on the NAB commentary. You don’t need your faith assaulted every time you pick up a bible.

That commentary has one thing going for it, however. When skeptics appeared and said “Q or Quelle” “Matthew didn’t write Matthew”, “Mark is first”, “the old scholarship is wrong”, “you can’t trust the bible”, “read Bart Ehrmann” etc ad infinitum… It was the fact that they did not hide the information, but presented it in what seemed like a fair manner, long before Ehrmann and Pagels, that provided a sort of innoculation against the modern skeptic gotchas. When the challenges came it wasn’t such a shock.

 

[Student09]

Well, from what I have read of them, I like both the Grail Psalms and the Jerusalem translation.

Is the text in the CTS Bible fairly readable? I always worry about this with buying books online, especially Bibles which so often have tiny print and bleed-through. (I have trouble with my near vision as it is - I have to wear reading glasses.)

 

[CalCatholic]

Well, from what I have read of them, I like both the Grail Psalms and the Jerusalem translation.

Is the text in the CTS Bible fairly readable? I always worry about this with buying books online, especially Bibles which so often have tiny print and bleed-through. (I have trouble with my near vision as it is - I have to wear reading glasses.)

The text is kind of small (I think it is size 8) and the pages are a little thin. The Bible is the size of a fat missal.

 

[Epistemes]

Well, from what I have read of them, I like both the Grail Psalms and the Jerusalem translation.

Is the text in the CTS Bible fairly readable? I always worry about this with buying books online, especially Bibles which so often have tiny print and bleed-through. (I have trouble with my near vision as it is - I have to wear reading glasses.)

The Standard Edition uses 8 pt. font, but even with my weak eyes I have no trouble reading it. The font seems to be about the same size as most other bibles I own, except, of course, for the compact editions.

The pages are actually thicker than you’d expect. Last night, while flipping through the Book of Job, there were several times when I thought that I had grabbed 2-3 pages, but it was only one! The pages are sturdy.

Plus, it is hardcover, which means that it will last you many, many years to come.

It is about 7 1/2 inches long by 5 1/4 inches wide by 2 inches thick.

 

[NoelFitz]

Bengland

You wrote:

Is the Revised Grail still awaiting Vatican approval? There doesn’t appear to be much news on it.

As for the original poster… That RSV should be fine. The Old Testament translation is probably easier to read anyway. I agree with the sentiments here on the NAB commentary. You don’t need your faith assaulted every time you pick up a bible.

Perhaps one should distinguish between the use of scripture in the liturgy and for study. I believe the Church is more careful about the versions used in the liturgy, while it is more relaxed about those used for study.

I am concerned about attacks on the NAB, as some seem to be criticism of Catholic bishops. We should really hang together rather than hang separately.

But I do realize that teachers should be very sensitive to the faith of their pupils. Those who have had very orthodox school instruction may be weakened in the faith by subsequent teachers who point out insensitively that all we learned in school is not infallible.

 

[bengland]

Bengland

You wrote:

Perhaps one should distinguish between the use of scripture in the liturgy and for study. I believe the Church is more careful about the versions used in the liturgy, while it is more relaxed about those used for study.

I am concerned about attacks on the NAB, as some seem to be criticism of Catholic bishops. We should really hang together rather than hang separately.

But I do realize that teachers should be very sensitive to the faith of their pupils. Those who have had very orthodox school instruction may be weakened in the faith by subsequent teachers who point out insensitively that all we learned in school is not infallible.

afaik the commentary isn’t read at the lectionary. Also some of the attacks on the NAB are derived from the fact that the Vatican rejected portions of it for use in the Liturgy and required changes to other portions.

 

[NoelFitz]

Bengland

Thank you for your post. I gather you essentially agree with me.

You wrote:

Also some of the attacks on the NAB are derived from the fact that the Vatican rejected portions of it for use in the Liturgy and required changes to other portions.

Would you like to give me a reference to how the Vatican required changes to the NAB?

 

[bengland]

Bengland

Thank you for your post. I gather you essentially agree with me.

You wrote:

Would you like to give me a reference to how the Vatican required changes to the NAB?

I have no idea if we agree or not, but I trust my Bishop, if that’s what you mean. I’m not even opposed to critical commentaries, but they can provide difficulties for others and they have been difficult for me in the past.

This gives a timeline of events related to the lectionary. Apparently a delegation of bishops traveled to Rome to work on a solution.
studentorg.cua.edu/cbib/watch.htm

usccb.org/comm/archives/1997/97-170.shtml
usccb.org/comm/archives/1998/98-143.shtml

Whatever the reason, it was revised to meet the standards set by the Vatican. It might be better to pose this question to the USCCB. I don’t know all of the details.

I have not seen so much in the 1986 NT that is objectionable in terms of inclusive language, but really never paid much attention. The only Bibles where I have noticed this to be a significant problem throughout were the Good News Bible and the NRSV, both Protestant translations, and that’s because the usage in those bibles was too obviously out of place to gloss over.

That said - If a translation or commentary is causing problems for a reader they should put it down and go with something else.

 

[NoelFitz]

Bengland

I am pleased you trust your bishop, whoever he is. At times I am saddened by attacks on bishops. Often criticism of the NAB becomes criticism of the USCCB and Catholic bishops.

Different English speaking countries have different versions of the Bible in the Mass.Presumably because bishops differ.

You wrote:

That said - If a translation or commentary is causing problems for a reader they should put it down and go with something else.

This is one of the most sound comments I have read in this discussion.

I agree fully with it.

Well said!

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 090528 Thursday
Hello Good Soldier09 –
Referring to some statements in the NAB translation of Scripture, “Remember the golden rule: keep historical facts distinct from their theological interpretations," you wrote that this “seems like totally unnecessary disrespect aimed at the evangelists. What are they trying to convey with this comment?”

No disrespect at all is meant. The NAB is telling us that, like the Church, Divine and human, so are the evangelists … inspired AND human (with all their smudge prints). To believe that the evangelists were inspired by God does not in any way lessen the different humanities of the different evangelists … their temperaments, characters, memories, imaginations, education, habits – all their fingerprints remain in the Bible.

You quoted the NAB as teaching, “Remember the golden rule: keep historical facts distinct from their theological interpretations." This roused a response from you, “What on earth? … 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.”

To separate history from theology is a very important rule in our ongoing efforts, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to arrive at a more and more properly focused understanding of Scripture. This and many other very important guides are given us by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, 30 September 1943. The understandings which this encyclical gives are vital to properly understanding Scripture.

We must understand that the writers of Biblical times did not understand “history” as we do > very factual, dates right, number present, exact sequence, etc., etc. No. Those things were often of little importance to them. We “highly educated people” want FACTS, FACTS, FACTS – that’s what history means to us. They, the ancients, wanted MEANING, MEANING, MEANING … often not attempting to get FACTUALLY precise. To make clearer this very point (next paragraph)……

I copy here from an official footnote concerning DEI VERBUM, Chapter 3, Section 11, from Second Vatican Council >>>
“St Thomas is quoted, ‘Any knowledge which is profitable to salvation may be the object of prophetic inspiration. But things which cannot affect our salvation do not belong to inspiration.’ St Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, Q.12, A.2, Corpus. Hence, Augustine says that although the sacred writers might have known astronomy, nevertheless the Holy Spirit did not intend to utter through them any truth apart from that which is profitable to salvation. He adds that this may concern either teachings to be believed or morals to be practiced. The Bible was not written in order to teach the natural sciences, nor to give information on merely political history. It treats of these (and all other subjects) only insofar as they are involved in matters concerning salvation. It is only in this respect that the veracity of God and the inerrancy of the inspired writers are engaged.” (End official footnote DEI VERBUM, Vatican Council II)

Why are we afraid – yes, terrified – to grow and learn? Because our SECURITY is being threatened, our locked in comfort zone is being threatened. Threatened by what? by whom? BY GOD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT – THAT’S WHOM! Some of us want all growth and maturing to be frozen in cement and never grow. This means stagnation and ultimate death.

Separate history from theology? It is essential to do so. Sometimes history will coincide with theology. Oftentimes it was never meant either by the prophets or evangelists or by the Holy Spirit to coincide.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com

 

[mgull]

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?

First, I feel your pain. This was the first Bible i bought, and the reason i bought it is because it said CATHOLIC BIBLE on it! Then i started to ask questions due to the commentary, and I got myself into a world of trouble. So many quetions came from reading the commentaries in this Bible, which is good and bad. It’s bad because i know the frustration you are feeling, you want to know what the Church officially teaches. It’s good because it gets you looking for the answers. My priest told me, the more you seek God the more you will find Him. Bottom line, if you want to know what the Church’s official teaching is on issues then get yourself a Catechism.
Secondly, and this is very sad and even more frustrating, is that you can’t always rely on RCIA to help. A guy i know was teaching RCIA and the director told him not to talk about the pill, or divorce, but then again I live in a very liberal archdiocese. Point being, read the Bible and the Catechism, so then you can separate the wolves from the sheep. I strongly recommend The Navarre Bible Series, it uses the RSVCE, and it’s called Navarre because it was done by the University of Navarre’s Theology Department under the direction of St. Jose Maria Escriva! It’s pricey but well worth it! Put them in your budget and buy them by the month or bimonthly. It will take you some time. I’ve only got through Revelation, Hebrews and the Catholic letters so far, but it goes into so much depth. Two very orthodox priests recommended this study on two different occasions and both said they use this series to put their homilies together, and both give phenomenal homilies.

 

[Student09]

John Farren, you have not explained why it is necessary to separate history from theology in the New Testament. Christian theology is based in history. Right? The historical existence of Israel, the birth, life, words and actions of Jesus, His crucifixion and resurrection? While the evangelists may not have cared to get everything in the exact sequence in which they happened, and so forth, we are obliged, aren’t we, to believe that they are telling the truth about Jesus? Or do you want to argue that Jesus’ resurrection didn’t historically happen, but the Holy Spirit told the evangelists to lie and say that it happened, which perhaps has some sort of vague spiritual significance completely different from what Christians have thought the significance was for the past 2000 years?

As for “fact” vs “meaning”, I believe our lives are charged with meaning because of God’s work in them. I think the Catechism agrees with me:

CCC 308: "The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”"

If God is at work in our actions and lives, then isn’t there a theological significance to the “factual history” of our lives? And if this significance is present even in our own lives, would it not be much, much more present in the life of God’s Son?