Confused by NAB commentary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Student09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Student09, I haven’t read the whole thread and I don’t doubt that you got some great advice. I have a New American Bible version and was thinking, “Wow. The bible is a WHOLE lot easier to read than I remember.” Then I learned that the NAB was translated to an 8th grade level.

I started to read the New Testament and as is my nature I was ignoring the commentary. I started on The Gospel According to John and decided to read the commentary before the gospel. After the first paragraph was thinking, “What the … ???” And ignored it. I plan on getting a New Jerusalem or Doughey Reighms (sp?) version. So, just read the version of the bible you have and look for other commentary.

Secondly, I wanted to ask if you had the Cathechism of the Catholic Church? Being in RCIA, I am going to assume you do. Or at least, you should. The CCC, rather than the commentary in the NAB, is what I would pay attention to.
 
Also, this is from the Vatican II Constitution (which, incidentally, I just pulled from my NAB):

“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven. … The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word or mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.”
 
JMJ / MMM 090529 Friday
Hello again Soldier09 … and Everyone –
You said in response to my post >>> “You have not explained why it is necessary to separate history from theology.” Yes, in my posting I did just that.

You also said, “In the New Testament Christian theology is based on history. Right?”
WRONG. No Christian theology is based on history. Christian theology is based on Jesus Christ and on faith in Jesus Christ.

I’ll clarify on both of the above … but FIRST … let me show you how much I agree with the other important things you said in your post.
1 – Yes, we are obliged to believe everything the evangelists tell us about Jesus Christ … that pertains to our salvation.
2 – Jesus Resurrection certainly did happen in history. Our understanding of Jesus’ Resurrection might need clarification. Would a movie camera turned on from the time Jesus was placed in the tomb until Mary arrived early Sunday morning have shown us the Resurrection? Would that film depiction – assuming it showed the Resurrection happening – be the basis of faith? First we see and then we believe?
3 – I certainly agree with you that “our lives are charged with meaning because of God’s work in them.” Certainly this is true.

You posed the question, “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 in the life of God’s Son?”
Yes, there is a theological significance to factual history but the important point is that the theological significance IS NOT DEPENDENT on the facts of history

Regarding WHY we must separate historical facts from theology >>> Facts are not to be thrown away or paid no attention to … but again … and here’s the important point … the theological truths of God’s Revelation do not depend on the facts of history. If they did, why would faith be necessary? The facts of history are “crutches” that do help us toward the act of faith. But they are not absolutely necessary … and the truths of Revelation do not depend on facts. If we value those facts too much it will diminish or limit or simply prevent a deeper understanding of the particular revealed truth.

I have used the NAB translation of Scripture for years, and I value highly the commentary notes given. We must not anchor our security in our Christian faith on the facts of history. The facts of history can be helps toward strengthening our faith but they can also become little prison cells that lock us in and block any focusing clearer and clearer our understanding of God’s Revelation.

Every Blessing of Jesus and Mary on you, Soldier09, and on everyone who reads this post. John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
 
Student09 said:
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? :mad:

Is this acceptable practice for Catholic scholars? Is this typical? Am I overreacting?
Click to expand...
I myself am not very fond of the NAB. I stick to RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims Bible and RSV-2CE, that’s not to be confused with the NRSV which is not a good translation. I particularly like the bible that has Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate side by side! So go back to your RSV. I wouldn’t worry about those notes in the NAB. You’re barely learning the faith to enter into the Church of Jesus Christ. Don’t get frustrated and overwhelmed. But in my humble opinion I would not go to the NAB. The more I read the NAB the less I like it. I feel that way in comparison to the RSV-CE and the Douay-Rheims version of the bible. I’m sure if all I had was the NAB to read (not the notes) I would just read that one. But with many other much better versions out there, just get a better one.
 
Student09 said:
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

**Im really sorry you had to read this. I had bought a bible with these nab notes and I used the notes section for toliet paper. Its pure trash from the pit of hell. It 's there to undermine faith not to encourage it. **

(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.

These notes weren’t written by true christians, they are the weeds who grow with the wheat, the wolves in sheep’s clothing. You must understand, the Church is being infiltrated by imposters.

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? :mad:
**
I understand. I would too feel confused and frustrated myself. It makes me angry you even had to experience this. Tell me do you think these note makers who throw doubt on the very basis of our faith are true christians? of course not, they are the wolves in sheeps clothing Jesus warned us about. **

Is this acceptable practice for Catholic scholars? Is this typical? Am I overreacting?
Click to expand...
No your not overeacting my friend. Keep the faith , stay clear from Satanic deceptions.

**Im not sure what else to say, but know that the church is underattack from within and without. Stay close to God and pray as much as you can

God bless you**.
 
Ruthie said:
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.
Click to expand...
According to Mark Brumley, president of Ignatius Press, who was a guest on a recent Catholic Answers Live show, the Ignatius NT is finished and should be released in one volume this fall. The OT remains a work in progress.
 
Truthisbeauty7

I read:
No your not overeacting my friend. Keep the faith , stay clear from Satanic deceptions.
Click to expand...
Im not sure what else to say, but know that the church is underattack from within and without. Stay close to God and pray as much as you can
Click to expand...
This is a bit harsh.

The NAB is approved by the Church.

It is an excellent translation.

I sympathize with your concerns about the commentary.

Catholics are not fundamentalists. However for someone new to the Church it may be difficult not to get clear answers to all problems.

Life is difficult, and understanding scripture is not always easy.

NAB, the USCCB and the clergy are all faithful to the Church.
 
And the moon too, is made of green cheese. 🙂 With little fairies and leprechauns all around. . .

:shamrock2::irish2::harp:☘️
 
JeanneH said:
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
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent commentary.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Life is difficult, and understanding scripture is not always easy.

NAB, the USCCB and the clergy are all faithful to the Church.

Your kidding me right? Faithful to the church…how can the notes be faithful to the church when they cast doubt on the ressurection and the deity of Jesus, these are the very basis of our whole entire faith. Paul said if there’s no Ressurection then we are to be pitied then all men on earth. eat drink and be merry for tommorow we shall die. faithful to the church? These notes are garbage, I use them when I run out of toilet paper .These Bishops aren’t Christians who approved of these notes. They are wolves , wolves kill sheep…meaning they exist to destroy faith of God’s people.

We need to stop publishing these nab notes, then …
We need to competly clean house and send these fallen bishops out to pasture, and get some real men of God in there.

If I was the pope since things are so bad in america I’d make Scott Hahn, Timothy Staples, Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Father Pacwa, Father Groshel, Father Corapi , Ralph Martin all bishops of major cities.
 
I want to know these bishops names. I want to work on getting them thrown out of there positions, then I want to work on destorying this satanic garbage of the nab notes.

Where Can I find a list of all the bishops that approved of these notes?

Where can I voice my opinion about having them removed from Catholic bibles?
 
Catholics should be loyal to the Church, its priests and bishops.

The views of the Pope and hierarchy should be considered with respect, as should the views of all.
 
TruthisBeauty7 said:
If I was the pope since things are so bad in america I’d make Scott Hahn, Timothy Staples, Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Father Pacwa, Father Groshel, Father Corapi , Ralph Martin all bishops of major cities.
Click to expand...
That would be great! Though some of them are married. 😛

God Bless,
Michael
 
The idea of making Scott Hahn a bishop is interesting.
He (a bishop) must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 1 Ti 3:6.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top