F
FishyPete
Guest
by the way the footnote says he didn’t say anything at all, which is silly to a fault. So as God himself he didn’t know he had to die. Absolutely ridiculous.
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
Thanks.your not in trouble.
That’s why I don’t read the footnotes. I have a pile of study Bibles with essays and footnotes and word studies and they sit on the shelf. I might grab one occasionally but I don’t really get a thrill out of the footnotes either way, good or bad.
Again, I don’t get caught up in it. I don’t worry about it. If it happened that way then fine. If it didn’t happen that way then it is fine too. People get caught up in it and when something in the Bible doesn’t line up from an historical perspective they have a crisis of faith. It really doesn’t need to be that way because Scripture is not written for the sake of history but for the sake of salvation.
The one thing I will never concede on however, is the historicity of the man named Jesus. He existed. He was God. He was Crucified. He walked out of his tomb. He ascended into Heaven. All just like it says in the creed.
Keep searching my friend. Keep asking questions. It was the Bible that converted me to the Catholic faith - John 6. I fell on the floor and went to confession the next day. Never stop reading scripture.
-Tim-
F
FishyPete
Guest
I said it yesterday and I’ll say it again, your a good man.Thanks.
That’s why I don’t read the footnotes. I have a pile of study Bibles with essays and footnotes and word studies and they sit on the shelf. I might grab one occasionally but I don’t really get a thrill out of the footnotes either way, good or bad.
Again, I don’t get caught up in it. I don’t worry about it. If it happened that way then fine. If it didn’t happen that way then it is fine too. People get caught up in it and when something in the Bible doesn’t line up from an historical perspective they have a crisis of faith. It really doesn’t need to be that way because Scripture is not written for the sake of history but for the sake of salvation.
The one thing I will never concede on however, is the historicity of the man named Jesus. He existed. He was God. He was Crucified. He walked out of his tomb. He ascended into Heaven. All just like it says in the creed.
Keep searching my friend. Keep asking questions. It was the Bible that converted me to the Catholic faith - John 6. I fell on the floor and went to confession the next day. Never stop reading scripture.
-Tim-
Peace.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
The footnote is saying that the narrative is not a quote. And it DOES say it was based on what Jesus said, just not on the exact words Matthew used.
Remember, Matthew was inspired of God to write the narrative. So while Jesus’ original words may not have been represented verbatim in the narrative of the verse, as the Church teaches Matthew wrote the truth that God wanted us to know about what Jesus meant.
I do agree with you, however, that it is the way the footnote is written that is causing the problem because they are not written with the layperson in mind.
To illustrate, your title for this thread makes reference to the footnote apparatus of the NABRE as “commentary.” This is incorrect. The footnotes contain little commentary. Instead they are technical notes, explaining the translation choices made, the etymology involved, and critical analysis–include theory–regarding manuscript transmission history.
Most readers have no idea when the NABRE is offering commentary (the little that it does) and when, as in the instance in Matthew, is presenting transmission theory. Outside of academia it is very hard to distinguish.
The argument you are having with me is about a theoretical model–something that cannot be definitively proven. It’s just a theory. My position that I have been arguing is that as such it is not incorrect or counters Catholic teaching by the presentation of the theory.
What IS wrong is that the footnote doesn’t tell the average reader: “This is transmission theory.” And so it gets read as if it is commentary representative of Catholic doctrine that must be accepted by everyone who wants to be a faithful Catholic. This isn’t what technical footnotes do.
Personally I do not need to rely on a translation to read Scripture. I’m of Jewish heritage and read and speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek. So if you are reading my comments as if they are meant to be an endorsement or rejection of the NABRE, then you are projecting something that isn’t there.
I was addressing the issues raised to explain how the technical footnotes of the NABRE are meant to be read. I was unaware that you weren’t looking for help in this matter, that you were merely presenting your own critique–which as I’ve noted above, is quite warranted.
This doesn’t mean you aren’t reading the footnotes incorrectly. It just means that you are one of many who do, and this is why the footnotes need to be changed. The technical and theoretical information can be helpful, but it doesn’t help if they are presented in a way that the reader cannot distinguish between technical and doctrinal issues.
And for the record, I do not agree with the transmission theory as presented in the NABRE regarding the verse. I was merely stating that you were misreading the footnote–again a footnote that doesn’t reflect my personal views on the matter.
F
FishyPete
Guest
A fantastic post. Thank you. I agree with everything you just said.
My apologies if I’ve come across rudely.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not much unlike what’s been going on today IMO.
G
gus
Guest
I always was under the impression the Disciples spoke only one language ,probably Aramaic.
It was the hearer who heard the message each in his native tongue.
That’s the only thing that makes sense.
It was 't the UN.
Their message was clearly understood in the native language of the hearer.
T
TimothyH
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
Acts 2:4 takes place within the Upper Room. It refers to the Holy Spirit gift of personally praying and praising God in Tongues.
Acts 2: 5-11 takes place outside the Upper Room where there were other devout Jews from many different regions. It refers to the Miracle of Hearing in which these Jews heard Peter’s Speech (Acts 2: 14-36) in their native tongue. Apparently, the Apostles spoke in the Galilean language while the listeners heard multiple languages according to each individual’s native tongue. (Acts 2: 7-11)
In a sense, the gathering of worldwide Jews at the time of Pentecost exemplifies Matthew 28: 16-20, The Commissioning of the Disciples.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The parts in bold/red are extremely interesting. Thank you for taking the time to write this post.
-Tim-
F
FishyPete
Guest
I think he is right Tim. The bold parts I mean. He’s quite perceptive on these points.
F
FishyPete
Guest
why did you think his post was interesting?
I thought it was very very well put and correct and answered my question.
T
TimothyH
Guest
I was not aware of the difference between commentary and technical notes.
Indeed.
-Tim-
P
ProVobis
Guest
newadvent.org/bible/act002.htm
Looks like each heard them speak in their own language (Greek is dialect/tongues.)
F
FishyPete
Guest
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
You are welcome.
Apparently the translation committee and the bishops at large aren’t aware of the wide gap between academically trained clergy and the rest of us. While I’m considered a scientist in my trade, I am quite aware of what I like to call the “geek factor.”
We geeks have our own “zip words” that mean a lot to us. To the average Joe “geek speak” might as well be “Greek speak.”
Almost all the footnotes in the NABRE and its previous editions have been technical ones, explaining two main things: why a certain choice was made in the rendition from the original language and how the text may have come down to us (notice I said “may” and not “how it came down to us, no ifs, ands, or buts”).
Except for a relatively few instances, Mother Church actually doesn’t ask for many commentary footnotes to be added. Matthew 1:25 regarding the word “until” and 16:18 about Peter and “rock” are some examples of the few times necessary Catholic commentary is found in approved Catholic translations of Scripture. But if you have an approved translation like the RSV:CE 2nd Edition you will note that these types of doctrinal footnotes are extremely rare.
The NAB and its revision, the NABRE, takes a far more scholastic approach to presenting the inspired text, but most Catholics don’t know this. Presuming that most Catholics know and are highly familiar with what Tradition says about Scripture (and that Catholics have and use an approved commentary whenever they read the Bible), the NABRE strives to offer a plethora of academia and technical “POW!” to the Catholic diet. Why? So Catholics won’t be caught off guard by those who challenge the Bible on critical terms.
The “geek gap” here is that no one told the general American Catholic public that this is what the NABRE is doing. Outside of having not too few good books on the subject and a Bible study group always going on in our parishes, the Church in America never told us what they were supplying for us.
And the Bible translation geeks forgot to teach us their list of zip words and such too.
So while the NABRE is supposed to supplement what we know (or should know) about Scripture already, no one ever introduced lay Catholics to the world of current Biblical scholarship and how it works (and sounds–or reads). Geeks always speak of hypothesis as if it were fact, and they don’t call facts “facts,” they call it “theory”…and the list of confusion due to a different vocabulary goes on and on. (Enjoying the gap yet?)
So we have a Catholic public that is up in arms about the NABRE and its footnotes (because they sound like they are offering challenges to Catholic doctrine) when its really the normal reaction to something people don’t understand. Those familiar with critical analysis and theory will recognize what these footnotes are. But, I mean, outside of geeks like me how many of you use critical analysis on a daily basis to arrive at a hypothesis, and then hand that hypothesis over for independent verification (or to be disproved) before you come to any conclusion or opinion?
Not many, huh?
That is what the footnotes in the NABRE are all about. It’s offering you the latest in scholarship theory and analysis so you can ADD that to what you should know already from Tradition. (Didn’t you read that in the very fine print in the one-billion word introduction to the book of Sirach before you began reading even a verse?
)We are supposed to be reading our copy of the NABRE with a separate Church-approved commentary or as part of a Church study program–but unless you read the fine print in the already long list of NABRE footnotes or the news release articles that were published in 2011, you won’t know that either.
Add to that the footnotes are so seemingly endless it is easy to miss the parts where they do kind of say that, but that information gets lost among the rest. (And they are really good for what they are, and amazing for what they are…but someone needs to officially tell everyone what they are in a clear manner.)
So, yes, the footnotes in the NABRE are mostly translation and manuscript transmission technical notes and not commentary. But who knew?
F
FishyPete
Guest
Thanks again for shining a light in the fog.You are welcome.
Apparently the translation committee and the bishops at large aren’t aware of the wide gap between academically trained clergy and the rest of us. While I’m considered a scientist in my trade, I am quite aware of what I like to call the “geek factor.”
We geeks have our own “zip words” that mean a lot to us. To the average Joe “geek speak” might as well be “Greek speak.”
Almost all the footnotes in the NABRE and its previous editions have been technical ones, explaining two main things: why a certain choice was made in the rendition from the original language and how the text may have come down to us (notice I said “may” and not “how it came down to us, no ifs, ands, or buts”).
Except for a relatively few instances, Mother Church actually doesn’t ask for many commentary footnotes to be added. Matthew 1:25 regarding the word “until” and 16:18 about Peter and “rock” are some examples of the few times necessary Catholic commentary is found in approved Catholic translations of Scripture. But if you have an approved translation like the RSV:CE 2nd Edition you will note that these types of doctrinal footnotes are extremely rare.
The NAB and its revision, the NABRE, takes a far more scholastic approach to presenting the inspired text, but most Catholics don’t know this. Presuming that most Catholics know and are highly familiar with what Tradition says about Scripture (and that Catholics have and use an approved commentary whenever they read the Bible), the NABRE strives to offer a plethora of academia and technical “POW!” to the Catholic diet. Why? So Catholics won’t be caught off guard by those who challenge the Bible on critical terms.
The “geek gap” here is that no one told the general American Catholic public that this is what the NABRE is doing. Outside of having not too few good books on the subject and a Bible study group always going on in our parishes, the Church in America never told us what they were supplying for us.
And the Bible translation geeks forgot to teach us their list of zip words and such too.
So while the NABRE is supposed to supplement what we know (or should know) about Scripture already, no one ever introduced lay Catholics to the world of current Biblical scholarship and how it works (and sounds–or reads). Geeks always speak of hypothesis as if it were fact, and they don’t call facts “facts,” they call it “theory”…and the list of confusion due to a different vocabulary goes on and on. (Enjoying the gap yet?)
So we have a Catholic public that is up in arms about the NABRE and its footnotes (because they sound like they are offering challenges to Catholic doctrine) when its really the normal reaction to something people don’t understand. Those familiar with critical analysis and theory will recognize what these footnotes are. But, I mean, outside of geeks like me how many of you use critical analysis on a daily basis to arrive at a hypothesis, and then hand that hypothesis over for independent verification (or to be disproved) before you come to any conclusion or opinion?
Not many, huh?
That is what the footnotes in the NABRE are all about. It’s offering you the latest in scholarship theory and analysis so you can ADD that to what you should know already from Tradition. (Didn’t you read that in the very fine print in the one-billion word introduction to the book of Sirach before you began reading even a verse?
We are supposed to be reading our copy of the NABRE with a separate Church-approved commentary or as part of a Church study program–but unless you read the fine print in the already long list of NABRE footnotes or the news release articles that were published in 2011, you won’t know that either.
Add to that the footnotes are so seemingly endless it is easy to miss the parts where they do kind of say that, but that information gets lost among the rest. (And they are really good for what they are, and amazing for what they are…but someone needs to officially tell everyone what they are in a clear manner.)
So, yes, the footnotes in the NABRE are mostly translation and manuscript transmission technical notes and not commentary. But who knew?
T
TimothyH
Guest
Thank you again. This makes sense based on what I know from the medical and information technology industries - geek speak - terminology that makes sense to those on the inside but can be confusing at best to the layman.You are welcome.
Apparently the translation committee and the bishops at large aren’t aware of the wide gap between academically trained clergy and the rest of us. While I’m considered a scientist in my trade, I am quite aware of what I like to call the “geek factor.”
We geeks have our own “zip words” that mean a lot to us. To the average Joe “geek speak” might as well be “Greek speak.”
Almost all the footnotes in the NABRE and its previous editions have been technical ones, explaining two main things: why a certain choice was made in the rendition from the original language and how the text may have come down to us (notice I said “may” and not “how it came down to us, no ifs, ands, or buts”).
Except for a relatively few instances, Mother Church actually doesn’t ask for many commentary footnotes to be added. Matthew 1:25 regarding the word “until” and 16:18 about Peter and “rock” are some examples of the few times necessary Catholic commentary is found in approved Catholic translations of Scripture. But if you have an approved translation like the RSV:CE 2nd Edition you will note that these types of doctrinal footnotes are extremely rare.
The NAB and its revision, the NABRE, takes a far more scholastic approach to presenting the inspired text, but most Catholics don’t know this. Presuming that most Catholics know and are highly familiar with what Tradition says about Scripture (and that Catholics have and use an approved commentary whenever they read the Bible), the NABRE strives to offer a plethora of academia and technical “POW!” to the Catholic diet. Why? So Catholics won’t be caught off guard by those who challenge the Bible on critical terms.
The “geek gap” here is that no one told the general American Catholic public that this is what the NABRE is doing. Outside of having not too few good books on the subject and a Bible study group always going on in our parishes, the Church in America never told us what they were supplying for us.
And the Bible translation geeks forgot to teach us their list of zip words and such too.
So while the NABRE is supposed to supplement what we know (or should know) about Scripture already, no one ever introduced lay Catholics to the world of current Biblical scholarship and how it works (and sounds–or reads). Geeks always speak of hypothesis as if it were fact, and they don’t call facts “facts,” they call it “theory”…and the list of confusion due to a different vocabulary goes on and on. (Enjoying the gap yet?)
So we have a Catholic public that is up in arms about the NABRE and its footnotes (because they sound like they are offering challenges to Catholic doctrine) when its really the normal reaction to something people don’t understand. Those familiar with critical analysis and theory will recognize what these footnotes are. But, I mean, outside of geeks like me how many of you use critical analysis on a daily basis to arrive at a hypothesis, and then hand that hypothesis over for independent verification (or to be disproved) before you come to any conclusion or opinion?
Not many, huh?
That is what the footnotes in the NABRE are all about. It’s offering you the latest in scholarship theory and analysis so you can ADD that to what you should know already from Tradition. (Didn’t you read that in the very fine print in the one-billion word introduction to the book of Sirach before you began reading even a verse?
We are supposed to be reading our copy of the NABRE with a separate Church-approved commentary or as part of a Church study program–but unless you read the fine print in the already long list of NABRE footnotes or the news release articles that were published in 2011, you won’t know that either.
Add to that the footnotes are so seemingly endless it is easy to miss the parts where they do kind of say that, but that information gets lost among the rest. (And they are really good for what they are, and amazing for what they are…but someone needs to officially tell everyone what they are in a clear manner.)
So, yes, the footnotes in the NABRE are mostly translation and manuscript transmission technical notes and not commentary. But who knew?
Your posts on the topic need to be stickies on this thread.
-Tim-
- Status