Is the NAB heretical?

[eagle_eye222001]

According to the NAB 2002-2003 edition…

---

1 Corinthians 3:13-15

13 the work of each will come to light,for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work. 14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only through fire.

Footnote for passage

3,15 Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 5, 5; 11, 32 [discipline]). The text of v 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.

---

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

604 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.

605 Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15; ⇒ 1 Pet 1:7.

It seems to me that 1 Cor 3:15 is definitive about referencing purgatory but the NAB seems to think otherwise.

 

[Dale_M]

I’ve been reading through my NAB and the footnotes, as I’ve seen and heard, frequently go against Catholic teaching.

Hm?

The NAB is owned and approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is the translation used in the Mass, at least in the US. Could you provide some examples of where you think that translation goes against Catholic teaching.

 

[puzzleannie]

So, that’s the standard for Catholic Bibles? innocuous errors? After all of the failed attempts to correct the problematic errors in the commentary and improvements to the translation to where it is now simply mediocre, it’s time to realize that It would be best for the faithful to put this monstrosity to rest. With the excellent RSV-CE2 now available, there is no longer any excuse to keep the NAB or NABRE and good riddance.

what precisely are your own qualifications for rating bible translations? There is a reference thread on this forum that lists approved translations, suggest OP look there.

 

[jwinch2]

You can always get a copy of the NETS translation of the Septuagint and keep it next to your copy of the Ignatius Study Bible (NT) and you would have the best of both worlds (in two volumes).

Interesting idea. I’ll check that out. Thanks for the heads up!

I heard a joke the other day from one of my friends where he stated that he hopes that at some point they come out with a NAB Catholic Edition. I wouldn’t go that far but I do have problems with it.

 

[SonCatcher]

In the NABRE, “Holy Spirit” is written as “holy Spirit” which bugs me a bit. I have the RSV2CE and the Ignatius Study Bible and love them both. I am also planning to get the Navarre hardback series for study soon. I would love to see the Vatican commission a Bible which uses the LXX for the Old Testament and the MT for the New Testament in an easy to read yet still orthodox English translation which would become the official English Catholic Bible but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. I have been close on more than one occasion to picking up the Orthodox Study Bible for those exact reasons but Orthodox Christians seem to have problems with that one as well.

What is the MT you refer to here? I normally think of Masoretic Text which refers to the Hebrew as it exists today (and only includes 39 books of the OT, nothing of the NT)

 

[Bible_Reader]

He mean Majority Text = Byzantine Text used by the Greek Orthodox Church.

Most contemporary Bibles use an eclectic text primarily based on the Alexandrian text.

 

[jwinch2]

He mean Majority Text = Byzantine Text used by the Greek Orthodox Church.
text.

Yep, that is the one. Thanks!

 

[SonCatcher]

He mean Majority Text = Byzantine Text used by the Greek Orthodox Church.

Most contemporary Bibles use an eclectic text primarily based on the Alexandrian text.

Yep, that is the one. Thanks!

Thanks

 

[Byzman]

According to the NAB 2002-2003 edition…

---

1 Corinthians 3:13-15

13 the work of each will come to light,for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work. 14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only through fire.

Footnote for passage

3,15 Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 5, 5; 11, 32 [discipline]). The text of v 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.

---

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

604 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.

605 Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15; ⇒ 1 Pet 1:7.

It seems to me that 1 Cor 3:15 is definitive about referencing purgatory but the NAB seems to think otherwise.

I see what you are saying here. The Catechism puts more of a positive outlook on it by saying this verse speaks of a cleansing fire…whereas the NAB takes a negative outlook by saying the author didn’t envision Purgatory as we know it today…instead the NAB should of followed suit by taking a positive and applying the need for a cleansing fire.

 

[Byzman]

Matthew 16 commentary from NAB and not changed for the NABRE

[21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29).

Now this commentary is really sad. Just sad to see the complete denial of Jesus’ words.
Alot of people have the right to be upset with this. There is no historical evidence to support such a conclusion. This all comes from the idea of modern criticism that is good, but yet it has it’s limits that should not be pushed. This kind of thinking goes beyond those limits. I very much disagree with this kind of liberal thinking, but yet I still defend the NABRE because there is nothing heretical being said here. Though they need to change their position on this type of commentary if they come out with another revision of the NABRE. Until evidence is produced instead of going off liberal theories that having no backing in antiquity…than the words of Christ should remain to be said strictly by Him.

 

[Ignatius]

what precisely are your own qualifications for rating bible translations? .

It only takes superficial reading to begin discovering the problems.
These problems are more with the commentary of the NAB (and not corrected in the NABRE). It is in many places in conflict with the Catechism and Catholic Teaching in general.

Here’re a couple pointed out by another poster on this very thread:

According to the NAB 2002-2003 edition…

---

1 Corinthians 3:13-15

13 the work of each will come to light,for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work. 14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only through fire.

Footnote for passage

3,15 Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 5, 5; 11, 32 [discipline]). The text of v 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.

---

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

604 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.

605 Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15; ⇒ 1 Pet 1:7.

It seems to me that 1 Cor 3:15 is definitive about referencing purgatory but the NAB seems to think otherwise.

21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29).

Virtually every time I open it up I find another. It is completely unacceptable to have a totally unfounded and complete denial of Jesus’ words.

 

[jwinch2]

I see what you are saying here. The Catechism puts more of a positive outlook on it by saying this verse speaks of a cleansing fire…whereas the NAB takes a negative outlook by saying the author didn’t envision Purgatory as we know it today…instead the NAB should of followed suit by taking a positive and applying the need for a cleansing fire.

It does the same thing several times in the OT where the text has been interpreted in other Catholic Study Bibles as well as the CCC to be referring to the Holy Trinity but the NAB claims that it is not a reference to the Trinity at all.

 

[Ignatius]

what precisely are your own qualifications for rating bible translations? .

It only takes superficial reading to begin discovering the problems.
These problems are more with the commentary of the NAB (and not corrected in the NABRE). It is in many places in conflict with the Catechism and Catholic Teaching in general.

Here are a couple pointed out by other posters on this very thread:

According to the NAB 2002-2003 edition…

---

1 Corinthians 3:13-15

13 the work of each will come to light,for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work. 14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only through fire.

Footnote for passage

3,15 Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 5, 5; 11, 32 [discipline]). The text of v 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.

---

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

604 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.

605 Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15; ⇒ 1 Pet 1:7.

It seems to me that 1 Cor 3:15 is definitive about referencing purgatory but the NAB seems to think otherwise.

21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29).

Virtually every time I open it up I find another. It is completely unacceptable to have a totally unfounded and complete denial of Jesus’ words.

 

[SonCatcher]

It does the same thing several times in the OT where the text has been interpreted in other Catholic Study Bibles as well as the CCC to be referring to the Holy Trinity but the NAB claims that it is not a reference to the Trinity at all.

OT texts that prefigure Catholic doctrine were not originally interpreted in the OT as such. The Jews do not believe in the Trinity. If the referenced OT passages indeed established the Trinity in themselves (as you suggest) then an orthodox Jew would by definition be a heretic. That is not the case, as you should well know. The Trinity was only revealed with the coming of Jesus and not even understood as such until after the NT was already complete.

Also, please remember that the CCC is not infallible. Neither are the notes of any study Bible, regardless of translation. The referenced OT passages can certainly be used to aid in understanding the Trinitarian nature of God but are not the source of the doctrine.

 

[jwinch2]

OT texts that prefigure Catholic doctrine were not originally interpreted in the OT as such. The Jews do not believe in the Trinity. If the referenced OT passages indeed established the Trinity in themselves (as you suggest) then an orthodox Jew would by definition be a heretic. That is not the case, as you should well know. The Trinity was only revealed with the coming of Jesus and not even understood as such until after the NT was already complete.

Also, please remember that the CCC is not infallible. Neither are the notes of any study Bible, regardless of translation. The referenced OT passages can certainly be used to aid in understanding the Trinitarian nature of God but are not the source of the doctrine.

The Pope has been quite clear that Christians are to interpret Sacred Scripture through its entirety which means that when viewing the Old Testament, we are to see that through an understanding of its fulfillment in Christ. Translating texts faithfully without bias is one thing and I have no problem with that. In fact, as an academic myself, I vigorously applaud it.

However, a Catholic Study Bible should have proper interpretation in its study notes when viewing individual books, chapters, or passages as described by the Holy Father in light of the entirety of Sacred Scripture and in the context of Sacred Tradition. The NAB does not.

Jews may not have seen certain passages as references to the Trinity but as Christians, we are supposed to. Any Bible that is put out by a group of Catholic Bishops should, by definition, be in line with the standards for Biblical interpretation set by the Holy See. From what I can tell, the NAB nor the NABRE meets that standard in its interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

 

[jwinch2]

youtube.com/watch?v=Ha5flTRTZWY

 

[SonCatcher]

The Pope has been quite clear that Christians are to interpret Sacred Scripture through its entirety which means that when viewing the Old Testament, we are to see that through an understanding of its fulfillment in Christ. Translating texts faithfully without bias is one thing and I have no problem with that. In fact, as an academic myself, I vigorously applaud it.

However, a Catholic Study Bible should have proper interpretation in its study notes when viewing individual books, chapters, or passages as described by the Holy Father in light of the entirety of Sacred Scripture and in the context of Sacred Tradition. The NAB does not.

Jews may not have seen certain passages as references to the Trinity but as Christians, we are supposed to. Any Bible that is put out by a group of Catholic Bishops should, by definition, be in line with the standards for Biblical interpretation set by the Holy See. From what I can tell, the NAB nor the NABRE meets that standard in its interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

God in His wisdom placed many layers of meaning in scripture. It is not inappropriate to discuss them. The NAB footnotes tend to follow the historical context in which the text was written. Saying in the notes that this context does not explicitly discuss the Trinity is not a denial of the Trinity. Neither does it prevent the student from finding the Trinity in the text.

 

[jwinch2]

The NAB footnotes tend to follow the historical context in which the text was written. Saying in the notes that this context does not explicitly discuss the Trinity is not a denial of the Trinity. Neither does it prevent the student from finding the Trinity in the text.

I disagree in light of Pope Benedict’s instruction for interpretation of Sacred Scripture but I am willing to leave it alone…

Best regards!

 

[JamestheOlder]

Please point out where 2Corinthians Chapter 2, Verse 15 is misleading about Purgatory, for an old grey-head, who does not follow your logic.

Paul did not necessarily teach about Purgatory, which is what the footnote seems to indicate. Based on the cross-reference to 1Corinthians, it would appear that the NABRE suggests someone needs to “burn” with repentance, and can then be received back into the community of believers. The correct reference, if you wish to make one, would then be to the developing idea of the Sacrament of Penance, rather than Purgatory.

I only start with this reference; I am going to research the Matthew reference further.

Please clarify your thoughts.

Peace.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Sorry about that: brain went dead, followed by fingers. Please discuss 1Corinthians, Chapter 3. I’ll try to keep it straight this time.