Is the NAB heretical?

[JamestheOlder]

On to Matthew, 16:21-23 (I think I’ve got that right, this time).

Why the consternation here? Both Mark and Matthew tell, in a declarative sentence, rather than in quotes, what Jesus would tell the apostles as they neared Jerusalem. The specific quotes, which Matthew makes later in Chapters 17 and 20, appear to be rhetorical devices, by which he reminds his readers what he (and Mark) have already declared. But these two times, for specific emphasis, he puts the words in quotes.

Nothing denies what Jesus said…only that the specific words may not have been said as described in Matthew. Please remember he is writing (presumably) based on Mark’s work (and possibly Luke’s), but to a different audience than they wrote for.

Please continue with my instruction in these and other texts of question.

I do wish you to consider that the NAB, NABRE, and the Catechism are all published with a “Nihil obstat” and “Imprimatur”. Do we need to consider this in the discussion as well?

 

[Bible_Reader]

In fact, the Holy Father has also recognized the value of the historical-critical method.

From Verbum Domini:

Before all else, we need to acknowledge the benefits that historical-critical exegesis and other recently-developed methods of textual analysis have brought to the life of the Church. For the Catholic understanding of sacred Scripture, attention to such methods is indispensable, linked as it is to the realism of the Incarnation: “This necessity is a consequence of the Christian principle formulated in the Gospel of John 1:14: Verbum caro factum est. The historical fact is a constitutive dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology, but a true history, and it should thus be studied with the methods of serious historical research”. The study of the Bible requires a knowledge of these methods of enquiry and their suitable application. While it is true that scholarship has come to a much greater appreciation of their importance in the modern period, albeit not everywhere to the same degree, nonetheless the sound ecclesial tradition has always demonstrated a love for the study of the “letter”. Here we need but recall the monastic culture which is the ultimate foundation of European culture; at its root lies a concern for the word. The desire for God includes love for the word in all its dimensions: “because in the word of the Bible God comes to us and we to him, we must learn to penetrate the secret of language, to understand it in its structure and its mode of expression. Thus, because of the search for God, the secular sciences which lead to a greater understanding of language became important”.

For this reason, there is nothing wrong or heretical about using the historical-critical method to read Scripture. Now, it is also true that the very same exhortation also discusses a broader hermeneutic. But no set of notes to a Bible can be complete (if they were, our Bibles would consist of thousands of volumes not dissimilar to this spoof description.)

If we understand that the NAB notes focus on historical-critical issues, then I think that we will be better able to charitably evaluate them. True: there are other ways to read Scripture; and true: the NAB notes could be bettered even within the historical-critical framework – but as historical-critical notes, they are not a bad start. It is a valid way to read Scripture (but not the only way!) The presence of the imprimatur indicates that the Catholic Bishops did not find the NAB to be heretical.

However, the great thing is that there is more than one Catholic translation (in English) and more than one Catholic commentary (in English). If you get more out of another translation or another commentary, then by all means use it.

 

[Byzman]

On to Matthew, 16:21-23 (I think I’ve got that right, this time).

Why the consternation here? Both Mark and Matthew tell, in a declarative sentence, rather than in quotes, what Jesus would tell the apostles as they neared Jerusalem. The specific quotes, which Matthew makes later in Chapters 17 and 20, appear to be rhetorical devices, by which he reminds his readers what he (and Mark) have already declared. But these two times, for specific emphasis, he puts the words in quotes.

Nothing denies what Jesus said…only that the specific words may not have been said as described in Matthew. Please remember he is writing (presumably) based on Mark’s work (and possibly Luke’s), but to a different audience than they wrote for.

Please continue with my instruction in these and other texts of question.

I do wish you to consider that the NAB, NABRE, and the Catechism are all published with a “Nihil obstat” and “Imprimatur”. Do we need to consider this in the discussion as well?

Hey I too defend the NABRE from not being heretical and for being a good translation. I have no problem recommending this Bible for any Catholic or non-Catholic for that matter. Now with that said I would recommend the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and the Catholic Scripture Study Bible as having priority over the NABRE anytime.

I am a academic and I have encountered liberal theories in the classroom that suggest that some of the sayings of Jesus are not actually attributed to Him. These liberal theories are what they are…nothing but new attempts to bring new critical methods to Scripture. Believe me, they have proved nothing in the classroom to support such ideas. What they try to do is take these words and compare them against other words and then find false theories…for instance the liberals are now saying that there must have been a source of sayings of Jesus collected into this document known as the “Q source” and that the evangelists must have came into contact with this document and knit and picked which ones of His sayings would be suitable for what they were writing. Of course, as you pointed out, with one of the other evangelist’s writing in front of them they had along with “Q.” Again, what proof of this is found anywhere in antiquity? Nothing. What document have they found to support such theories? Nothing.

With liberal theories like these it becomes easy for some to question if some sayings of Jesus are really His. Now I find it hard to defend the NABRE, as you have, in these situations…because utimately the commentary is denying that these words go back to Christ Himself.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

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.

How do we know Paul was not necessarily talking about “Purgatory?” My complaint with the NAB footnote on 1 Cor 3:15 was how it is rather dismissive of the verse being about Purgatory yet they did not explain why. The confusing part is how the Catechism cites two verses to support Purgatory as I showed in a previous post, and the NAB ignores one, and dismisses the other.

The NAB’s attitude seems to be like “this might support Purgatory but it’s an accident.” This is confusing when your Church’s Catechism says it does support Purgatory. At best, it is just really bad wording.

 

[JamestheOlder]

How do we know Paul was not necessarily talking about “Purgatory?” My complaint with the NAB footnote on 1 Cor 3:15 was how it is rather dismissive of the verse being about Purgatory yet they did not explain why. The confusing part is how the Catechism cites two verses to support Purgatory as I showed in a previous post, and the NAB ignores one, and dismisses the other.

The NAB’s attitude seems to be like “this might support Purgatory but it’s an accident.” This is confusing when your Church’s Catechism says it does support Purgatory. At best, it is just really bad wording.

First, I don’t think Paul’s theology included the idea of Purgatory. That is only a guess (I did not read his mind), but he was more interested in converting others to true belief for an IMMEDIATE return of the Savior, than he would be for thinking of another destination after death. His problem would have been with those in Corinth who varied from the straight path, so to speak, and how they should be shaken up by threats of “burning”, in the related verse, to be excommunicated from the Church by their actions.

Be that as it may, I think it would have been presumptious for the editors of the NAB to endorse an opinion that Paul was speaking of Purgatory. Explanations and footnotes being “non-inspired” would allow this statement regarding later Church teaching.

I’m not sure of the versions of 1 and 2Corinthians included in the NABRE, but I would think the CCC is a much later document (written and published) than the NAB, and, obviously, the authors of the CCC were NOT referring to the NAB version of the letter and footnotes.

If this were a heretical statement, I would not defend it. It is, obviously, a difference of opinion between learned editors…somewhat “above my pay grade”, as one politician said once (and only once).

 

[JamestheOlder]

Hey I too defend the NABRE from not being heretical and for being a good translation. I have no problem recommending this Bible for any Catholic or non-Catholic for that matter. Now with that said I would recommend the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and the Catholic Scripture Study Bible as having priority over the NABRE anytime.

I am a academic and I have encountered liberal theories in the classroom that suggest that some of the sayings of Jesus are not actually attributed to Him. These liberal theories are what they are…nothing but new attempts to bring new critical methods to Scripture. Believe me, they have proved nothing in the classroom to support such ideas. What they try to do is take these words and compare them against other words and then find false theories…for instance the liberals are now saying that there must have been a source of sayings of Jesus collected into this document known as the “Q source” and that the evangelists must have came into contact with this document and knit and picked which ones of His sayings would be suitable for what they were writing. Of course, as you pointed out, with one of the other evangelist’s writing in front of them they had along with “Q.” Again, what proof of this is found anywhere in antiquity? Nothing. What document have they found to support such theories? Nothing.

With liberal theories like these it becomes easy for some to question if some sayings of Jesus are really His. Now I find it hard to defend the NABRE, as you have, in these situations…because utimately the commentary is denying that these words go back to Christ Himself.

I am (obviously) not a Bible “scholar (got to be careful of that word)”, nor a very good typist,
but, just based on Mark, I think the editors of the NAB/NABRE could have a valid point. If, to argue the other side, Matthew had said something contrary to Mark, we might discuss this further. Personally, reviewing the exact footnote (not inspired), the reference could have been stated differently, and more in agreement with Mark’s verse, rather than just an apparent denial of these things being something Jesus discussed with the apostles.

Yes, I use the NAB/NABRE, but there may be better footnotes and commentary, as Biblical study and research continues.

Thank you all for your insight. It will make me more observant of footnotes and their possible consequences.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

First, I don’t think Paul’s theology included the idea of Purgatory. That is only a guess (I did not read his mind), but he was more interested in converting others to true belief for an IMMEDIATE return of the Savior, than he would be for thinking of another destination after death. His problem would have been with those in Corinth who varied from the straight path, so to speak, and how they should be shaken up by threats of “burning”, in the related verse, to be excommunicated from the Church by their actions.

My complaint is how the NAB dismisses the Catholic doctrine reference with no explanation as to why. There is no alternative explanation offered for the verse. Paul may have an agenda, but does that prevent him from sneaking in “Purgatory” in like two or so verses?

Can you please explain to me how 1 Corinthians 3:15 is not referencing the understanding of Purgatory? I have yet to find an alternative explanation for it.

Be that as it may, I think it would have been presumptious for the editors of the NAB to endorse an opinion that Paul was speaking of Purgatory. Explanations and footnotes being “non-inspired” would allow this statement regarding later Church teaching.

Why presumptuous? The following Fathers and St. Thomas thought the passage to be a reference to Purgatory.

St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii)
St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv)
St. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37)
St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix)
Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.)
St. Thomas, “Contra Gentes,”, IV, 91

newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

I am not aware of an alternative understanding of the passage that was promulgated by the early church or even others in the Catholic Church before 1970. If there is, I would like to know about it. Is it odd that a passage is endorsed several times by reputable people to a particular doctrine, and then all of a sudden a bible comes out with an opinion that says it’s not referencing such a doctrine with no explanation as to why?

I’m not sure of the versions of 1 and 2Corinthians included in the NABRE, but I would think the CCC is a much later document (written and published) than the NAB, and, obviously, the authors of the CCC were NOT referring to the NAB version of the letter and footnotes.

If this were a heretical statement, I would not defend it. It is, obviously, a difference of opinion between learned editors…somewhat “above my pay grade”, as one politician said once (and only once).

Yes the NAB came out in 1970 and the Catechism came out in like 1992…but the 1992 Catechism is not the first place to reference 1 Cor. 3:15 as Purgatory.

The NAB commentary suffers from an overly critical method that mushes Catholic doctrine with lacking argumentation. The thing that bothers me the most is that it contradicts the position of many before them and dismisses without reason or explanation. This is what makes it a confusing and dangerous commentary.

If the NAB authors were hesitant to clearly label 1 Cor. 3:15 as referencing Purgatory, they should have cited the precedent understanding of the passage. Instead they just negatively dismiss it without saying why.