Is the New American Bible commentary heretical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hi everyone. I have heard that the New American Bible commentary is heretical. Is this true? If so, why was it approved by the Church for publication? 🤷:confused:
 
Holly3278 said:
Hi everyone. I have heard that the New American Bible commentary is heretical. Is this true? If so, why was it approved by the Church for publication? 🤷:confused:
Click to expand...
I think you are alluding to some remarks I made in another thread. I did not actually say they were heretical. What I said was that many members of these forums consider the footnotes in the NAB to be verging on the heretical and I would not necessarily disagree with that.
Also the Church approval is essentially for the translation of scripture more than the footnotes.
I think if a poll were taken as to which Bible should be used in the Liturgy I don’t think many people would choose the NAB.
 
The NAB footnotes agree with those who do what is called higher criticism of the Bible. It is the type of criticism you would find in academia where people write papers on this event in the bible was taken from some other culture and so on.

Basically it makes the assumption that the Bible really isn’t different than other books and should be interpreted and understood the same way.

It would be a rejection of the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible.

As far as I know, such has never been dogmatically condemned nor accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though the historical method of interpretation has not been higher criticism.
 
The NAB footnotes have changed over time, from the original 1970 edition to the present edition.

I think the main problem is that the footnotes often speak about the text in a way that implies it is merely a human work, possibly with errors, or possibly with content added by the human author for human reasons, mostly ignoring inspiration and the Divine reasons for various points in the text.

This is an endemic problem among modern day Catholic Biblical scholars. In many works about the Bible, it does reach to the extent of abject heresy. In the footnotes of modern Bible editions, the main problems are:
  1. almost complete lack of attention to the spiritual level of meaning.
  2. excessive attention paid to historical information, as opposed to the meaning of the text on faith and morals.
  3. treatment of the text as if it were merely the work of a human author, with human motivations, ignoring the Divine author and Divine motivations
  4. some footnotes imply that elements in the text were invented by the human author for a particular purpose, as if the text were not inspired and inerrant
  5. modern annotations often completely ignore the annotations of the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church, as well as the very insightful annotations in older editions, such as the original Douai Rhemes and the Challoner edition
 
Ron_Conte said:
The NAB footnotes have changed over time, from the original 1970 edition to the present edition.

I think the main problem is that the footnotes often speak about the text in a way that implies it is merely a human work, possibly with errors, or possibly with content added by the human author for human reasons, mostly ignoring inspiration and the Divine reasons for various points in the text.

This is an endemic problem among modern day Catholic Biblical scholars. In many works about the Bible, it does reach to the extent of abject heresy. In the footnotes of modern Bible editions, the main problems are:
  1. almost complete lack of attention to the spiritual level of meaning.
  2. excessive attention paid to historical information, as opposed to the meaning of the text on faith and morals.
  3. treatment of the text as if it were merely the work of a human author, with human motivations, ignoring the Divine author and Divine motivations
  4. some footnotes imply that elements in the text were invented by the human author for a particular purpose, as if the text were not inspired and inerrant
  5. modern annotations often completely ignore the annotations of the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church, as well as the very insightful annotations in older editions, such as the original Douai Rhemes and the Challoner edition
Click to expand...
Good observation. I have the original 1970 NAB with me (a rather worn and bulky copy), and while there already exists some ideas that I tend to disagree with in that version, I tend to prefer its notes over the new one in many places. For example, here is a comparison of the notes in Matthew 1:20-22:

**1970 NAB:**1, 20f: To what extent the angelic visitation of Joseph through a dream is reality or popular description surrounding the divine message is subject to discussion. In either case the evangelist makes it abundantly clear to his readers that Joseph accepted Mary as his wife, together with the child, because he saw the will of God expressed in the circumstances. He will save his people from their sins: the child will not be a warrior-king overcoming the enemies of Israel, but will free the people from sin.

1, 22f: This is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14, in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined: the virginal conception of Jesus, his Davidic messianic role in a spiritual sense, Joseph’s legal paternity, and the unique presence of God in Jesus, which the Church of the evangelist’s time had to come to understand as his divinity. All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is. 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God’s plan.

1, 25: He had no relations with her at any time before: the evangelist emphasizes the virginity of the mother of Jesus from the moment of his conception to his birth. He does not concern himself here with the period that followed the birth of Jesus, but merely wishes to show that Joseph fully respected the legal character of the paternity imposed on him by the divine will. Moreover the New Testament makes no mention anywhere of children of Joseph and Mary.

Present-day NAB: [20] The angel of the Lord: in the Old Testament a common designation of God in communication with a human being. In a dream: see Matthew 2:13, 19, 22. These dreams may be meant to recall the dreams of Joseph, son of Jacob the patriarch (Genesis 37:5-11:19). A closer parallel is the dream of Amram, father of Moses, related by Josephus (Antiquities 2,9,3; 212, 215-16).

[21] Jesus: in first-century Judaism the Hebrew name Joshua (Greek Iesous) meaning “Yahweh helps” was interpreted as “Yahweh saves.”

[23] God is with us: God’s promise of deliverance to Judah in Isaiah’s time is seen by Matthew as fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, in whom God is with his people. The name Emmanuel is alluded to at the end of the gospel where the risen Jesus assures his disciples of his continued presence,"…I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

[25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.
 
patrick457 said:
Good observation. I have the original 1970 NAB with me (a rather worn and bulky copy), and while there already exists some ideas that I tend to disagree with in that version, I tend to prefer its notes over the new one in many places. For example, here is a comparison of the notes in Matthew 1:20-22:

**1970 NAB:**1, 20f: To what extent the angelic visitation of Joseph through a dream is reality or popular description surrounding the divine message is subject to discussion. In either case the evangelist makes it abundantly clear to his readers that Joseph accepted Mary as his wife, together with the child, because he saw the will of God expressed in the circumstances. He will save his people from their sins: the child will not be a warrior-king overcoming the enemies of Israel, but will free the people from sin.

1, 22f: This is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14, in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined: the virginal conception of Jesus, his Davidic messianic role in a spiritual sense, Joseph’s legal paternity, and the unique presence of God in Jesus, which the Church of the evangelist’s time had to come to understand as his divinity. All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is. 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God’s plan.

1, 25: He had no relations with her at any time before: the evangelist emphasizes the virginity of the mother of Jesus from the moment of his conception to his birth. He does not concern himself here with the period that followed the birth of Jesus, but merely wishes to show that Joseph fully respected the legal character of the paternity imposed on him by the divine will. Moreover the New Testament makes no mention anywhere of children of Joseph and Mary.

Present-day NAB: [20] The angel of the Lord: in the Old Testament a common designation of God in communication with a human being. In a dream: see Matthew 2:13, 19, 22. These dreams may be meant to recall the dreams of Joseph, son of Jacob the patriarch (Genesis 37:5-11:19). A closer parallel is the dream of Amram, father of Moses, related by Josephus (Antiquities 2,9,3; 212, 215-16).

[21] Jesus: in first-century Judaism the Hebrew name Joshua (Greek Iesous) meaning “Yahweh helps” was interpreted as “Yahweh saves.”

[23] God is with us: God’s promise of deliverance to Judah in Isaiah’s time is seen by Matthew as fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, in whom God is with his people. The name Emmanuel is alluded to at the end of the gospel where the risen Jesus assures his disciples of his continued presence,"…I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

[25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for showing us a comparison. I do have a NAB but a present day one and from what people have shown me the 1970 edition makes more sense
 
To what extent the angelic visitation of Joseph through a dream is reality or popular description surrounding the divine message is subject to discussion.
Click to expand...
Notice that the footnote considers the possibility that Joseph did not have and angelic visitation through a dream, thereby suggesting that Scripture asserts a falsehood. This is the type of footnote that tends toward heresy.
 
Great answers so far.

If you are looking for a one-volume Catholic study Bible, unfortunately the NAB is all we have right now. The notes, while annoying because of their sometimes dry and hyper “higher critical” approach, are not, strictly speaking heretical. If they were, I’m sure the most orthodox and conservative bishops out there would discourage their use in their sees. I don’t know of any that do.

I personally use the RSV-CE for my primary study and devotional use, but I also own and use several NABs. In parish study groups (which I sometimes lead) you almost always have to use an NAB because that is what everyone else uses and what the parish has at hand.

The best approach when using the NAB is to remember that, while the Scripture is inspired, the footnotes and commentary is not inspired, or even authoritative Church teaching. It is also advisable to supplement it with good, orthodox material, like the Ignatius Study Bible (which is only in paperback, book-by-book serial form at this time).

If Catholic publishers would get off their rears (charitably speaking, of course ) and complete some of these decades long processes of putting together one volume, orthodox, Catholic study Bibles, we would all have more options.
 
Fidelis said:
Great answers so far.

If you are looking for a one-volume Catholic study Bible, unfortunately the NAB is all we have right now. The notes, while annoying because of their sometimes dry and hyper “higher critical” approach, are not, strictly speaking heretical. If they were, I’m sure the most orthodox and conservative bishops out there would discourage their use in their sees. I don’t know of any that do.

I personally use the RSV-CE for my primary study and devotional use, but I also own and use several NABs. In parish study groups (which I sometimes lead) you almost always have to use an NAB because that is what everyone else uses and what the parish has at hand.

The best approach when using the NAB is to remember that, while the Scripture is inspired, the footnotes and commentary is not inspired, or even authoritative Church teaching. It is also advisable to supplement it with good, orthodox material, like the Ignatius Study Bible (which is only in paperback, book-by-book serial form at this time).

If Catholic publishers would get off their rears (charitably speaking, of course ) and complete some of these decades long processes of putting together one volume, orthodox, Catholic study Bibles, we would all have more options.
Click to expand...
Amen!!
 
It sure would be nice if there was a condensed 1 volume Navarre Study Bible!

The NAB footnotes caused me some confusion when I was really considering to become Catholic, but thankfully I kept searching and found that the footnotes were not traditional Catholic thought. Another near disaster was when I bought the book “Catholicism” by Richard P. Mcbrien. Thank God folks on here helped me identify how aweful that one is.
 
Fidelis said:
If you are looking for a one-volume Catholic study Bible, unfortunately the NAB is all we have right now. The notes, while annoying because of their sometimes dry and hyper “higher critical” approach, are not, strictly speaking heretical. If they were, I’m sure the most orthodox and conservative bishops out there would discourage their use in their sees. I don’t know of any that do.

If Catholic publishers would get off their rears (charitably speaking, of course) and complete some of these decades long processes of putting together one volume, orthodox, Catholic study Bibles, we would all have more options.
Click to expand...
No, the NAB is NOT “all we have right now”, Deo gratias. There is the New Jerusalem Bible (1985). But you need to get the full-sized, not the “reader’s” edition. IMHO, its study material knocks the socks off that of the NAB. The NJB rarely gets a kind word in this Forum and I’d like to know why. Full disclosure: the NJB has inclusive language, but its use is VERY measured compared to that of the NAB and NRSV.

I would just LOVE to learn of a bishop who would discourage use of the NAB. Remember that the USCCB owns the copyright on the NAB.
 
Hmmm, thanks everyone for enlightening me on this issue which I did not previously know much about. When I read from my NAB, I typically just ignore the notes. I prefer to read from my RSV-CE Bible. 🙂
 
If you’ve ever read the annotations in the original Douai Rhemes Bible, they put to shame all the annotations from modern editions, such as the NAB and JB (not including study Bibles).

The annotations give primary focus to the spiritual level of meaning, and how the text relates to teachings on faith and morals, rather than focusing on historical data, or modern methods of texual criticism.
 
Ron_Conte said:
If you’ve ever read the annotations in the original Douai Rhemes Bible, they put to shame all the annotations from modern editions, such as the NAB and JB (not including study Bibles).

The annotations give primary focus to the spiritual level of meaning, and how the text relates to teachings on faith and morals, rather than focusing on historical data, or modern methods of texual criticism.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! I don’t mind modern methods as long as it does not cross the line of undermining traditional beliefs. But some of these so-called Christian modern methods of exegesis looks like they were done by atheists.
 
Manfred said:
No, the NAB is NOT “all we have right now”, Deo gratias. There is the New Jerusalem Bible (1985). But you need to get the full-sized, not the “reader’s” edition. IMHO, its study material knocks the socks off that of the NAB. The NJB rarely gets a kind word in this Forum and I’d like to know why. Full disclosure: the NJB has inclusive language, but its use is VERY measured compared to that of the NAB and NRSV.

I would just LOVE to learn of a bishop who would discourage use of the NAB. Remember that the USCCB owns the copyright on the NAB.
Click to expand...
👍 The NJV is what we use for our homeschool study bible. We have made sure that the inclusive language is corrected prior to giving it out with a page that corrects the situation for the kids.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Absolutely! I don’t mind modern methods as long as it does not cross the line of undermining traditional beliefs. But some of these so-called Christian modern methods of exegesis looks like they were done by atheists.
Click to expand...
I have both an old D-R and a New D-R. Most of the commentaries are the same.

Liberation theology tends to be a major problem IMHO. The thing it liberates from is God.
 
KathleenElsie said:
I have both an old D-R and a New D-R. Most of the commentaries are the same.

Liberation theology tends to be a major problem IMHO. The thing it liberates from is God.
Click to expand...
What do you mean an old and a new D-R?

I have a D-R with Haydock Commentary and a D-R (Challoner) which essentially has no commentary.
 
thistle said:
What do you mean an old and a new D-R?

I have a D-R with Haydock Commentary and a D-R (Challoner) which essentially has no commentary.
Click to expand...
The old one is printed in Belgium in 1953 with the Introduction by Father Lattery, S. J., M. A… The Encyclical Letter of our Holy Father Pope Leo XIII on the Holy Scriptures. Published with Imprimatur and Approbation of HIS EMINENCE FRANCIS CARDINAL SPELLMAN Archbishop of New York. The print is of higher quality and easier on the eyes.

My new one was printed in New Hampshire and is from Loreto Publications 2002. With the notes of Bishop Challoner. The introduction is by Rev. William H. McClellan S.J… I use this one the most as it is not as fragile as the older one. This one has a few more Maps and a better table of reference.

The scripture in both is exactly the same.
 
the original Douai Rhemes bible from the late 1500’s/early 1600’s has excellent and extensive annotations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top