Is the New American Bible commentary heretical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
Are you talking about the 1571-1609 one? 🙂 By the way, the 1571 Rheims New Testament is available in facsimile here.
 
In particular, I note a distinct difference between the NAB footnotes as regards pre- versus post-sexual revolution cultural influence. The 1970 notes were only beginning to reveal the corruption of modern culture, whereas the more modern edition makes no attempt to conceal it. The latest edition is polluted with sex-tinged worldly assumptions that a man and woman living together would normally have had marital relations. This is a completely modern and worldly notation and is worthy of total disregard by serious students. This attitude was nowhere present in footnotes prior to the decline of western society. Oh, it also goes against consistent Church teaching on the matter.

Again, there is a strong hint of deconstruction that is suggested, permitted, even allowed if you will, regarding the reality of Joseph’s visions. This is evidence of the appeal to individual conscience in bible interpretation, a thrust which completely disregards the requirement for a properly formed conscience. Clearly the work of liberal modern “scholars”, whose opinions are unprecedented in biblical history. And, therein lies the caution.
 
patrick457 said:
Are you talking about the 1571-1609 one? 🙂 By the way, the 1571 Rheims New Testament is available in facsimile here.
Click to expand...
Yes, the original Douai. It was almost entirely translated at Rhemes, but they did not have the money to print up the OT until later, when the college had moved to Douai.
 
po18guy said:
In particular, I note a distinct difference between the NAB footnotes as regards pre- versus post-sexual revolution cultural influence. The 1970 notes were only beginning to reveal the corruption of modern culture, whereas the more modern edition makes no attempt to conceal it. The latest edition is polluted with sex-tinged worldly assumptions that a man and woman living together would normally have had marital relations. This is a completely modern and worldly notation and is worthy of total disregard by serious students. This attitude was nowhere present in footnotes prior to the decline of western society. Oh, it also goes against consistent Church teaching on the matter.

Again, there is a strong hint of deconstruction that is suggested, permitted, even allowed if you will, regarding the reality of Joseph’s visions. This is evidence of the appeal to individual conscience in bible interpretation, a thrust which completely disregards the requirement for a properly formed conscience. Clearly the work of liberal modern “scholars”, whose opinions are unprecedented in biblical history. And, therein lies the caution.
Click to expand...
I forgot to mention. The prefaces of the 1970 edition already espouses the now-very-ubitiquous-that-you’ll-almost-believe-they-were-proven-facts JEPD and Q theories (at least, the notes still don’t emphasize the Markan priority hypothesis greatly like the new one does – which seems to say that “Matthew altered Mark” or anything else of the sort as if they are already gospel truth). Which is the reason why I avoid them and go straight to the appendices (which has an overview of the history of the Bible in English, the Pagan world during New Testament times).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top