Is this acceptable? (NAB 1991 footnote)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brenlae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brenlae

Guest
I was reading through Genesis the other day (NAB 1991 version) and I noticed a footnote that was very questionable:
Genesis 9 [18-27] This story seems to be a composite of two earlier accounts; in the one, Ham was guilty, whereas, in the other, it was Canaan. One purpose of the story is to justify the Israelites’ enslavement of the Canaanites because of certain indecent sexual practices in the Canaanite religion. Obviously the story offers no justification for enslaving African Negroes, even though Canaan is presented as a “son” of Ham because the land of Canaan belonged to Hamitic Egypt at the time of the Israelite invasion.
Click to expand...
Could somebody shed some light on this for me? Why did they say African Negroes? Is this acceptable? Should I upgrade to the NABRE? I mean, I know they’re saying that it is bad for slavery, but the terminology they use seems a bit … odd.

Well, thanks for all who reply. 🙂

EDIT - I hope I don’t have to buy another bible. I’ve bought two this year already (NRSV-CE and NIV Study Bible). Although, my NRSV-CE has really small text. :confused:
 
I mean, should I even bother with this bible? I could just use my NRSV-CE. I have a hard time seeing, but I’ve seen some other questionable footnotes.

Opinions? 🙂
 
Brenlae said:
I was reading through Genesis the other day (NAB 1991 version) and I noticed a footnote that was very questionable:

Could somebody shed some light on this for me? Why did they say African Negroes? Is this acceptable? Should I upgrade to the NABRE? I mean, I know they’re saying that it is bad for slavery, but the terminology they use seems a bit … odd.

Well, thanks for all who reply. 🙂

EDIT - I hope I don’t have to buy another bible. I’ve bought two this year already (NRSV-CE and NIV Study Bible). Although, my NRSV-CE has really small text. :confused:
Click to expand...
since the question usually raised with this reading has to do with the African slave trade with the West in the 16th-19th centuries, as opposed to the form of slavery common in the Greek and Roman world, and earlier, it is obvious this is the place to make the distinction. I don’t understand the problem.
 
puzzleannie said:
since the question usually raised with this reading has to do with the African slave trade with the West in the 16th-19th centuries, as opposed to the form of slavery common in the Greek and Roman world, and earlier, it is obvious this is the place to make the distinction. I don’t understand the problem.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess you’re right. I just thought it wasn’t entirely politically correct. I guess I’m wrong. 😊

Thanks! 😃
 
Brenlae said:
Yeah, I guess you’re right. I just thought it wasn’t entirely politically correct. I guess I’m wrong. 😊

Thanks! 😃
Click to expand...
It’s an Old Testament note from 1970, and probably didn’t grate on the ears the way it does now. Martin Luther King, Jr. used the word “Negro” all the time.
 
JackQ said:
It’s an Old Testament note from 1970, and probably didn’t grate on the ears the way it does now. Martin Luther King, Jr. used the word “Negro” all the time.
Click to expand...
Wow, I didn’t know that! Thanks for that bit of history. 🙂
 
The footnotes in the NAB are often questioned, and thought to be of dubious value. You might find almost any other Catholic bible commentary to be more helpful.
 
Tell me something–you could get a zillion people who would say that the NAB footnotes are bad.

Why don’t they just CHANGE them? They’ve revised the NAB a few times. Would it be impossible to revise the footnotes?
 
Brenlae said:
Yeah, I guess you’re right. I just thought it wasn’t entirely politically correct. I guess I’m wrong. 😊

Thanks! 😃
Click to expand...
if they used the term “black” in the PC sense it would not convey the meaning, since the comparison is with Negro servitude.
do you of your own knowledge know for an absolute fact that this or any other NAB footnote is wrong, heretical or otherwise should not have been approved by the US bishops. If not, better leave the discussion to the experts.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Tell me something–you could get a zillion people who would say that the NAB footnotes are bad.

Why don’t they just CHANGE them? They’ve revised the NAB a few times. Would it be impossible to revise the footnotes?
Click to expand...
They did, in fact - especially if you compare the 1970 notes with the 1991 notes. 🤷
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Tell me something–you could get a zillion people who would say that the NAB footnotes are bad.

Why don’t they just CHANGE them? They’ve revised the NAB a few times. Would it be impossible to revise the footnotes?
Click to expand...
I actually find them quite helpful.
 
Here is the same footnote in the new** NABRE:**

**9:18-27 ** The character of the three sons is sketched here. The fault is not Noah’s (for he could not be expected to know about the intoxicating effect of wine) but Ham’s, who shames his father by looking on his nakedness, and then tells the other sons. Ham’s conduct is meant to prefigure the later shameful sexual practices of the Canaanites, which are alleged in numerous biblical passages. The point of the story is revealed in Noah’s curse of Ham’s son Canaan and his blessing of Shem and Japheth.
 
CalCatholic said:
Here is the same footnote in the new** NABRE:**

**9:18-27 ** The character of the three sons is sketched here. The fault is not Noah’s (for he could not be expected to know about the intoxicating effect of wine) but Ham’s, who shames his father by looking on his nakedness, and then tells the other sons. Ham’s conduct is meant to prefigure the later shameful sexual practices of the Canaanites, which are alleged in numerous biblical passages. The point of the story is revealed in Noah’s curse of Ham’s son Canaan and his blessing of Shem and Japheth.
Click to expand...
As a point of interest, “Saw his father’s nakedness” was a polite way of saying “Saw that which only his father ssaw naked” or simply “Had sex with his father’s wife”. This was consistent with many of the practices of the nations mentioned in the Old Testament. They burned their children alive as sacrifice to the god Molech, practiced cannibalism and homosexual prostitution as part of their worship, would routinely gang rape women to death and the list goes on. See Genesis 19 for an example.

Nothing really to do with the OP, but I thought I would mention it.
 
If you look up the Scott Hahn website for the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology, you may find a list of the technical articles by Scott Hahn.

He wrote a detailed analysis of this phrase,of looking at nakedness, and he leaves little doubt, within the bounds of modern scholarship, about the meaning of the phrase.

If you want to see how thorough an exegesis can be, look that one up.​

NAB: The comments in this version make a lot more sense to me than they did when I first started reading that translation. It is the translation itself, rather than the footnotes, that jerks most people’s bobbers. The NAB is a paraphrase translation – that is not unusual, but the wording sometimes strikes like a broken bell.

Once again, the avoidance of copyright infringement drives the translators to come up with unique wording, sometimes stretching the meaning of words. For the most of us who are not trained in Hebrew, Aramaic, or biblical Greek, we have to do the best we can.

The popular NIV is also a parahrase, but it is an artful paraphrase, and my copy of the NIV Study Bible (expensive), along with my NAB, are the versions that suffered most from the wear and tear of usage in my bookshelf library.
 
Alright, wow, thanks to everyone that replied! I really appreciate all of the feedback! I have decided to keep reading my (slightly outdated) NAB. Also, I’m sorry I took so long to reply - I was with my father all day (father’s day :)).

Well, thanks again. I know I can trust you all. 😃
 
Well, it did say “it offers no justification for” enslaving them. So it’s not racist. It’s actually defending black people
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Tell me something–you could get a zillion people who would say that the NAB footnotes are bad.

Why don’t they just CHANGE them? They’ve revised the NAB a few times. Would it be impossible to revise the footnotes?
Click to expand...
The footnotes are regularly changed. Most recently, that footnote was changed this year, with the new 2011 Old Testament of the NAB (NABRE).
 
The least bad overall NAB is the one from 1970.

The NABRE is the best Old Testament.

The NABRE has the best NAB Psalms.

I believe the best NAB bible would be if you’d take the 1970 NAB New Testament–the NABRE Old Testament and Psalms–make sure there was no inclusive language–make sure you had “a virgin will conceive” for Isaiah 7:14–and “hail Mary Full of Grace” for Luke–“In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” for Genesis 1:1–“forgive in the PERSON of Christ” for 2 Corinthians 2:10.

Have conservative footnotes and not the historical criticism type that are written by people who don’t really believe in the miraculous in the bible but don’t have the guts or intellectual honesty to just come right out and say they don’t believe!

Do all of that and the NAB wouldn’t be that bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top