Literal versus figurative stories in Bible

[Tis_Bearself]

Hopefully gone forever are the days of skeptical, denigrating Biblical scholarship masquerading as “high criticism.”

Or as ecumenical gestures.
It’s telling that people like Hahn were Protestants and serious Bible scholars.

 

[bobperk]

The NAB / NABRE translations themselves are ok to read. I overall much more prefer the RSVCE2. However, the NAB footnotes approach Scripture very skeptically, rarely affirm any historicity of the Bible, and quite honestly read like a lifeless, secular analysis of Scripture. I’ll be honest, I think they’re absolutely worthless in terms of uplifting anyone spiritually.

 

[njlisa]

HI, @CatholicCnvt:

Welcome home! I was received into the Catholic Church 29 years ago.

I recommend getting a good official Catholic study bible. You can read the introductions and footnotes and grow in understanding. I use the New American Bible Revised Edition Catholic Study Bible. If you click the link, you can get a preview of the book. God bless you on your faith journey and welcome to CAF. P.S. You don’t have to buy it on Amazon. I recommend a hard copy, not an e-book.

Kindle

 

[Larry1700]

I’m 60 yrs old, and for the majority of my life I was in the camp that assumed that the Bible wasn’t literal in some places, and that we kind of adapted our understanding of the Bible in light of scientific findings.

A few years ago, I was enlightened by a book written by Walt Brown, Ph.D. I bought the book, but the entire book is available online for free at https://www.creationscience.com/

There are also various scientists that are speaking out against the principles of evolution as currently taught. This website compiles a lot of them: http://idvolution.org/

Further, this article shows how BOTH young-earth creationists AND the currently-held idea of a 14.5 billion year old universe can be true: https://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html, written by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, who “earned his BSc, MSc and double-Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics and Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

 

[CatholicCnvt]

Thank you! My husband was cradle Catholic but fell away from the church for a long time. He saw my journey through RCIA and decided to come back . I love our faith!

 

[CatholicCnvt]

Thank you everybody! I will go through each response carefully and take everything you said into consideration. I love this community of brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Darryl_B]

When it comes to Noah and Abraham being real characters I’m going to switch to Hebrews 11 and think to myself “But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him” and here are a few fictional examples to demonstrate it.

 

[Gorgias]

However, the NAB footnotes approach Scripture very skeptically, rarely affirm any historicity of the Bible, and quite honestly read like a lifeless, secular analysis of Scripture.

This!

While the NAB-RE is an approved Catholic Bible, the footnotes are a horse of a different color. They’re not a work of solely Catholic theologians, and there are some real problems with some of the notes!

So… if you want to read the Bible, and you want to pick up a copy of the NAB-RE… have at it!

If you want good Scriptural commentary… don’t rely on the NAB-RE notes. As others have mentioned, there are plenty of good, solid Catholic Scripture scholars out there, who have written lots of great books on Scripture from the mind of the Church!

I recommend getting a good official Catholic study bible.

I’m not big on this one, either. I bought it years ago, before starting any serious study of the Bible, and at the time, it seemed really good to me! Lots of info, tons of resources… but the more I studied Scripture from a Catholic perspective, it seemed to me that this volume embraced scholarly opinion that was somewhat out-of-date.

I don’t have a particular reference in mind, unfortunately, since I no longer use this volume. But, the more I learned, the more my studies contradicted the ideas put forth by this particular Study Bible.

 

[TMC]

While the NAB-RE is an approved Catholic Bible , the footnotes are a horse of a different color. They’re not a work of solely Catholic theologians, and there are some real problems with some of the notes!

While some Catholics disagree with the NABRE notes, there is nothing un-Catholic or unorthodox about them.

 

[Gorgias]

While some Catholics disagree with the NABRE notes, there is nothing un-Catholic or unorthodox about them.

I’ll stick to the one example from the citation I gave. Did Jesus predict his suffering and death? The notes say “nope; those predictions don’t proceed from Jesus – I mean, maybe he knew that His mission was dangerous, but that’s about it”.

If that’s not “unorthodox” or “contrary to Catholic belief”, I don’t know what is…

 

[TMC]

I’ll stick to the one example from the citation I gave. Did Jesus predict his suffering and death? The notes say “nope; those predictions don’t proceed from Jesus – I mean, maybe he knew that His mission was dangerous, but that’s about it”.

If that’s not “unorthodox” or “contrary to Catholic belief”, I don’t know what is…

OK, well all I can say is that I think that the Bishops and Catholic Theologians that approved those notes are more competent to judge whether they conform to Catholic teaching than you or I. We are, of course, free to disagree with them, but that is a different thing.

 

[Gorgias]

OK, well all I can say is that I think that the Bishops and Catholic Theologians that approved those notes are more competent to judge whether they conform to Catholic teaching than you or I.

I think that betrays a misunderstanding of how the NAB was developed, and what it means for a Bible version to have the approval of the Church.

You know that the NAB was put together by a team of scholars consisting of both Catholics and non-Catholics, right? Some of the scholarly opinions of that group diverge from Catholic theology in radical ways.

In addition, you know that the Church’s approval of a Bible translation extends to the Scriptural text, not its commentary, right?

 

[TMC]

I think that betrays a misunderstanding of how the NAB was developed, and what it means for a Bible version to have the approval of the Church.

You know that the NAB was put together by a team of scholars consisting of both Catholics and non-Catholics, right? Some of the scholarly opinions of that group diverge from Catholic theology in radical ways.

In addition, you know that the Church’s approval of a Bible translation extends to the Scriptural text, not its commentary, right?

Yes, I know all of that. I also know that the Church uses the NAB extensively, and that its notes are perfectly consistent with the writings of many Catholic Theologians and Catholic biblical scholars. You can disagree with them, you can say they are not consistent with your views, but you can’t say they are not consistent with Catholicism.

 

[Gorgias]

but you can’t say they are not consistent with Catholicism.

Not sure how you can say that, when you’ve been presented with a footnote that literally denies Jesus’ knowledge of his mission. But hey… everyone is entitled to his own opinion…

I’ll leave you with one more example, and then drop the subject, because you seem to have your mind already made up:

In the NAB, at 1 Cor 3:12-15, we see the following text:

No one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 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. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if some one’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved*, but only as through fire.

See that asterisk? That’s a footnote reference. Here’s the text of the footnote:

[Verse 15] Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 1 Cor 3:17 ), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 1 Cor 5:5 ; 11:32 [discipline]). The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.

So… 1 Cor 3:15 has been misused in order to make the case for purgatory, according to the NAB footnote. Is that “not consistent with Catholicism”? Let’s look at the Catechism:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. 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:607

Hmm… wonder what’s being referenced at footnote 607? Let’s take a look…

607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.

Let’s review: on one hand, the NAB footnotes are claiming that it’s invalid to use 1 Cor 3:15 as a reference to purgatory, but on the other hand, the Catechism explicitly uses this text to support its teaching of purgatory!

“you can’t say [the NAB footnotes] are not consistent with Catholicism”, eh? Really…?

 

[TMC]

Not sure how you can say that, when you’ve been presented with a footnote that literally denies Jesus’ knowledge of his mission. But hey… everyone is entitled to his own opinion…

I’ll leave you with one more example, and then drop the subject, because you seem to have your mind already made up:

It appears that both of us have made up our minds. I would just say that anyone can read the writings of Catholic theologians and biblical scholars and compare them to the NAB notes. And anyone can take note of the fact that the Church endorses and uses this bible, and publishes it on Church websites with the notes. Odd thing to do if the notes are inconsistent with Catholicism.

 

[po18guy]

If it has not already been mentioned, an excellent reference book in this regard is Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. It encapsulates the 73 books, giving the author(s) if known, date of composition, theology contained and other useful information. I highly recommend it. From the online description:

“The introduction to each book includes the time frame and author, the theme, a summary of the contents and some comments about the context in which it was written, the theology of the book, an outline, and a prayer taken from the book. Fr. Baker provides quick access to essential information the daily or occasional reader of sacred scripture should find helpful.”

 

[Dovekin]

you know that the Church’s approval of a Bible translation extends to the Scriptural text, not its commentary, right?

The bishops of the US were involved in the translation, settinging policy and choosing the translators. This applies to the commentary as well as the text. Text and commentary of the OT were accepted in November 2008, except for Psalms. It was not a simple matter of approval of a text submitted to them.

For the most part, the translators were from the Catholic Biblical Association. The (New) Jerusalem is the only other modern translation that has so Catholic a background. That they accept the expertise of some non Catholic exegetes just goes to show how Catholic it is.

on one hand, the NAB footnotes are claiming that it’s invalid to use 1 Cor 3:15 as a reference to purgatory, but on the other hand, the Catechism explicitly uses this text to support its teaching of purgatory!

You misunderstand Catholic exegesis. The NAB claims purgatory was not envisioned by the passage. The CCC uses the passage not as a proof text, but as providing an element that contributed to the development of the idea of purgatory. Those positions agree.

 

[po18guy]

You might want to skip this post.

So, Mary most likely never uttered a single word of the Magnificat, and Saint Luke essentially copied and pasted it from some other Jewish source? What else did Luke invent? Next, we have no idea if anyone named “Matthew” actually composed the Gospel according to Matthew? We call it that for the “sake of convenience”?

There are many more such examples. In the opinions of many, this is by far the weakest and most corrosive to faith commentary in any Catholic bible.

Is it approved by the USCCB (who generates operating funds from its sale)? Yes, and there is the problem. During that same time frame, how did they do governing the seminaries and with the subsequent sex scandal?

As Saint Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 10:23
“ All things are lawful ,” but not all things are helpful. “ All things are lawful ,” but not all things build up.

…and that would seem to apply here.

 

[Dovekin]

Thank you.

I have often suspected that opposition to the NABRE reflected a deep seated opposition to the bishops of our country. At least you are honest about it.

 

[Gorgias]

The NAB claims purgatory was not envisioned by the passage. The CCC uses the passage not as a proof text, but as providing an element that contributed to the development of the idea of purgatory. Those positions agree.

Sure, it’s not a proof text. Yet, if we’re going to say that the Bible is divinely inspired, and if we take from that that passage “an element that contributed to the development of the idea of purgatory”, then how can we claim that God did not envision purgatory in that context? I mean, you could claim that the inspired human author didn’t envision it, but to claim that “purgatory isn’t envisioned” there is too strong a claim. Perhaps, if you were being charitable, you might claim that the phrasing of that footnote makes for more palatable reading for non-Catholics. Even so, it’s a rather weak position, don’t you think?

I have often suspected that opposition to the NABRE reflected a deep seated opposition to the bishops of our country.

I know you’re replying to @po18guy here, but let me be upfront: my unhappiness with the NAB footnotes has nothing to do with antipathy to Catholic bishops.