Literal versus figurative stories in Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicCnvt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for sharing that! I read that unfortunately the NABRE notes must be included with any published edition. Meanwhile, I prefer a translation that can be used for study, devotion, and liturgy. In addition, NABRE, NRSVCE, and others are the best translations because they contain updated scholarship.

I can’t understand why the Church can’t form its own group of scholars and come up with its own translations, and thus end this problem of having translations with commentaries that are secular or that can’t be used for liturgy until revised.
 
ralfyman said:
I can’t understand why the Church can’t form its own group of scholars and come up with its own translations, and thus end this problem of having translations with commentaries that are secular or that can’t be used for liturgy until revised.
Click to expand...
Are you being ironic?

The Church in the US, through the bishops who lead it, gathered a group of scholars from the Catholic Biblical Association, a group of Catholic scholars, to translate the NAB and then to revise it to the NABRE. Far from ending the problems, this has brought out people who criticize the effort, some to the point of rejecting the bishops and their guidance.

Some of the criticism is certainly valid, like liturgists criticizing the tone of scholarly accuracy as inappropriate for worship. Other criticism reflects disagreements within the Church about important issues, like the role of women. And some criticism reflects disagreements about the role of Scripture in the Church.

Some criticism is right, some is wrong, and so it shall be for ages to come. Even if a perfect translation were possible, imperfect readers would find ways to criticize it.
 
Let’s go back to Pilate’s question: Quod est veritas?

The truth of the tow genealogies is that Christ is of the House of David. By that do I have to believe that Mary is the great great (put in as many as needed) granddaughter of David? Or is it that Joseph is the great (again, put in how many needed) grandson of David?

I don’t know; I accept that they both were of the House of David but I don’t particularly car about the literal person-by-person accuracy of the lineages nor the person-by-person accuracy of the lineage of Noah going forward or backward. To do so again takes a 21st century AD concept of what a genealogy is ((direct lineage generation by generation with no skipping of anyone) and there appears to be evidence that the Jews at and prior to the time of Christ did not; that does not make their genealogies untrue. Whether or not there is an exact (meaning no one was missed) list of begetters is not something I consider to be an issue of faith. My faith is not challenged either by the existence or the lack thereof of a specific individual whose name was N O A H. There were floods. I believe there was a covenant. If it occurred 8,000 years before there was writing of any sort, that does not shake my faith and I don’t need to know if the floods from about 15,000 years BC to about 11,000 years BC (of which there is physical evidence) are the flood spoken of in the OT; there does not appear to be evidence of a complete world flood and my faith does not hinge upon that.

Nor does my faith hinge upon there actually being a vineyard owner, as I don’t believe Christ was trying to tell us about Avi the vineyard owner over by the Jordan river. I believe Scripture is theological true, and I don’t get into the cyclone of trying to prove such things as men living 800 calendar years, or that genealogies given in Scripture reflect 21st century concepts. If a genealogy given in Scripture can be shown to have skipped over a generation here and there, or it someone’s lineage really described relationship through being a cousin, that does not shake my faith.

Let me give it one more shot: we only have indirect meand and methods of boing t=back to understand what concepts of family meant to a Jew 4,000 years ago; but taking a comment to mean that nuclear family structure was being spoken of is again applying 21st century concepts to a culture several millennia ago. It certainly appears that the language used implied a familial relationship and we tread on dangerous ground saying that it has to mean exactly what we understand familial relations to be. Theirs appeared wider, and if they skipped naming some generations because their focus was on the individuals who had “made a name” and missed some who had not made a name, is what they said “untrue”? I don’t believe so.
 
Man has not changed in over 2,000 years. It’s almost trendy to say that ‘modern’ concepts are not consistent with their old meanings. The Church collected what documents it could. However, a 2,000 year old Greek or Roman play can get the same reaction from people today as back then. We see the same desires and conflicts played out.

Our Jewish neighbors have documents as well. We both understand family in very similar ways. As far as names, the following is from forward.com

“If your name was Boruch and your father’s name was Simcha, you were called up to the Torah as Boruch ben-Simcha; if your name was Rokhl and your father’s name was Dovid, you were mentioned in a ketubah or marriage contract as Rokhl bas-Dovid. But your son Aryeh was called to the Torah as Aryeh ben-Boruch, and your daughter Rivka was written in the ketubah as Rivka-bas-Eliahu (if that was the name of Rokhl’s husband). Such “last names” were one-generational.”

Jesus was the carpenter’s son.
 
Last edited:
This is what I gathered from the history of the translation given here.

The 1970 edition was translated with members from other denominations.

For the 1986 edition, gender-neutral language was introduced while some “traditional phraseology” restored to the NT. This is the only edition that can be used for liturgy.

For the 1991 edition, gender-neutral language was used for the Book of Psalms, making it unsuitable for liturgy.

For the 1994 edition, problems with the OT were fixed while the translation for the Psalms had to be revised again so that it could be used for liturgy.

In 2003, another revision of the Psalms was made, and it was rejected.

In 2008, the revision of the OT was finally accepted, but the Grail Psalter translation had to be used for the Psalms.

In 2011, a revision of the OT (including the Book of Psalms) was completed but still couldn’t be used for liturgy.

Now, there’s a plan to publish a revision of the whole Bible by 2025 that would be suitable “for individual prayer, catechesis and liturgy,” which is what they should have done in the first place!

Now, I understand the need for NABRE, as that involves updated scholarship and newly discovered manuscripts, but I think what caused problems was the insistence on gender neutral language and certain phraseology that made it difficult for the Church to accept translations for liturgical use, etc. Why didn’t they ask the Holy See for advice regarding that before publishing editions?

Are similar problems taking place for other translations? For example, for NRSV, do they have to come up with a Catholic edition first, and then make more revisions to make it suitable for liturgical use?
 
ralfyman said:
I can’t understand why the Church can’t form its own group of scholars and come up with its own translations, and thus end this problem of having translations with commentaries that are secular or that can’t be used for liturgy until revised.
Click to expand...
The Church DID form its own group of scholars and came up with the translation and commentaries known as the NABRE.

Others in the Church criticized the translation and commentaries, leading to the denial of permission for it to be used in liturgy. A radical shift in policy on translation by the Holy See in the 1990s was clearly incompatible with the policies in effect, so it likely would have made no difference if anyone had asked earlier. Earlier answers would have followed the earlier policies.

I am just saying that any translation will encounter criticism. Liturgists consider things differently than exegetes, apologists differently from either, etc. (Francis has tried to say bishops conferences would have the final say in liturgical translations, but he just intervened in he Italian conference’s translation of the Our Father.)

Anyway, I hope you have a better understanding now of the problems involved in translation.
 
You mean one group of the Church. And you forgot about the inclusion of experts from other denominations.

The Holy See is not exactly an “[other] in the Church.” It wasn’t just criticism but rejection, and not due to “[a] radical shift in policy on translation” but because revisions no longer made the text recognizable for liturgical use.

Your last paragraph proves my argument. It doesn’t matter if criticism and intervention takes place. What matters is that it is done before the translation is published. Otherwise, we end up with copies of the translation that can be used for personal but not for liturgical use.
 
The translation that used “experts from other denominations” was the one that was approved for liturgical use. I am not sure how they are relevant to this discussion.

The problem with your “argument” is that asking before publication would not have gotten any criticism. The policy in place supported the changes made. It was after publication that objections came and translation policy changed. It would certainly have been nice if the Holy See had changed its policies before publication so they could have been accommodated by the translators, but they did not. I am not sure they could have.
 
By “its own group,” I meant all-Catholic and with consultation with the bishops and the Vatican. That way, we avoid debates on whether we should use, for example, “favored one” or “full of grace.”

Your claim that no criticism will come before publication because policies were changed makes no sense at all because several rejections took place across many years. The fact that they already had an approved version meant that all they had to do was incorporate changes due to newly discovered manuscripts. But besides that, they had to apply gender-neutral language extensively, which appears to be the main reason editions kept getting rejected.

Now, they are coming up with a new revision, with " the necessary approvals from the Bishops and the Vatican," which is exactly my point!
 
ralfyman said:
Now, they are coming up with a new revision, with " the necessary approvals from the Bishops and the Vatican," which is exactly my point!
Click to expand...
That is my point as well.

Any new version will continue to receive criticism, and continue to be revised.
 
My point isn’t whether or not criticisms and further revisions will take place but whether or not translators will consult bishops and the Vatican before a revision is made available to publishers and not after.

In addition, if it is true that copyright owners require the notes to be included with the Bible contents for publication, then they should reconsider as several of these notes question Church teachings, and the notes in general makes published Bibles more expensive due to the additional text.

What’s more practical is to offer the Bible itself for publication, and let publishers decide whether or not to add the notes.
 
ralfyman said:
In addition, if it is true that copyright owners require the notes to be included with the Bible contents for publication, then they should reconsider as several of these notes question Church teachings, and the notes in general makes published Bibles more expensive due to the additional text.
Click to expand...
The copyright owners, also known as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, require the notes as a reflection of Catholic belief that Scripture is read with the magisterium. The notes that “question Church teachings” are probably misunderstandings. The notes are part of the Bishops efforts to help people understand the Bible, efforts that some people try to undercut. Since explaining Scripture is a primary responsibility, I doubt they are going to stop including notes.
 
ralfyman said:
Gorgias mentions this article: “The New American Bible,”

which refers to the notes for Matthew 16:21-23 as an example.
Click to expand...
How would Mr Akin respond to Luke 2:52: And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man.? Is this also inconsistent with Christian faith?

“What did Jesus know and when did he know it?” This is simply more difficult to answer than Akin suggests. The 4 evangelists treat it differently, with John closest to identifying his human knowledge with his divine knowledge. I would not accept any commentary on the Gospel that fails to recognize that Matthew and Luke show Jesus as an infant. I would also reject commentary that says John does not identify Jesus with the Divine Word dwelling with us.

NAB gets it right imo.
 
Who said it did?

The footnote is question is part of a sequence that takes Jesus from his ancestors through infancy to adulthood. Matthew, and the notes, portray Jesus growing from birth to his death. This commentary is meant to give insight so that readers will hear the gospel with understanding, not an easy thing.

Again, this is different from John, who declares the Word became flesh and dwells among us. Akin seems to have chosen this understanding as the normative Christian understanding, which is not unreasonable. It just does not give a coherent picture of Matthew’s gospel. imo.

I do not see disagreements like this as terribly important, except when people use them to discredit others. That seems to be common.
 
I am obligated as a Catholic to accept the message delivered to me by my superiors that my Lord said, "Before Abraham was born ‘I AM’, and, “From the very beginning God made them male and female.” He knew all of the figures of the Old Testament personally, and spoke of them as literal beings from that personal knowing, just as literally as requiring of us that we eat his flesh and drink his blood.

I accepted this subjectivity, this servanthood, to believe only what I have been given by Apostolic Authorities when I was confirmed as Catholic; if I were not to believe them, I would be denying the One ‘I AM’ who sent them to me.
(There’s more than meets the eye in Genesis and the OT, but what meets the eye is also real.)

John Martin
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
Matthew, and the notes, portray Jesus growing from birth to his death. This commentary is meant to give insight so that readers will hear the gospel with understanding, not an easy thing.
Click to expand...
So, there’s a world of difference between saying “Jesus grows from birth” and “Jesus didn’t understand what His mission was.” And, if this is such a greatly nuanced notion, then even attempting it in a footnote – given the assertion that we’re merely “misunderstanding what they’re trying to say” – is a fool’s errand at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top