Meaning of footnote references

  • Thread starter Thread starter LightReader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LightReader

Guest
I am trying to read the Bible for the first time. I have the NABRE I cannot understand how the reference footnotes work. After the first sentence there is footnote a then under the text there is
a. [1:1] Gn 2:1,4; 2 Mc 7:28; Ps 8:4…

What is this telling me exactly. I know it points me to books and passages but why? Thanks for any help.
 
They’re cross-references. Each of those verses refers back to Genesis 1:1 in some way. For instance if you click on the second reference, 2 Mc 7:28 (where “2 Mc” is Second Maccabees), you will find:

28 I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things. In the same way humankind came into existence.

That’s all it is. You don’t have to click on all the cross-references. They’re useful when you’re trying to research a particular quotation or allusion, that’s all.

bible.usccb.org

Genesis, CHAPTER 1

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
bible.usccb.org bible.usccb.org
 
Last edited:
The [1:1] is the verse you are currently reading. The others are cross references to other verses related to this verse. The bracketed verse(s) are always the verse you are currently reading.
 
Thank you for taking the time to reply. It now makes sense to me and I can continue reading in peace!
 
My only suggestion - and please correct me if I am out of line - is to avoid or be very wary of the introductions and footnotes in the NAB/RE. They are opinion and some of those opinions do not seem to accord with Church teaching, or even belief in the supernatural.

Many here would suggest the Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition as a superior bible.
 
po18guy said:
My only suggestion - and please correct me if I am out of line - is to avoid or be very wary of the introductions and footnotes in the NAB/RE. They are opinion and some of those opinions do not seem to accord with Church teaching, or even belief in the supernatural.

Many here would suggest the Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition as a superior bible.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that you are out of line, but I would say that your opinion is likely in the minority. The Church likes the NABRE enough that it is the English version that the bishops use on their website. Some don’t like the NABRE comments, but many find them very helpful, and they are not inconsistent with Church teaching.
 
I know that the NAB was approved. I know that the NAB/RE is approved. The USCCB website proudly claims that. OK, fine. But consider:

In both editions, Stephen the Martyr is “full of grace”, but our Blessed Mother is only “favored one” Call me crazy, but I question this.

In both editions, the footnotes imply that Mary never uttered a single word of her Magnificat. The authors opine that Luke simply copied and pasted it from some other Jewish source. AYKM?

They also claim that we have no idea who wrote Matthew’s Gospel but that we shall call it that for the sake of convenience. Good grief, how’d it get that name? Why isn’t it called Bubba’s Gospel?

In the opening pages, the “Prayer to the Holy Spirit before reading the Scriptures” has been removed. For what reason was that done?

There are many other questionable comments and translation choices.

Yes, yes, yes it is approved. That approval does not mean that it completely agrees with Catholic teaching - only that it does not teach directly against it. That is an absolutely huge qualifier.

For these and other reasons, I have scant confidence in the translation, if not its approval.

IMO, the Oxford/Cambridge Revised English Bible w/Apocrypha is superior. Both the RSV and RSV-2CE. The Douay-Rheims. The lamentably abandoned and forgotten 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible. The Catholic New Living Translation…many others.

Bibles are cheap - particularly “used” but typically unread Catholic bibles. In thrift stores, Amazon, eBay, ThriftBooks, they are very affordable - often less than $10.

Once you experience other translations, it will put the NAB et al in perspective.

Just sayin’
 
Last edited:
I shudder every time I hear or read the words “NAB or NABRE footnotes.” It’s like having the antichrist hidden within the pages of Sacred Scripture. The vast majority of bishops and priests are not Biblical scholars, and many of the bishops who approved these editions went through seminary when liberal biblical scholarship was all the rage, so they really don’t know any better about the footnotes, to be honest.

My opinion is that it’s a great scandal that the NAB with its extremely poor footnotes is the published Bible on the USCCB site. The introductions and footnotes are just terrible and should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
 
Few know that members of the laity, including women religious and even a Calvinist pastor were involved in the translation/editing process. Ecumenism gone wild. And their names are right up front where everyone can see and marvel at them.

Contrast that with the Confraternity Bible, in which the names are in back, all ordained Catholic clergy and the letters after their names would fill a page by themselves. My unlearned opinion is that the NAB is but one sign of a Church in distress - evidence of the malaise which has infected it since the 1960s.
 
po18guy said:
I know that the NAB was approved. I know that the NAB/RE is approved. The USCCB website proudly claims that. OK, fine. But consider:

In both editions, Stephen the Martyr is “full of grace”, but our Blessed Mother is only “favored one” Call me crazy, but I question this.
Click to expand...
What I like even better, is that in the Divine Liturgy for Marian Solemnities, the reading from Luke has “Hail, Full of Grace!”

So the American Bishops have one translation for the Liturgy, but another for “their” Bible that is promoted and sold everywhere. A very sad double standard. Most English speaking countries do not have this sort of travesty to deal with. Even in the US, we could buy the Bible that was actually used in the Liturgy up until recent times. Right now the ONLY WAY to read the Bible that the Bishops are allowed to use in the American Liturgy, is to buy the Lectionary work books (or you can look it up in your annual missalette provided by your parish.) The NABRE is very similar, but in many instances is way different from our Liturgical readings. Isaiah 7:14 is another startling example.

BTW, to the OP, those cross-references are very interesting. They first appeared in the original D/R Bibles of 1582-1610. Then they disappeared in Challoner’s Revision of 1750-1752. Then they reappeared in McMahon’s revision of Challoner in 1791. They were also included in all of the Haydock Bibles beginning in 1811. They were in M. Carey’s 1805 American quarto Bible, but disappeared again in Cummiskey’s reprints from 1824 onward, which were reused by many other publishers throughout the 19th C. By the end of the 1800’s their importance was generally recognized, and included in all later editions of the D/R bibles.

Protestant Bibles ALWAYS included them from the first KJV in 1611 and onwards.

Nowadays they are included in every Bible, no matter the denomination or publisher.
 
Last edited:
Great! 👍

The world’s largest and oldest organization, the only divinely inspired institution (arguably Judaism), possessing the greatest library on earth, the complete deposit of faith, the most learned and erudite scholars (at least she used to), and the writings and commentaries of the Great Saints…

…can and should do much better, at least in the English language. The English-speaking world - the US in particular - cries out for a better bible. It is an utter shame that the 1941-1969 Confraternity bible (which the NAB OT is nearly the same as) was never published under a single cover. The footnotes and intros are clear and confidence-inspiring.

I find it easier to defend Catholic Doctrine from a King James Version! Houston, we have a problem! With the possible exception of the so-called “Good News Translation” (which has Jesus rebuking Mary in John 2) the NAB and NABRE are the weakest English language Catholic bibles ever printed. I have zero doubt that the reformers, to a man, would have recoiled in horror at the footnotes, if not the translation itself.

Mumble grumble mumble. 😒 The road to recovery begins with the admission that there is a problem. Maybe the sex scandal has opened the flood gates. I hope and pray that it has.

Almost forgot: the USCCB generates operating funds from the sale of the non-liturgically approved NAB/RE. I know, I know, they have that right, but the whole matter does not smell good to me.
 
Last edited:
I’ve read that also, in a collection of Apologetics books I have. It is a series, i forgot from whom. They mentioned some of the commentary is not inline with Catholic teaching but with more of a Protestant view. They didn’t say it was a bad translation of scripture, but just to be aware of some of the footnotes/commentary. What do you think of the Duey Rhems Catholic Bible? It predates the KJV and is supposed to be closer to the Vulgate, just in English. I have a really nice copy of that, and NAB and even a KJV for apologetics with Protestants. It sometimes comes in handy when debating theology. Not that I consider myself an expert or professional at it. I do my best.

Edit, when I get home I will dig it up and report back, lol
 
Last edited:
The Douay-Rheims (aka D-R, Rheims-Douay, Rheims-Douai) is the classic. It is antiquated in its language, but very reverent. You want a good “bridge” bible? Look in thrift stores, eBay, ThriftBooks or Amazon for any of the 1941-1969 Douay-Confraternity bibles. These were headed for introduction until the USCCB decided to adopt the rather bland NAB in 1970.

They are simply excellent. The earliest editions had a 100% Douay-Rheims Old Testament combined with the 1941 Confraternity New Testament - which is the best Catholic New Testament, IMO. The book introductions and foot notes are 100% solid Catholic. Unquestionably Catholic.

They can be had for $10 in most cases, many appearing to be unread (yeah, we’re Catholics alright 🙁 ).
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Nowadays they are included in every Bible, no matter the denomination or publisher.
Click to expand...
All Bibles have some cross-references, I think. But some Bibles have only a few and some have many more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top