NAB commentaries, why no outrage?

[Comet_Catholic]

I haven’t looked at the NAB translation for sometime now, but have revisited it recently. It is not my favorite translation for a few reasons, but it is the commentary that I find most troublesome. Very heavy with historical-critical method, very light on Church Fathers, commentaries that are heretical with an obvious modernist agenda.

I found someone else who did a nice in depth report as well:
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/nab1.htm

Why the silence?
Is anyone else outraged at this or is this old news for most?
Comet

 

[Fidelis]

There’s been a couple of threads on this and, yes, many people here are less than happy with the NAB commentary, myself included. Perhaps it does reflect “modern” scholarship, but that does not make it good or helpful. The classic example is the commentary on 1 Cor 3:11-15:

For 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 someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
NAB Commentary:
[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.

This directly contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church which cites 1 Cor 3:11-15 in it’s teaching about Purgatory:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 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
606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439) DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563) DS 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336) DS 1000.
607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.

The main effect I’ve seen it have on people is they say it sucks the life out of Scripture by de-spiritualizing it and pitting scholarship against the teaching of the Church (Someone here was working on putting together a compendium of problem texts. Perhaps if you do a search, you can find it.

 

[Joysong]

I do not have the NAB, so I can’t comment. I was somewhat taken aback this morning at mass, for the readings were about Jesus casting out a mute spirit. The apostles inquired as to why they could not cast it out, and the priest read, “This kind can only be cast out through prayer.”

For years, I heard this gospel, and have it in my two bibles, that “This kind can only be cast out through prayer AND FASTING.”

I almost asked our priest after mass why the different translation which is so radically different?

Yes, it is a concern when the words are omitted or changed from what we have been accustomed to.

Carole

 

[puzzleannie]

you must be new here, all kinds of threads denigrating the NAB translation and footnotes.

 

[Fidelis]

Joysong:

I do not have the NAB, so I can’t comment. I was somewhat taken aback this morning at mass, for the readings were about Jesus casting out a mute spirit. The apostles inquired as to why they could not cast it out, and the priest read, “This kind can only be cast out through prayer.”

For years, I heard this gospel, and have it in my two bibles, that “This kind can only be cast out through prayer AND FASTING.”

I almost asked our priest after mass why the different translation which is so radically different?

Yes, it is a concern when the words are omitted or changed from what we have been accustomed to.

Carole

That is interesting. Here’s the NAB commentary on that verse (Mark 9:28):

7 [29] This kind can only come out through prayer: a variant reading adds “and through fasting.”

The RSV-CE (Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition)says: And He said to them,
“This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting.”

 

[pnewton]

Why no outrage? Because I am used to Bibles published by academians. I have never trusted footnotes an so seldom read them.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Fidelis,

That is interesting. Here’s the NAB commentary on that verse (Mark 9:28): This kind can only come out through prayer: a variant reading adds “and through fasting.”

I wondered after I read your post whether our priest made a mistake, so I looked on EWTN’s daily mass readings, and it was identical. The wording was “and through prayer.”

Maybe our folks who are upset about the NAB, should also get upset about the current translation in the Sacramentary?

Thanks, Fidelis, for finding this scripture.

Carole

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Why no outrage? Well, I am in the vast minoirity, but I like the NAB. Yes, the translation is dry, but I appreciate the commentary. I like the textual criticism, and I don’t mind when variant readings and manuscript traditions are pointed out, etc.

There do seem to be points where the commentary contradicts church teaching, but these (for me) tend to deepen my faith because the force me to confront the points head on. I never read the NAB without the CCC, and vice-versa.

I have noticed a tendency on these forums to be hostile to historical analysis, textual criticism, “academicians” and the like. Maybe I am sensitive to this because I am in academia . But it also occurs to me that one of the arguments Catholic apologists use, for example, against sola scriptura Protestants is that the Church gave us the bible (that the Church selected the Canon). We emphasize to our Protestant brothers the need for context in understanding Scripture. When making arguments about such issues as Peter the Rock, we try to peel back the layers of text to get back to what “would have been said” in Aramaic. And so on. All of these require textual and historical criticism!

Moreover, the process has not ossified. By the time of the council of Trent, the Church recognized and corrected errors in Jerome’s translation of the vulgate. This suggests that, as we learn more, the Church can produce better translations (and, by the way, we should recognize that different translations serve differnt purposes–they do not all need to be poetic). Likewise, Church doctrines, while they cannot change or contradict, can deepen over time. AND, (here I will get in trouble) theologians and academics play a role in this, though of course the magisterium has the final say.

Finally, the church does not call us to walk in lockstep–there is room for healthy debate without crossing into dissent or heresy. The example of 1 Cor 3:15, which someone cited earier, points this out well. The CCC cites this as one passage that supports the existence of Purgatory. The CCC goes on to cite a number of passages as well as various councils and church documents. The NAB commentary questions whether this passage suppports the existence of purgatory, but it does not challenge the existence of purgatory or the findings of the councils. Even if I disagree, I am not convinced that this kind of commentary is worthy of “outrage.”

 

[edward_george]

I have used the NAB for some time and was dismayed to learn this. Does anyone know where I can find a RSV-CE for a low price? I’d like a nice imitation leather-bound one like my NAB Gift and Award Bible, but I can’t seem to find a RSV-CE for a few dollars. If anyone knows where I can find one, please PM me.

-ACEGC

 

[rwoehmke]

Apparently one of the criticisms is that the footnotes offer possible natural causes for some of the miracles. How is this so different from the practice in examining the miracles attributed to a potential Saint to look first for a natural explanation?

 

[buzzcut]

I have a large print edition of the NAB that I like because the layout’s so clear. I quite like the translation, though I don’t know Hebrew or Greek so I can’t comment on its accuracy. I wasn’t aware there was a problem with the notes. I’ve always found them quite helpful.

 

[Comet_Catholic]

There is only so much space an edition can dedicate toward commentary. The NAB’s total dedication to the historical-critical method combined with very little stress put on Church teaching flies in the face of every encyclical document that has come out of Rome in the past 110 years.

The Navarre RSVCE is a great example of a balanced blend of modern techniques combined with Church Fathers and Church teaching in concordance with the Pontificate of Biblical Studies.

One of the responses here justified the NAB commentary by asserting that we are not compelled to comply “lock step” with the Church. No one is suggesting that these modern scholars be denied publication.

The official bible of the Church should be the one that teaches the faith. It is scandalous that the US Conference of Bishops have signed off on this translation with these commentaries.

Why would the Conference of Bishops deny Catholics a faithful commentary in the translation approved for the liturgy?

Comet

 

[Fidelis]

Vox Borealis:

Finally, the church does not call us to walk in lockstep–there is room for healthy debate without crossing into dissent or heresy. The example of 1 Cor 3:15, which someone cited earier, points this out well. The CCC cites this as one passage that supports the existence of Purgatory. The CCC goes on to cite a number of passages as well as various councils and church documents. The NAB commentary questions whether this passage suppports the existence of purgatory, but it does not challenge the existence of purgatory or the findings of the councils. Even if I disagree, I am not convinced that this kind of commentary is worthy of “outrage.”

For those of us who are more or less discursive on various Biblical theories and approaches, the issues involved may be merely interesting or even just annoying. For the average Catholic who is given a copy of the NAB as a gift, or by his priest or catechist, it can be arguably be an occasion of confusion or even distress. Most Catholics have no interest or experience with scholarly debate, nor should they have to. Sometimes they are just reaching for the Scriptures for inspiration or spiritual solace.
Apart from helpful background and perspective on a given text, what do they encounter at the bottom of the page? The real question is: are the NAB notes helpful toward that end, or do they *sometimes * do more harm than good?

I don’t have a major issue with the NAB itself. I use it a lot and in general it is a good translation. Even the notes, by and large, have good, useful information. But there are arguably problem areas that people need to be aware of.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Comet_Catholic:

The official bible of the Church should be the one that teaches the faith. It is scandalous that the US Conference of Bishops have signed off on this translation with these commentaries.

Comet

Is the NAB “the official bible,” or merely one of a number of approved bibles? And, should the bible “teach the faith”, or do you mean that the notes should teach the faith? The catechism, which of course cannot contradict the bible, teaches the faith.

In any case, my main point is that there seems to be a certain amount of hostility on these threads to historical/literary/textual critical analysis of the bible, which is odd since the Catholic church has the longest tradition of interpreting the bible using these tools. I mean, we’re not sola scriptura fundies who think that Jesus wrote the King James bible, in English no less.

I will agree with Fidelis that the NAB does not serve all constituencies equally well. I may even agree that there are “problems” that the laity needs to be aware of. However, am not convinced that the NAB need elicit “outrage.”

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

Is the NAB “the official bible,” or merely one of a number of approved bibles? And, should the bible “teach the faith”, or do you mean that the notes should teach the faith? The catechism, which of course cannot contradict the bible, teaches the faith.

In any case, my main point is that there seems to be a certain amount of hostility on these threads to historical/literary/textual critical analysis of the bible, which is odd since the Catholic church has the longest tradition of interpreting the bible using these tools. I mean, we’re not sola scriptura fundies who think that Jesus wrote the King James bible, in English no less.

I will agree with Fidelis that the NAB does not serve all constituencies equally well. I may even agree that there are “problems” that the laity needs to be aware of. However, am not convinced that the NAB need elicit “outrage.”

I think that a Catholic Bible with an imprimatur should ONLY teach catholic doctrine.

My problem is not so much with the text (although it does mistranslate kecharitomene as “highly favoured” rather than Full of Grace).

But the notes are appalling and, like those of the Jerusalem Bible (the European Liberal translation), can damage people’s faith. By all means let there be debate about textual criticism. But don’t print the theories of Liberal bible critics as “facts” in Catholic bibles!

When the notes constantly tell the reader that Moses didn’t write the pentateuch. That literary editors cobbled it together. That stories were made up and invented to make points. That Mary didn’t compose the Magnificat. That the gospels weren’t written by the Evangelists. Then this is destructive to Faith.

The ordinary person reading such a bible and believing the notes, will soon find he has nothing solid to rely on. He can apparently trust nothing. The events in the bible probably never happened. Jesus didn’t say what He is recorded as saying. The bible writers were liars and frauds who basically made it all up as they went along! That is the basic message of the Liberal academics who write the notes. And of course no connection is made between bible passages and Catholic doctrine. It is no wonder so many people have lost faith since these versions came out.

If all these statements were proven facts, there might be some point in including them as a sorry tale of fraud and deception by the bible writers. But they are theories with no proof behind them at all.

Basically the bible notes in both versions need cleaning out and being rewritten by people of Faith.

 

[pnewton]

The fact that the NAB is used in the Mass readings give it a place of honor, but do not make it official. Being a dynamic translation, it is smooth and readable. In this is it better suited to public reading and less suited to serious study.

Fortunately, the footnotes are not read in Mass.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

I think that a Catholic Bible with an imprimatur should ONLY teach catholic doctrine.

My problem is not so much with the text (although it does mistranslate kecharitomene as “highly favoured” rather than Full of Grace).

But the notes are appalling and, like those of the Jerusalem Bible (the European Liberal translation), can damage people’s faith. By all means let there be debate about textual criticism. **But don’t print the theories ** of Liberal bible critics as “facts” in Catholic bibles!

I will defer to your knowledge on this one if I am wring, but are the problems you mention below matters of Doctrine? I mean, does the Church hold as Doctrine that Moses authored the Pentateuch, or is this a lower category of Church teaching?

Axion:

When the notes constantly tell the reader that Moses didn’t write the pentateuch. That literary editors cobbled it together. That stories were made up and invented to make points. That Mary didn’t compose the Magnificat. That the gospels weren’t written by the Evangelists. Then this is destructive to Faith.

I guess I just don’t see the problems that you do. Looking back over my NAB: 1] the introductory notes about the Pentateuch only says that Moses was not an author in the modern sense but that as law giver he played a crucial role in collecting various Jewish oral traditions, and that the Pentateuch was later added to and modified. I do not see how this is substantially different from what the old Catholic Encyclopedia says about Moses authorship, however I admit that I do not know the Church’s curent position on the issue. 2] Regarding the Magnificat, all the NAB says (as I read it) is that it may have been an early Jewish-Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate to place at that point in his narrative–it is silent (well, to be honest, vague and inexplicit) about Marian authorship. Well, where would early Christians have gotten this hymn? Mary would seem to be a good answer. 3] Does the Church claim the Gospels were written by the Evangelists? Again, looking over the old Catholic Encyclopedia on NewAdvent.org, it appears that the Church teaches the Gosplels are versions of Jesus’ life ACCORDING to the Evangelists, but leaving open the possibility (indeed the likelyhood) they were written at a later time (by the Evangelists’ scribes?). The CCC glossary is equally vague–for Gospel the CCC caims they were written by the evangelists, but Evangelist is defined as one of the four to whom authorship is ASCRIBED.

Axion:

The ordinary person reading such a bible and believing the notes, will soon find he has nothing solid to rely on. He can apparently trust nothing. The events in the bible probably never happened. Jesus didn’t say what He is recorded as saying. The bible writers were liars and frauds who basically made it all up as they went along! That is the basic message of the Liberal academics who write the notes. And of course no connection is made between bible passages and Catholic doctrine. It is no wonder so many people have lost faith since these versions came out.

This is where I differ fundamentally–I actually trust the laity, at least if they are properly catechized (which, admittedly is a problem). I don’t make the leap you do from “Mary did not write the Magnificat” to “the Bible is a fraud.” I trust that the Bible as we have it now–the canon as defined by the authority of the magisterium–is the inspired word of God. I do not fret over the mechanisms by which God diseminated his inspired word. I am not like a Muslim, who in theory believes God recited the Koran word for word in Arabic to his prophet. I do not see the notes in the NAB contradicting Church Doctrine or Dogma, but merely offering another explanation for how we arrive at the same point. I’m just not threatened by the NAB notes and do not fear their supposed deleterious effects.

I do agree that more COULD be done to link bible passages with specific Catholic doctrines, but this could also be solved if the laity were encouraged to own and read the catechism, or by releasing another version of the bible with different notes. Not every Catholic bible (with imprimatur) need serve the same purposes or the same constituencies.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Comet_Catholic:

I haven’t looked at the NAB translation for sometime now, but have revisited it recently. It is not my favorite translation for a few reasons, but it is the commentary that I find most troublesome. Very heavy with historical-critical method, very light on Church Fathers, commentaries that are heretical with an obvious modernist agenda.

I found someone else who did a nice in depth report as well:
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/nab1.htm

Why the silence?
Is anyone else outraged at this or is this old news for most?
Comet

Because there is nothing at which to be outraged ​

The historical-critical method has been used by Catholics ever since 1943, not to mention earlier; it has done a great deal to clarify the Bible - which is probably why it has been called “indispensable” in the 1993 document on “The Bible in the Church”:

I. Methods And Approaches For Interpretation
A. Historical-Critical Method

The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the “word of God in human language,” has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it.

Here is a link to the whole document at EWTN, no less - a site which cannot exactly be said to have a “modernist agenda” . So maybe those who use this method don’t either.

Personally, one gets rather sick of seeing people accused of “modernism” for doing no more than the Church allows and encourages them to do.

And please, let’s not have yet another thread about the late Father Brown: because no complaining about him, can alter the fact that most Catholics using this method attract no attention whatever - as they doing what they are encouraged by Rome to do, this is unsurprising.

I can understand people’s being taken aback or shocked by the NAB’s notes, method, and solutions - but that does not make those notes, that method, or those solutions
wrong or bad. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Joysong:

I do not have the NAB, so I can’t comment. I was somewhat taken aback this morning at mass, for the readings were about Jesus casting out a mute spirit. The apostles inquired as to why they could not cast it out, and the priest read, “This kind can only be cast out through prayer.”

For years, I heard this gospel, and have it in my two bibles, that “This kind can only be cast out through prayer AND FASTING.”

I almost asked our priest after mass why the different translation which is so radically different?

Yes, it is a concern when the words are omitted or changed from what we have been accustomed to.

Carole

The Greek texts of the NT supply a variety of readings - and different textual scholars give different weight to different textual “families” (as they are called) and approaches. So the translations vary.​

There is nothing sinister about it - it’s just rather startling if one is not reasonably at home in it

What did your priest say ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fidelis:

For those of us who are more or less discursive on various Biblical theories and approaches, the issues involved may be merely interesting or even just annoying. For the average Catholic who is given a copy of the NAB as a gift, or by his priest or catechist, it can be arguably be an occasion of confusion or even distress. Most Catholics have no interest or experience with scholarly debate, nor should they have to.

The problem is, that unless Catholics have these things explained to them, they may very well get in a flap: quite understandably.​

If they have no experience - then they should at least avoid accusing of error those who have . Those who don’t know how to make a pie are not the people to tell those who do, how to, or where they are mistaken, or why; and those who don’t know about Biblical scholarship need to be equally modest. We mustn’t “rend each other” ##

Sometimes they are just reaching for the Scriptures for inspiration or spiritual solace.
Apart from helpful background and perspective on a given text, what do they encounter at the bottom of the page? The real question is: are the NAB notes helpful toward that end, or do they *sometimes *do more harm than good?

The answer to that will depend on the individual​

I don’t have a major issue with the NAB itself. I use it a lot and in general it is a good translation. Even the notes, by and large, have good, useful information. But there are arguably problem areas that people need to be aware of.