NAB commentaries, why no outrage?

[OFTHEANGELS]

I remember a few years ago I bought an nab bible. I was excited to finally have a catholic bible . I had been reading protestant bibles for years. then i started reading the commentary, some of the commentary basically denys christ was even God !!

Right then and there I lit up my fire place and burned it. I believe the commentary is straight from the pits of hell and im serious.

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

Why is it a problem that Luke reported what he saw … using the language of imitation and literary ornamentation? Why does that make the account false? I could describe a baseball game I saw in terms of an ancient epic poem, imitating the style and language and emphaisizing certain aspects of the game, with saying anything untrue about the game.

The style and language don’t particularly bother me. The key matter is the facts. And these notes attack the facts.
Legend is not fact. Legend is something that, by definition, can’t be relied upon. If someone wrote an authoritative book describing Caesar’s conquest of Gaul as “legend”, he would have half the historians on the planet down his throat - and rightly so. What is or is not factual is very important.

To describe the infancy narratives as part legend, (and then to add words like “imitation”, and "literary ornamentation,) is basically to say that we cannot rely on the Gospel account. This goes counter to Church teaching. If, when we read the birth narrative, we are wondering which bits are legend, and which fact, this is incredibly damaging to faith. Were there really shepherds? Was there a star? Was it in Bethlehem? Are the people right who say it was **all ** made up later, and Jesus had a normal birth in Nazareth? How much can be removed as “poetic” and “ornamental”, before we start wondering whether Jesus was messiah at all?

Again, I see no problem… As I read this intro, it suggests that some of the prophecies Jesus made about the temple destruction would have resonated particularly strongly with Luke if he witnessed the destruction, so we should date him to post AD 70. No contradiction–Jesus made these prophecies and Luke in particular remembered them (or found them of particular relevance) when he composed his gosple.

No. I don’t buy that. Let’s look at the exact wording:

**because ** details in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date

Hang on. You say that if Luke knew about the destruction of Jerusalem, it would give his remembrance of Jesus’s prophecies particular relevance. Yes, it might. But why would that affect the dating of the gospel?

It only dates the gospel if we **assume ** that unless the prophecy had been written after the event, it wouldn’t be in the book.

Let’s say Winston Churchill said in 1935 that Hitler would invade France? We have an undated newspaper cutting that records Churchill making this prophecy in 1935. Can we then say, because of this, that the newspaper article must have been written **after ** 1940?

Only if we suspect the newspaper of fraud.

I am not sure I follow here. The last few words of the notes that you cite state explicitly that Mary was the speaker, in direct response to theories that Elizabeth is the speaker.

No. they say that the majority of the texts **record ** that Mary was the speaker. This note is not referring to the **truth ** of the texts, but to what they allege.

But what of your more general critique, that because it may have been an early Christian hymn Luke is lying. Again, I just don’t get this extreme position. All it says is that the form of the Magnificat may be that of an early Christian hymn and that it fits the themes of Luke well. It does not surprise me that Luke as an author would choose material that fit his themes well. It does not deny that original author of the Magnificat may have been Mary (and on this point, I do not know if the church has an official doctrinal or dogmatic position) and that her words were passed down and taken over as a hymn by early Christian groups.

The scripture says “And Mary said:” This means that the church dogmatically declares it to be true that Mary said this.

However the notes posit two origins for the canticle:

1. Luke “composed” the Magnificat.
2. Luke found an early Jewish/Christian Hymn and put the words in Mary’s mouth.

To do either of these things in a record which Luke says at the start is an “orderly” and “truthful” account, would be highly dishonest. Luke is not claiming to “choose material” from anywhere he likes to “fit his theme”, he is stating that he is producing a truthful and ordered account. Putting words into Mary’s mouth which she did not speak would not be truthful.

And again, if Mary did not speak the words of the Magnificat, did she say “be it unto me according to thy word,”? Did she even speak to an angel? Or was this too just “material that fits the theme of Jesus as Messiah”? It’s only a small step from there to the Da Vinci Code.

 

[Axion]

Gottle of Geer:

Many things may destroy faith: Vatican II or its implementation (or both) has been said to do exactly that. That is not a reason for junking Vatican II: so why must it be fatal to using the HCM ?
…
All methods in theology are limited - not just the HCM.

The unique and deadly error in the historical-critical method is that it starts out by treating the bible as a flawed document - one that needs to be “cleaned-out” and “corrected”. This makes man in his wisdom the arbiter of what is and is not part of God’s revelation.

Experts can then chip away at anything they don’t like, accusing the rest of being additions and inventions. We end up not **studying ** the word, but **criticizing ** it. Perhaps that is the biggest deception.

 

[Axion]

OFTHEANGELS:

I remember a few years ago I bought an nab bible. I was excited to finally have a catholic bible . I had been reading protestant bibles for years. then i started reading the commentary, some of the commentary basically denys christ was even God !!
.

I got the same sinking feeling the first time I read some of the Jerusalem Bible notes. I had hoped for solid Catholic teaching and expounding of the bible verses. I found a lot of stuff implying that a large proportion of the bible was made up.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

No. I don’t buy that. Let’s look at the exact wording:

**because ** details in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date

Hang on. You say that if Luke knew about the destruction of Jerusalem, it would give his remembrance of Jesus’s prophecies particular relevance. Yes, it might. But why would that affect the dating of the gospel?

It only dates the gospel if we **assume ** that unless the prophecy had been written after the event, it wouldn’t be in the book.

Let’s say Winston Churchill said in 1935 that Hitler would invade France? We have an undated newspaper cutting that records Churchill making this prophecy in 1935. Can we then say, because of this, that the newspaper article must have been written **after ** 1940?

Only if we suspect the newspaper of fraud.

Wrong. Using your example, let’s say that 1] iin 1935 Winston Churchill predicted that the Germany would invade France, and 2] he said that he thought the US would develop a superweapon, and 3] he predicted that England would win the Ashes cricket tournament the next year, and 4] finally he said that the way things were going someday academics would doubt there existed absolute right and wrong which is a shame because he witnessed how evil Hitler was firsthand.

Now, let’s say I have four biograhies of Hitler, and each one claims that Winston Churchill was a smart guy who was ahead of his time and made a lot of correct predictions. One emphasizes that England won the Ashes in 1936, one calls particular attention to Germany’s invasion of France, one notes he predicted the A-bomb, and finally one mentions that Churchill predicted postmodernism. Now, it IS possible that all four versions were written in 1935, when Churchill made these predictions. But I might also suspect that the author would call attention to that aspect of Churchill’s predictions that was particularly relevant to his own time. No American will care about the Ashes, and Cricket is not that popular any more–so I might figure this biography was written for an English audience much closer to 1936. However, the biography that calls attention to the American superweapon probably wrote knowing that US had used the A-bomb (so 1945, or later in the context of the cold war), possibly to an American audience.

Now, none of these biographies lied, or are frauds–they each present accurately some aspect of Churchill’s life. Moreover, taken individually, we would have distortion–we might think that alll Churchill cared about was sports, or about war, or about philosophy. But taken together we get a richer and fulller picture. That’s how the Gospels work.

The problem you have is that you assume the Gospels are closer to newspapers, a particular genre that purports to present informationin a specific way (usually soon after the events take place), rather than closer to biographies.

To get back to your Luke/Temple example–it makes sense that Luke would have composed his gospel after the destruction of the temple, and thought back and said, “Wow, now I get what Jesus meant–I’ll put that prophecy in.” Again, prophecy c. AD 30, composition c. AD 70, no lies, no fraud.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Axion:

The unique and deadly error in the historical-critical method is that it starts out by treating the bible as a flawed document - one that needs to be “cleaned-out” and “corrected”. This makes man in his wisdom the arbiter of what is and is not part of God’s revelation.

Experts can then chip away at anything they don’t like, accusing the rest of being additions and inventions. We end up not **studying **the word, but **criticizing **it. Perhaps that is the biggest deception.

The word criticism has gained unfortunate overtones, which suggest that the HCM is (so to put it) “gunning for” things to carp at: but this is not implicit or required or necessary or presupposed. Any more than criticism of the Odyssey implies trying to find things to carp at.​

When Aristarchus of Samos judged that some lines in book 11 of the Odyssey, from 600 to 604, were not authentic, this was not because he was trying to snipe, but because the lines - a description of the phantom of Herakles in Hades - contradicted the text elsewhere, at the passage where Herakles is said to be among the gods.

So the Bible is not unique in being criticised - such an activity was part and parcel of Classical scholarship, and has been for two thousand years. One problem with the Biblical texts, is that they have a theological status not shared with any other corpus of literature (not if one is Christian); another, is that the Bible is far better known to Christians than other texts - for one Christian who has even heard of the Odyssey, there are probably thousands who have not. Criticism of the Bible can so easily look as though it is a movement, out of the blue, which is directed against the Bible for no reason (except perhaps a wholly bad one) - when in fact criticism, far from being directed against the Bible and against no other book, is a tool for understanding not only the Bible, but also, the Odyssey, the Iliad, the Enuma elish (AKA “the Babylonian Creation Epic”), just about any Classical writer in Latin or Greek you care to name, the Church Fathers, and a great number of theologians since the Fathers.

But because the Bible is uniquely familiar, and uniquely important to a vast number of people who wouldn’t know Aristarchus from Livy or either from Hesiod; people who don’t in the least object to a Dominican (say) who denies that a work long thought to be St. Albert of Cologne is by him, will come down like a ton of bricks on that Dominican, if he denies that King David wrote Psalm 23. The Bible is “very near to” people, so they can get very upset if they hear of certain critical suggestions. But, if there can be close study of the text, literary genre, authorship, transmission, integrity, language, vocabulary, ideas, and possible sources of the Odyssey or the Enuma Elish or Canaanite poems about Baal and other gods: why can there not be the same close study of the Books of Chronicles ?

Are the dangers you mention real ? Certainly - the critic Zoilus was known as “Homeromastix”,“the scourge of Homer”, because of his carping criticism. That does not automatically invalidate the last 500 years of study of Homer in the West, or prove that the 12th-century Greek bishop of Thessalonika who commented on Homer was wasting his time - surely not.

These dangers arise because criticism, whether of Genesis, the Gilgamesh Epic, or any other work, is the work of frail human beings - if everything we relied on were abolished because it could be grievously abused - or had been - there would be little of the Church left.

Not everything once thought to be by Dante is his - one or two works not thought to be his, almost certainly are: so his “Confession of Faith” goes out, and the “Problem of Water and Earth”, comes in. St. Thomas has attracted his share of spurious works, & even an article or two. If it is legitimate to deny that his “Against the Greeks” is based on a work he mistakenly thought to be by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and if it is gain for the Church that the “Donation of Constantine” is now recognised not to be a 4th-century text - why is it objectionableto recognise the force of arguments for the inauthenticity of verses, or to adopt an unfamiliar translation of 1 Timothy 3. 16 or 1 John 5.7 or John 3.13 ?

There are two kinds of destruction - that by vandals, and that by those who destroy in order to rebuild. Biblical criticism has a reputation for being the former (largely because of some of the work of the 1800s), but is the latter. ##

 

[beverly30]

Axion:

I got the same sinking feeling the first time I read some of the Jerusalem Bible notes. I had hoped for solid Catholic teaching and expounding of the bible verses. I found a lot of stuff implying that a large proportion of the bible was made up.

So what would you suggest someone do if their church was passing these out, and used them for bible study class!

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

The problem you have is that you assume the Gospels are closer to newspapers, a particular genre that purports to present informationin a specific way (usually soon after the events take place), rather than closer to biographies.

To get back to your Luke/Temple example–it makes sense that Luke would have composed his gospel after the destruction of the temple, and thought back and said, “Wow, now I get what Jesus meant–I’ll put that prophecy in.” Again, prophecy c. AD 30, composition c. AD 70, no lies, no fraud.

But the flow of the evidence is the other way.

The gospels are full of portrayals of the fulfilment of prophecy. IF Luke and Acts had been written after the Destruction of Jerusalem, as the historical-critical scholars propose, then why didn’t Luke, “having the recent fall of Jerusalem in his mind”, write after the prophect verses the obvious addendum. “And the prophecy of Jesus was mightily fulfilled in the recent destruction of Jerusalem.” ?? But no hint of this appears.

It’s so obvious. it would have made such a strong point. But he didn’t write this. Nor did he tell of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. He leaves Paul imprisoned in Rome.

These are two facts that to my mind make it obvious that Luke and Acts were written in the 60s AD, before the martyrdoms under Nero and before the Fall of Jerusalem.

I know you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the note-writers, but statements denying biblical authorship, stating that the texts have been altered by interpolation, and denying the reality of miraculous events, are being made too many times throughout the whole bible to be accidental.

I get the impression that the note writers are just avoiding saying “much of the bible is legend and imagination” in so many words, in order to keep official sanction; but they are constantly using language that gives more than a heavy nod and a wink to the reader that this is the case.

 

[Axion]

## The word criticism has gained unfortunate overtones, which suggest that the HCM is (so to put it) “gunning for” things to carp at: but this is not implicit or required or necessary or presupposed. Any more than criticism of the Odyssey implies trying to find things to carp at.

So the Bible is not unique in being criticised - such an activity was part and parcel of Classical scholarship, and has been for two thousand years…

The difference is that the bible, to most Christians, is a book that is authenticated, inspired, and kept free from error by God. The Odyssey has no such pedigree.

people who don’t in the least object to a Dominican (say) who denies that a work long thought to be St. Albert of Cologne is by him, will come down like a ton of bricks on that Dominican, if he denies that King David wrote Psalm 23. … But, if there can be close study of the text, literary genre, authorship, transmission, integrity, language, vocabulary, ideas, and possible sources of the Odyssey or the Enuma Elish or Canaanite poems about Baal and other gods: why can there not be the same close study of the Books of Chronicles ?

I’m not denying people’s right to study, and publish their beliefs about the bible and its origins. What I say is wrong, is to publish the unproven theories of historical-critical movement in Catholic bibles, as if they were proven facts. If people want to read these theories, let them buy the authors books and read them. But don’t take our Catholic Bibles and fill them with theories that allege that a good proportion of the scripture is invented, tampered-with or false.

if it is gain for the Church that the “Donation of Constantine” is now recognised not to be a 4th-century text - why is it objectionable to recognise the force of arguments for the inauthenticity of verses, or to adopt an unfamiliar translation of 1 Timothy 3. 16 or 1 John 5.7 or John 3.13 ?

Because for 2000 years the Church has taught the inerrancy of scripture. If scripture IS errant, as these people allege, it undermines much of the basis of Christian belief. If the birth of Jesus stories are legends, if the Law of Moses is largely later addition, then what in scripture can we trust. Was Jesus Son of God, or just a “good man” around whom legends accumulated?

So if anyone is going to tamper with the bible or suggest parts of it are legend or unreliable, they had better have absolute proof of this. Not theories dressed up as fact.

There are two kinds of destruction - that by vandals, and that by those who destroy in order to rebuild. Biblical criticism has a reputation for being the former (largely because of some of the work of the 1800s), but is the latter. ##

I do not find this. It chips awayat the foundations.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Axion:

The difference is that the bible, to most Christians, is a book that is authenticated, inspired, and kept free from error by God. The Odyssey has no such pedigree.

Assertions of (say) inspiration are not proofs of it. The inspiration of the Bible is accepted because of the work of God in the believer; not because the Church has preserved series of assertions of it. As words, testimonies are testimonies, whether to Homer’s works, or to the Bible; as to pedigree - what have you in mind ?​

Isaiah is, as to the fact of its “humanity”, no different from the Odyssey (I picked that Biblical book because it is roughly contemporaneous with the Odyssey.) I didn’t bother with the non-human side of the Bible in my previous post because the divinity of the Bible is not an issue between us - the thing that causes problems is the study of its human history: so I went on about that. The details of Catholic doctrine about the Biblical texts are - as such - not the subject matter of the study of the Bible, because it is the Bible that is subject of interest, not what people say about it - except in so far as this gives promise of increasing understanding of it.

One reads John Gray on Kings, not because one is studying Gray, but because one hope sto learn about 1 & 2 Kings. If he refers to the late Father Dahood in some connection or other, then one can read Dahood on whatever-it-may-be.

The Magisterium has not written a commentary on 1 & 2 Kings; any more than it has written a commentary on the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Gray & Dahood aren’t infallible - one read them for reliable information, not for infallible information. Nor because they are beyond criticism: commentaries frequently contain criticisms of other scholar’s methods, solutions, or ideas; but because they synthesise information, discuss interpretations, put forward their own, show weaknesses in other ones, correct their own errors, propose readings of names, places, deities, tribes; contain references to the works relevant to the subject under discussion; discuss archaeological work, dating of rulers, of pottery, wars, buildings, texts, etc.

I’m not denying people’s right to study, and publish their beliefs about the bible and its origins.

Thanks - some would be less generous​

What I say is wrong, is to publish the unproven

theories of historical-critical movement in Catholic bibles, as if they were proven facts.

Many of them are facts - it would be convenient in some ways if so much of the ANE had not been rediscovered. It has - and this has affected the study of the OT. It is a fact, that Mesopotamian culture did not begin in Babylon; it is also a fact that Babel in Hebrew does not mean “confusion” - or in Babylonian. Bab-ili does mean “gate of god”. And this all affects understanding of Genesis 11, and of the OT. If certain Catholics are shocked by denials that Genesis 11 is history, and by denials that it is intended to be: what then ? I agree that there is a problem though.​

Sometimes, we have to leave behind the past. This is often painful. But if Catholics are content to suffer the inconveniences involved in spiritual and human growth - why not the inconveniences involved in leaving behind demonstrably mistaken ideas about the Bible ? Aren’t Catholics always going on about the truth ? Accurate Biblical scholarship is part of that truth - for it is as much a fact that the OT records details about non-Israelite rulers which can be supplemented by Assyrian texts, as it is, that the OT is inspired. And sometimes, the truth discoverable from Assyriology (or other disciplines) can be unsettling.

What troubles one person, may not bother another at all. So we are not talking about “the critics” versus "the Catholics (many critics are Catholics) - but about critics, some Catholics of a generally conservative bent who are not bothered by all critical conclusions, Catholics of a generally conservative bent who are unbothered by other ones; others again, who accept other ones. As well as those who are more than content with the Challoner Bible. So the situation is complex. ##

If people want to read these theories, let them buy the authors books and read them. But don’t take our Catholic Bibles and fill them with theories that allege that a good proportion of the scripture is invented, tampered-with or false.

Bronze Age Israelite pastoralists are not lying by failing to write like academic historians. If those who come after them imagine that there can be truth only where there is factual history reporting, they are going to misunderstand what they read, and will have to distort the texts to find what they expect.​

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

This happens in other disciplines too. There are texts about rulers which were thought to be historical, and are now agreed to be legendary, or later than supposed, or to be evidence of turmoil when in fact they may simply be making use of familiar themes. The Bible is not being treated as unreliable, but as a genuinely human artifact - which it is. It is unreliable as history sometimes - and sometimes this is because the author is not trying to provide history. One might as well blame “Planet of the Apes” for not providing a properly historical account of the Statue of Liberty. That does not take away from its qualities as a piece of narrative or as a film. People who insist on seeing in the Bible what is not there, will only miss the wonderful things that are - and that would be a great shame. ##

Because for 2000 years the Church has taught the inerrancy of scripture. If scripture IS errant, as these people allege, it undermines much of the basis of Christian belief. If the birth of Jesus stories are legends, if the Law of Moses is largely later addition, then what in scripture can we trust. Was Jesus Son of God, or just a “good man” around whom legends accumulated?

See above​

So if anyone is going to tamper with the bible or suggest parts of it are legend or unreliable, they had better have absolute proof of this. Not theories dressed up as fact.

Absolute proof does not exist - not even of one’s own existence. Where is the absolute proof that Paul wrote Romans ? It’s circumstantial. There is no absolute proof that Jesus even existed - or that the is a God. Some things cannot be proved by historical or scientific arguments or methods - such as the Resurrection. It is a reality nonetheless.​

It is possible to think of objections to anything & everything - especially in matters related to history. Including readings in texts - whether of Vergil or the NT. There is no absolute proof that Vergil wrote the Catalepton and other minor poems attributed to him. So why must we demand it from those who see serious reasons to doubt that St. Paul wrote Ephesians ? If internal evidence, such as ideas and style, are enough to raise doubts about traditional ascriptions of authorship for a work attributed to a fourth-century Father, why are they suddenly to be ignored in the case of a NT Letter or OT prophetic book ?

Each branch of knowledge has a standard of proof proper to it, because each has its own methods. Which is why an X-ray of a Host will not show what it has become in being consecrated. And the evidence which is appropriate for the study of a language, is not that which is appropriate to a dogmatic proof.

People can’t have it both ways: if archaeology (or any other discipline for that matter) is trustworthy when it seems to validate the reality of an Edomite kingdom in the OT; if it is credible when it seems to validate the Exodus - then it cannot be ignored when it suggests that the OT account of Hezekiah is either mistaken in part, or is not meant to be a straightforward history text. We cannot accept results we like, and draw on arguments we like, and ignore what does not fit in with our preconceptions. Where the Bible is at issue, we need to be as honest and consistent as can be, because today’s faith-destroying difficulty is sometimes tomorrow’s fruitful theological insight. Honesty, even when this makes difficulties, is always essential; because it helps us become clearer of sight - not just intellectually, but morally. They affect the whole of our nature - not just the matter engaging our attention at the moment. Not facing difficulties, makes it harder to be an honest student & an honest human being & an honest Christian. The Christ Who is Lord of our consciences, is the Church’s & the Bible’s Lord, and the Lord of all the earth & of all that are thereon: we must trust Him to help us, His Church, those in her whose task it is to teach, preach, & interpret the faith, and those whom He blesses with intellectual gifts such as the love of learning.

Problems in accepting new or rediscovered things in the Church are not new - there was plenty of resistence to study of Hebrew in the early 1500s, because it threatened the authority of the Vulgate. This happens in theology, philosophy, history - all over the place: but the Church that finds the ideas of the Bollandists worrying, or condemns the use of Aristotle, or whatever it may be, keeps finding that the great threat or scandal or danger to faith, is a godsend. ##

I do not find this. It chips away at the foundations.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

But the flow of the evidence is the other way.

The gospels are full of portrayals of the fulfilment of prophecy. IF Luke and Acts had been written after the Destruction of Jerusalem, as the historical-critical scholars propose, then why didn’t Luke, “having the recent fall of Jerusalem in his mind”, write after the prophect verses the obvious addendum. “And the prophecy of Jesus was mightily fulfilled in the recent destruction of Jerusalem.” ?? But no hint of this appears.

It’s so obvious. it would have made such a strong point. But he didn’t write this. Nor did he tell of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. He leaves Paul imprisoned in Rome.

These are two facts that to my mind make it obvious that Luke and Acts were written in the 60s AD, before the martyrdoms under Nero and before the Fall of Jerusalem.

And with that, you have just employed the historical-critical method!

 

[otm]

Comet_Catholic:

Those who are not offended by the NAB more than like are offended by the new pope. The commentators of the NAB obviously aer setting the table for pro-feminist and pro-gay viewpoints.

I don’t have to be a bible scholar to see that.

If you want to dissent, that it fine. But if its a Catholic bible, teach the faith.

I thought I would sit on the sidelines on this thread, but you are out of line. Get off you almighty high horse and quit judging what you obviously know very little about.

If you care to make explict textual references to back up your charges, please do so. Otherwise, you might keep your opinions to yourself. I am not a trained biblical scholar, but I sure don’t see the NAB setting any tables anywhere for pro-gay or pro-feminist views. Please, since you seem to be so enlightened, share with us poor uneducated fools how you came to such brilliant conclusions.

You appear not even able to define what dissent really means; or rather, you seem to have an interesting idea of what the Chruch has defined officially. and I would dare say you cannot define the term “heresy” correctly.

 

[Adam_B]

I don’t have much of a problem with the translation itself but footnotes are sickening.

 

[Genesis315]

Adam B.:

I don’t have much of a problem with the translation itself but footnotes are sickening.

I don’t like the translation. It butchers the Annunciation (the Hail Mary part), the Magnificat, and the passage in Revelation about the Lamb that has been slain since the beginning of time–all three of which support Catholic doctrine and spirituality (these are just the ones I have stumbled across in my limited reading of the NAB). Why would these be changed? Well, as I learned today by reading the preface in the NAB in the pews at my parish, the NAB had collaborators from protestant churches, not just the Catholic Church.:nope:

 

[milimac]

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:

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

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.

My NAB version doesn’t have the footnote on 1 Cor 3:11-15. It has one on 1 Cor 3:10-15 and says

“Paul’s work was to found the community on Christ (10f). The work of others for the spiritual good of the community is to be evaluated in terms of enhancing faith in Christ, and of this, God is ultimately the judge (12-15).”

I think the RSV has a Catholic version, implying that there are non-Catholic versions of the RSV. Could it be the same with the NAB? Mine is a 1971 Copywrite and has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur on both the Bible text and the commentaries.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

milimac:

My NAB version doesn’t have the footnote on 1 Cor 3:11-15. It has one on 1 Cor 3:10-15 and says I think the RSV has a Catholic version, implying that there are non-Catholic versions of the RSV. Could it be the same with the NAB? Mine is a 1971 Copywrite and has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur on both the Bible text and the commentaries.

The RSV was a Protestant version, in the tradition of the Authorised Version (aka the KJV)​

The NAB has no Protestant counterpart. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Genesis315:

I don’t like the translation. It butchers the Annunciation (the Hail Mary part), the Magnificat, and the passage in Revelation about the Lamb that has been slain since the beginning of time–all three of which support Catholic doctrine and spirituality (these are just the ones I have stumbled across in my limited reading of the NAB). Why would these be changed?

What you comparing the English of the NAB with ? The Vulgate ? The Greek texts ?​

Well, as I learned today by reading the preface in the NAB in the pews at my parish, the NAB had collaborators from protestant churches, not just the Catholic Church.:nope:

If it’s any consolation, most modern English versions are apt to be pretty unpoetic - whether Catholic or Protestant.​

The RSV-CE was of Protestant origin - I haven’t noticed any complaints about this: only about Protestants at Vatican 2 & as collaborators in other Biblical work. Vatican II encouraged inter-confessional work on the Bible: so the involvement of non-Catholics, though it may be startling, is not illegitimate.

Of the 64 translators of the NAB, 59 were Catholic, four Protestant, and one Jewish (see the 1970 NAB for the names).

Regrettable as the loss in poetry may be, and is, accuracy is even more important. I would rather have the NAB than something more attractive but less accurate. ##

 

[SFH]

## What you comparing the English of the NAB with ? The Vulgate ? The Greek texts ? ##

If it’s any consolation, most modern English versions are apt to be pretty unpoetic - whether Catholic or Protestant.​

The RSV-CE was of Protestant origin - I haven’t noticed any complaints about this: only about Protestants at Vatican 2 & as collaborators in other Biblical work. Vatican II encouraged inter-confessional work on the Bible: so the involvement of non-Catholics, though it may be startling, is not illegitimate.

Of the 64 translators of the NAB, 59 were Catholic, four Protestant, and one Jewish (see the 1970 NAB for the names).

Regrettable as the loss in poetry may be, and is, accuracy is even more important. I would rather have the NAB than something more attractive but less accurate. ##

The NAB is actually an off-shoot of the Confraternity Edition published in the 1950s and 1960s. Psalms was done first based on Pius XII’s new Latin translation of the Hebrew text (the Vulgate Psalms is based on the Septuagint); then, Genesis through Ruth; next, Job through Sirach; next, Isaiah through Malachi; and finally, 1 Samuel through 2 Machabees. The entire Confraternity Old Testament (with some very minor changes to the text and a new translation of Genesis) was issued in 1970 along with a new translation of the New Testament under the title New American Bible. A revision of the New Testament came out in the 1980s and a revision of Psalms came out in the 1990s.

Both translations of the NAB New Testament have an unfortunate tendancy to capitulate to protestant theologians in certain areas (e.g., the Angelic Salutation). The word “grace” that the NAB translates as “favor” in the Angelic Salutation can be translated as either grace or favor, and the NAB translates the Greek word as “grace” on several occasions in the New Testament. The word is conjugated in the superlative in the Angelic Salutation, so a literal rendering would be: “Rejoice, thou that wast and remainest most favored/graced.” Naturally, the most graced one can be is full of grace so the traditional Catholic translation is perfectly logical and acceptable.

On a side note, the reluctance to translate the Angelic Salutation as “full of grace” appears to be largely isolated to English bibles or Protestant bibles in other languages. For example, the French Jerusalem Bible (2001 ed.) translates the passage: “comblee de grace,” which roughly translates as “filled with grace.” Interestingly, neither the Jerusalem Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible retained this traditional language.

 

[SFH]

I should add that part of the problem with the NAB (and any other translation out there) is that it frequently involves an element of interpretation as well. When an interpretation of a text is added to a translation of the text, it can eliminate or hide additional textual messages.

Thus, the literal words of the Archangel Gabriel to the Most Blessed Virgin, “thou that wast and remainest most favored/graced,” could mean that the Most Blessed Virgin is the most favored among women because she was chosen to bear the Messias or they could be a reflection on the state of the Most Blessed Virgin’s soul. Either interpretation can be drawn from the literal words of the text.

With the NAB translation, a level of interpretation has been introduced into the text. By translating the passage as “favored one” or “highly favored daughter,” the passage narrows the possible interpretations of the text to the Blessed Virgin’s special status among women as the mother of the Savior.