NAB: To be trusted?

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t believe the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the scriptures to write in a BLAND way–I think He’s able to write better than that!

Just another reason why I prefer the Douay Rheims!

 

[Manfred]

Everyone seems to be hung up on the commentary of the NAB more than the actual text of the Bible. Is it possible to purchase an NAB without any commentary? I have noticed from my personal experiences that it is easier to find Protestant Bibles that just have the Bible text (no commentary) than it is to find commentary-free Catholic Bibles. I propose using the NAB (without commentary) if any exist, and then purchasing a good, orthodox Catholic Bible commentary to go along with it.

I have not known any edition of the NAB that is “text only”. The Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible both came in a “standard” edition with ALL the book intros, notes, cross-references, etc., and a “reader’s edition” with only an extremely small subset of the material in the standard edition.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Good and Gentle People,

Look, all this talk of heretical commentary in the notes of the NAb is giving me a headache. Since I tend towards form over substance, do any of you actually LIKE the bland, flat renderings of the NAB we hear or read at Mass in the USA? I’m a lector in my parish, and every so often I will slip in a rendering (usually a single word or very short phrase) from the Douay-Rheims. E.g., on the solemnity of Christ the King, the NAB reading from Revelation (sorry, Apocalypse) was “Yes. Amen.” So I voiced “Even so. Amen.” instead. And I felt better.

Manfred

I, personally, do not care for the NAB. I know a lot of people seem to like it, but I would rather read a 1966 Jerusalem Bible or an RSV-CE if reading modern English. But accuracy and beauty of the DRV is unsurpassed by any other version. However, I have to admit there are verses in the KJV that are so lovely they can make me weep–the 23 Psalm comes to mind.

 

[TOME]

mmortal03,

I would like to start my response with a few comments about Nihil Obstat and Impirmatur. Again, what these two terms means is that the censor, what was commission by the proper ecclesial authority ( a bishop of a diocese or provincial of the religious order/society producing the work) has not found any of the content to be in error of Church doctrine or morals. If you look at a Nihil Obstat and Impirmator there is always the “disclaimer” that granting these does not mean the content is infallible or even if the censor and Odrinary eveb agree with the content. I want to stress this so as not to give anyone who may be reading my post the impression that I am using the Nihil Obstat and Impirmators as proof positive that the NAB is the best that can be produced. Actually that would go against what I have written before stating that the translations cannot be improved.

I do remember reading of at lease one time were a Nihil Obstat and Impirmatur were withdrawn but I cannot remember the details. Remember, these are normally given on a local level (from a particular diocese) but the works are always subject to review by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has a history of reviewing works more scrupulously, especially when our pope was its Prefect. I do remember that, “Catholicism” by Rev. Richard McBrien was a work that was in need of some revisions to clarify some of its points but from what I remember its Nihil Obstat and Impirmaturs were not withdrawn. I bring this particular work up, not to disparage it - I actually have a high regard for it and own copies of both editions - it just something I remember, and I think it serves as a good example of the Church Magisterium at work both on a local level and from Rome. It also shows (and I guess what I am about to write will be met with some skeptism) how many Catholic scholars are not the heretics people claim them to be, but will humbly submit to Church authority.

I realize that my comments on the different criteria used for translations of Scriptures to be used for the Liturgy or for general use are different may be confusing. I think the more I write the more I will confuse things. So I would suggest the following documents be studied: (a) Dei Verbum (b) Liturgiam Authenticam (c) Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section One Articles 1, 2, 3 (these really should be read together). Perhaps others will also provide other Church documents to help with your studies.

Finally, my criticsm of some is really rooted in reading post in which modern scholars and their works go against Church Doctrine what I know this is not the case. Often within their criticisms Papal documents will be cited, however, often just a small passage of the document is quoted and, from my own studies of these documents, really misses the point. (By the way, when I say my own studies I don’t mean that I just read the documents or parts of them but these were studies done during my graduate and post graduate work, although I still cannot spell.) Further, if you review many of the documents used in the criticism of modern biblical studies are documents written in the 1940’s through the 1960’s. But there are many other documents issued by Popes and various congregations of the Magisterium since then, but seldom cited. I think ignorance of the development biblical scholarship, as regulated by all the Church documents, leads some to declare authentic scholarship as against Church teachings. Biblical scholarship, like the Church’s understanding of Divine Revelation itself, is dynamic not static.

 

[Cranch]

…I do remember that, “Catholicism” by Rev. Richard McBrien was a work that was in need of some revisions to clarify some of its points but from what I remember its Nihil Obstat and Impirmaturs were not withdrawn. I bring this particular work up, not to disparage it - I actually have a high regard for it and own copies of both editions - it just something I remember, and I think it serves as a good example of the Church Magisterium at work both on a local level and from Rome. It also shows (and I guess what I am about to write will be met with some skeptism) how many Catholic scholars are not the heretics people claim them to be, but will humbly submit to Church authority.

The original 2-volume edition was published without formal ecclesiastical approval. The first one-volume study edition was granted a Nihil Obstat by the censor after certain changes were made, however the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend (who appointed the censor) declined to grant it “canonical, ecclesiastical approval” for various reasons. It shows neither a Nihil Obstat nor Imprimatur. I don’t own the Second Edition so I can’t speak to it, but I’d be very surprised if it had them.

 

[TOME]

Crunch,
After I read your post I went back and look at some reviews of Catholicism, 3rd Edition. From what I read in these reviews, Rev McBrien’s revisions were not as complete as I remember them to be and since I don’t have this work with me I cannot say if it has meet with ecclesical approval, however, from what I read I would not be surprized if it Catholicism (3 edition) had received neither a Nihil Obstat nor an Impirmatur. Although, some of the points of the various reviews I did read, I would not agree with, but those would be for the theologians to work out.

So let’s just say I am not withdrawing my earlier comments but I am putting them on hold.

Thanks again for your post, it served me as a good reminder to get my fact straight before I comment on something.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

What is the official Church statement concerning Q, the document which historical-critical analysts to be the central document from which the Synoptic Gospel authors gathered their prime sources for the sayings of Jesus? To my understanding, such a document as Q would also undermine the divine inspiration of the Gospels, and yet there are notes in the NAB which reference Q. [This is why I highly recommend reading the article which I’ve linked above.]

Dear Friend,
Look at Q for what it is/was/or might have been.
The name ‘Q’ stands for ‘Quelle’, which is German for source.
This is invoked to account for common features in Luke and Matthew, which may be absent in Mark.
Q may be a real artefact, or set of artefacts, no longer extant. I feel that Q is not a single entity, but a body of texts which had no continuity.
It/they look(s) like scibblings on the back of a cigarette packet, exactly the kind of jottings that would be made on a military wax tablet.
Now who would have such a tablet, and knowledge to use it?
Who was trained as a Roman civil servant?
I would suggest that Q is no less than the rude scribblings of Matthew, taken down on the road.

 

[Cranch]

Crunch,
After I read your post I went back and look at some reviews of Catholicism, 3rd Edition. From what I read in these reviews, Rev McBrien’s revisions were not as complete as I remember them to be and since I don’t have this work with me I cannot say if it has meet with ecclesical approval, however, from what I read I would not be surprized if it Catholicism (3 edition) had received neither a Nihil Obstat nor an Impirmatur. Although, some of the points of the various reviews I did read, I would not agree with, but those would be for the theologians to work out.

So let’s just say I am not withdrawing my earlier comments but I am putting them on hold.

Thanks again for your post, it served me as a good reminder to get my fact straight before I comment on something.

No problem! One last correction: it’s Cranch, but Crunch is pretty funny!

 

[TOME]

Cranch,
Sorry about getting your name wrong. I think subconsciously I was responding to the sound of what was happing to my ego.

 

[Lrning]

I’m so glad I found this thread. During a Bible Study a couple of years ago, the footnotes in the NAB literally made me cry. Time to invest in another version.

 

[masterjedi747]

I’m so glad I found this thread. During a Bible Study a couple of years ago, the footnotes in the NAB literally made me cry. Time to invest in another version.

I know I’m going against the flow here, but I have to say that I really don’t have much to say against the New American Bible at all. No, it’s not perfect. Yes, there are some particular verses that could be improved. Yes, there are a few suspicious footnotes. But no, for the most part, it’s really not THAT bad. In many instances, I actually find some of the footnotes very helpful. Honestly, I would recommend reading the NAB while just keeping the NRSV-CE on hand as a backup for any questions you might run into. That, and/or just use the opportunity to do a little research of your own and see how reliable their particular commentary on a certain issue might turn out to be. But I think you’d honestly be surprised how many good/neutral footnotes there are compared to the “bad” ones.

*Although modified by Matthew, the first, second, fourth, and ninth beatitudes have Lucan parallels. The others were added by the evangelist and are probably his own composition. *

So according to the commentary of the NAB, we are to believe that Jesus did not speak all of the beattitudes listed, that Matthew inserted some at his own disposal, etc…

So here’s one of the “bad” NAB footnotes. I’d like to point out two things:

1. The fact that they used the word probably. This means they’re NOT presenting it as an absolute fact. Thus I don’t have the slightest problem listening to their opinion while wholeheartedly disagreeing with them on that particular claim.
2. The fact that this footnote is so incredibly unnecessary, it would take an idiot to seriously not think that it would have been the other way around: that Luke (who wrote later) simply omitted some beatitudes, not that Matthew went ahead and added any. This is clearly an instance where it’s just a stupid opinion, so ignore it and move on with the more reasonable stuff.

Here’s another example of where the footnotes of the NAB departs from the teachings of the Church…

The NAB has the following commentary on verse 3:[3] Under the ban: in such wars of extermination, all things (men, cities, beasts, etc.) were to be blotted out; nothing could be reserved for private use. …The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God.

First of all, take note that the first part of that footnote IS somewhat helpful for the sake of context. Secondly, they may not have worded it with crystal clarity, but I do think the NAB footnotes have something profoundly correct and important to say here.

Consider the following verses:
Numbers 14: 18 “The LORD is slow to anger and rich in kindness, forgiving wickedness and crime; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless, but punishing children to the third and fourth generation for their fathers’ wickedness.”

Deuteronomy 5: 9-10 “For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Deuteronomy 24: 16 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; only for his own guilt shall a man be put to death.”

Ezekiel 18: 20 “Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. The virtuous man’s virtue shall be his own, as the wicked man’s wickedness shall be his own.”

You should see some problems here. These verses are not immediately and intuitively reconcilable. Especially given those last two verses, it seems that the NAB footnote was essentially correct: the slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God. In other words, God may have allowed it, but that doesn’t mean He wanted it…it’s a different sense of God’s “will”. And fortunately for us, the NAB footnotes tremendously help us reconcile all of these verses:
NAB Footnote following Deuteronomy 5: 9-10: God does not punish us for another’s sins, but because of the solidarity of human society, the good or evil deeds of one generation may make their effects felt even in later generations. Yet note how God’s mercy allows the good effects of virtue to last much longer than the bad effects of vice: a thousand generations compared to three or four.

 

[masterjedi747]

I find it especially disturbing that some NAB footnotes supposedly say that Jesus couldn’t predict the future. I don’t have an NAB in front of me and I’m not sure if that is in all the footnotes of every version, but…duh…that was a pretty big mistake.

I haven’t found those particular ones yet, but even granted, that doesn’t sound to me like it’s necessarily as big of a problem as you might think. Remember when Christ said, “But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13: 32) Now, the way I’ve heard this explained is that although Christ, in His divine nature as God, does (must) know all things, He is, in His human nature, capable of being just as “uncertain” of the particular details about future events as the rest of us. So, given that you understand this footnote correctly, it would seem that the NAB footnote is correct. Perhaps not worded with crystal clarity, but generally correct nevertheless, and very useful in helping us resolve seeming contradictions such as this.

The NAB translation is not the issue for me, it is the horrendous and skeptical commentary. Even the late dating and the claims of unknown authorship is pure speculation. The typical NAB footnotes go like this: “We do not know who wrote Matthew but we are somehow certain that it was not Matthew”. Logical question: How do you know it was not Matthew if you do not know who wrote it?

Go find the exact footnote you’re thinking of, and copy it correctly. Please don’t go off on a supposed “footnote” that “goes something like this” and try to pass it off as a valid argument. (Sometimes I seriously wonder how many people actually read these footnotes for themselves, and how many are just complaining based on hearsay and exaggerated claims coming from people who don’t really know what they’re talking about.)

Another great one: The gospel must have been written after 70 AD because it shows Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. These guys do not even give Jesus credit as a prophet nevermind the Son of God.

Again, that may be true, but I’d still like to see the footnote. But assuming you’re correct…once again, it’s just one stupid footnote for you to ignore. Given the overall amount of helpful information that the commentary provides elsewhere, I find the occasional stupid footnote a small price to pay. But given the way some people talk about it around here, you’d think there are NAB footnotes claiming that the Eucharist is just symbolic, or that Christ was never raised from the dead. But there aren’t. It’s not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be.

Also, I want to cringe everytime I read stuff like Mark “placed” these words on the lips of Jesus to show… There are so many examples of this in the NAB that it would be impossible to list. This type of commentary is not scholarly, faithful, or beneficial to anyone.

As to that first part, I agree with you. But I don’t think that there are nearly as many examples of this as you say there are. I actually think it would be relatively easy for someone to compile a list of all the “bad” footnotes…it’s the good/neutral ones that would be “impossible to list”.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Some bishops in the USCCB are becoming more and more defensive about the NAB the closer we get to a final liturgy.

 

[Epistemes]

Some bishops in the USCCB are becoming more and more defensive about the NAB the closer we get to a final liturgy.

If they’re happy with their translation, then fine. The RSV-CE seems surprisingly more Catholic, though, by comparison.

At least in liturgy we wouldn’t be plagued by the footnotes…