NAB translation

[grndslm]

How about this? The Nab Footnotes are from the Pit of hell? How’s that. This has been well documented, as they undermine the faith of Catholics and contradict dogma outright. Anyone want to take me to task on that?

To me the footnotes seem in some cases to come from a freemason atheistic worldview to scripture. Just my two cents. Hope I don’t get banned for stating my opinion. The translation itself seem’s to be water downed and lacking in many area’s.

Just Wondering is the Nab still the Offical Bible Translation used in American Catholic Churches?

Yes, it indeed is.

Here’s some notations referring to James, as I mentioned earlier. Most are not as damning as I initially read, but they do present a side that you’ve never heard in Sunday School. James, THE Brother of Jesus leading the early Jewish Christian Church… AND that “the conjecture that Peter left for Rome at this time has nothing to recommend it”. Pretty nuts if you ask me…
Mark 6:

3 [3] Is he not the carpenter?: no other gospel calls Jesus a carpenter. Some witnesses have “the carpenter’s son,” as in Matthew 13:55. Son of Mary: contrary to Jewish custom, which calls a man the son of his father, this expression may reflect Mark’s own faith that God is the Father of Jesus (Mark 1:1, 11; 8:38; 13:32; 14:36). The brother of James . . . Simon: in Semitic usage, the terms “brother,” “sister” are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters; cf Genesis 14:16; 29:15; Lev 10:4. While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew ah by the Greek word adelphos, “brother,” as in the cited passages, a fact that may argue for a similar breadth of meaning in some New Testament passages. For instance, there is no doubt that in v 17, “brother” is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas. On the other hand, Mark may have understood the terms literally; see also Mark 3:31-32; Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56; Luke 8:19; John 7:3, 5. The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Matthew 27:

33 [55-56] Looking on from a distance: cf Psalm 38:12. Mary Magdalene . . . Joseph: these two women are mentioned again in Matthew 27:61 and Matthew 28:1 and are important as witnesses of the reality of the empty tomb. A James and Joseph are referred to in Matthew 13:55 as brothers of Jesus.

34 [57-61] Cf Mark 15:42-47. Matthew drops Mark’s designation of Joseph of Arimathea as “a distinguished member of the council” (the Sanhedrin), and makes him a rich man and a disciple of Jesus. The former may be an allusion to Isaiah 53:9 (the Hebrew reading of that text is disputed and the one followed in the NAB OT has nothing about the rich, but they are mentioned in the LXX version). That the tomb was the new tomb of a rich man and that it was seen by the women are indications of an apologetic intent of Matthew; there could be no question about the identity of Jesus’ burial place. The other Mary: the mother of James and Joseph (56).

35 [62-66] Peculiar to Matthew. The story prepares for Matthew 28:11-15 and the Jewish charge that the tomb was empty because the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:13, 15).

36 [62] The next day . . . preparation: the sabbath. According to the synoptic chronology, in that year the day of preparation (for the sabbath) was the Passover; cf Mark 15:42. The Pharisees: the principal opponents of Jesus during his ministry and, in Matthew’s time, of the Christian church, join with the chief priests to guarantee against a possible attempt of Jesus’ disciples to steal his body.

Acts 12:

1 [1-19] Herod Agrippa ruled Judea A.D. 41-44. While Luke does not assign a motive for his execution of James and his intended execution of Peter, the broad background lies in Herod’s support of Pharisaic Judaism. The Jewish Christians had lost the popularity they had had in Jerusalem (Acts 2:47), perhaps because of suspicions against them traceable to the teaching of Stephen.

2 [2] James, the brother of John: this James, the son of Zebedee, was beheaded by Herod Agrippa ca. A.D. 44.

3 [3,4] Feast of Unleavened Bread . . . Passover: see the note on Luke 22:l.

4 [17] To James: this James is not the son of Zebedee mentioned in Acts 12:2, but is James, the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), who in Acts 15; 21 is presented as leader of the Jerusalem Christian community. He left and went to another place: the conjecture that Peter left for Rome at this time has nothing to recommend it. His chief responsibility was still the leadership of the Jewish Christian community in Palestine (see Gal 2:7). The concept of the great missionary effort of the church was yet to come (see Acts 13:1-3).

Acts 15:

6 [13-35] Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem “Council” that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).

 

[lilred5]

Okay, well I think I will abandon the footnotes for now (or atleast take them with a grain of salt- I’m only in the Old Testament right now) and try to find a good Bible commentary.
But I will still read the NAB, it’s either that or the KJV and I’d rather have all of the books.

 

[Topaz1128]

But that is what scholarship is all about. The NAB may not be the ‘best’ translation but it is adequate. And there is nothing wrong, as you say, with the footnotes, which I find very factual and explanatory of certain passages.

 

[Topaz1128]

Sorry, I don’t get it. If the NAB footnotes are so problematic, then why does the Catholic Church endorse it? It’s the version that is read during Mass, for crying out loud!

 

[Topaz1128]

Great post, rocketrob-- I totally agree.

In my experience, most people who have an aversion to the NAB footnotes, translation and the gender-neutral conventions it often uses, do so, not because they disagree with them (most people are not scholarly or well-versed enough in biblical theology to go that far), but simply due to the fact that these features of the NAB are annoying to them, seem to de-supernaturalize and homogenize the Scriptures, and in fact are not all that helpful. It just leaves them cold-- and that’s not what people want when they read the Word of God.

Maybe that’s why there are so many versions out there; people can pick and choose just like at a cafeteria!