New American Bible Notes and Introductions

[Richca]

The following is a review of the NAB by a traditional Catholic. It points out some of the important problems with various notes:

bible-researcher.com/nab.douglass.html

In the link to the article by Ben Douglas, Ben Douglas states “One need not read deeply into the NAB to discover teachings which are contrary to the Tradition of the Church, for in the introduction to the first book of the Bible, Genesis, the translators unequivocally endorse the documentary hypothesis.” It so happens that in the text itself of Holy Scripture, the translators of the NAB and the NABRE cannot get passed the first verse of the whole Bible without contradiction, confusion, and error and the invention I believe of a whole new Hebrew and Christian religion and faith. I was surprised to find that Ben Douglas did not mention this in his article. However, he appears to be commenting on the NAB which does not explicitly state in the footnotes what is going on here but which the NABRE makes explicit.

What I’m talking about is a new innovative translation and interpretation of Gen. 1:1 followed by verses 2-3; the when…then construction of Gen. 1: 1-3. Both the NAB and the NABRE have the when…then construction of Gen. 1: 1-3 as opposed to the traditional rendering of Gen. 1:1. If your wondering what is going on here with the first verse of the Bible among some modern biblical scholarship and Bible translations, below are a few good articles concerning the confusion and chaos resulting from the innovative translations:

ministrymagazine.org/archive/1976/01/the-meaning-of-genesis-11

ubs-translations.org/tbt/1971/04/TBT197104.html?num=154&x=-365&y=-78&num1=

answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/have-we-misunderstood-genesis-11/

The traditional translation of Gen. 1:1 is “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth [or heaven and earth]. This is the translation of Gen. 1:1 rendered throughout the 2000+ years Tradition of the Church and which is still translated thus in a number of authoritative Bibles most notably the Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate) which is the official Bible of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church renders Gen. 1:1 in the traditional translation “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” and proceeds to explain what is affirmed in these first words of Holy Scripture:
three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb “create” - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula “the heavens and the earth”) depends on the One who gives it being. (#290)

The catechism #279 also explains that our symbols of faith, i.e., our creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, take the words of Gen. 1:1 up when we profess that God the Father almighty is “Creator of heaven and earth” (Apostles’Creed), “of all that is, visible and invisible” (Nicene Creed).

 

[Richca]

(continued)

The NABRE makes explicit in its footnotes to Genesis 1 that God’s first creative activity in Genesis 1 begins with verse 3, the creation of light. Verses 1-2 are some kind of pre-creation of creation. Huh! The heavens and earth of Gen. 1:1, the earth, darkness, deep and waters of verse 2 are some kind of pre-creation of God’s creative activity. Are they really expecting me to believe that Moses inspired by God when composing the creation of the heavens and the earth, i.e., the universe by God, wrote of a pre-creation of creation? This is a very confused translation and interpretation of Genesis 1. It is no wonder that the translators of the NABRE consider Gen. 1:2 as a chaotic and confused state. What we have here I believe is not a chaotic and confused state of the primordial universe as it first came from the hands of God, but rather a chaotic and confused translation and interpretation of Genesis 1. The when…then translated construction of Gen. 1: 1-3 and its consequent interpretation cannot be reconciled with the rest of Holy Scripture nor with the entire Tradition of the Church or the teaching authority of the Church who is the authentic interpreter of Scripture. The CCC (cf. #290 above) makes explicit what Moses or the sacred author and God, the principle author of Scripture, affirmed in the first words of the Bible, Gen. 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And this is not what is affirmed in the innovative translation and interpretation of Gen. 1:1 in the NAB and the NABRE and other bibles of similar translations. One of the most basic teachings of Genesis 1 is simply that before God created the heavens and the earth, i.e., the universe, the heavens and the earth were not, that is, they didn’t exist. The Fathers of the Church considered Moses to be not only a prophet of the present and the future but also a prophet of the past such as when he wrote “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

I think the translators of the NAB which first appeared in 1970 kind of snuck in the when…then translation of Gen. 1: 1-3 (probably fearing a backlash from the Church) and the footnotes don’t explicitly tell us the ‘why’ and meaning of the innovative translation. Consequently, Ben Douglas in the linked article probably overlooked it. Indeed, for your average reader of the Bible, the insertion of ‘when’ in verse 1 and ‘then’ in verse 3 in seeing it for the first time probably hardly meant anything, almost like not even seeing the words. Before the innovative translation, most christains simply understood by Gen. 1:1 that God created the entire universe, the heavens and the earth, out of nothing.

In the NAB, there is a footnote to Gen. 1:2 which reads thus: The abyss: the primordial ocean according to ancient semantic cosmogony. After God’s creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt water seas (vv. 9f); part of it…” What precisely does ‘After God’s creative activity’ mean? Is this an allusion to some pre creation state as the NABRE makes explicitly clear or is it referring to God’s creative activity of the second and third day? Its ambiguous. Accordingly, since the NAB footnotes do not explain the ‘when’ of Gen. 1:1 and the ‘Then’ of Gen. 1:3, your ‘average’ catholic would probably take ‘After God’s creative activity’ as referring to God’s creative activity of the second and third day of Gen. 1. Consequently, I think Ben Douglas in the article mentioned does not mention anything about a when…then construction or a pre-creation state of creation.

The NABRE appeared in 2011 with the same when…then translation of Gen. 1: 1-3 as the NAB. But, the notes in the NABRE make explicitly clear what the when…then translation of Gen 1: 1-3 does to the meaning and interpretation of Genesis 1. One might say I believe, that the translators of the NABRE got more bold in their re-writing of Scripture.

 

[CountrySteve]

Okay, so this is a topic that’s been done again and again.

But I would love some (name removed by moderator)ut anyway, and I’m sure many of you fine posters can find it in your hearts to discuss this yet again.

The NABRE notes and introductions are pretty much panned by a whole group of Catholics. Their claim is that they communicate scholarly opinions which can at the least be a bit shocking to non-specialists, and which can even undermine faith.

On the other hand, there’s another group of Catholics who thinks the NABRE communicates mainstream and solid Catholic biblical scholarship. They might say that having a problem with the NABRE might reveal a fundamentalistic and even fideistic outlook.

So here’s the question.

If you think the notes are bad, can you give some examples, and explain your case?

If you think they’re good, could you do the same? If you know a particular note troubles others, but that it doesn’t trouble you, could you explain how it could be understood in a way that is very consistent with doctrine?

I know this is a lot, but I would reeeeaaaaally appreciate participation in this. I’m sure someone else might too, since these discussions are often theoretical, but maybe don’t get as practical as they should.

I don’t think Catholics should necessarily call them ‘bad’ ; the NABRE is on the Vatican website and is the one approved by our Bishops footnotes and all. If you read the introduction to the NABRE New Testament it says:

It is a further aim of the revised edition to supply explanatory materials more abundantly than in the first edition. In most cases the introductions and notes have been entirely rewritten and expanded, and the cross-references checked and revised. It is intended that these materials should reflect the present state of sound biblical scholarship and should be presented in such a form that they can be assimilated by the ordinary intelligent reader without specialized biblical training. While they have been written with the ordinary educated Christian in mind, not all technical vocabulary can be entirely dispensed with in approaching the Bible, any more than in any other field. It is the hope of the editors that these materials, even if they sometimes demand an effort, will help the reader to a fuller and more intelligent understanding of the New Testament and a fruitful appropriation of its meaning for personal spiritual growth.

 

[grant_mohler]

I don’t think Catholics should necessarily call them ‘bad’ ; the NABRE is on the Vatican website and is the one approved by our Bishops footnotes and all. If you read the introduction to the NABRE New Testament it says:

The notes are bad because they are bad liberal scholarship, not because they are hard to understand. Not only that, but they directly deny Catholic dogma and teachings, therefore they need to be abandoned immediately, and replaced with new, better notes. I mean honestly, get any evangelical study Bible like the ESV or NIV Archaeological Study Bible. You will notes with just as much depth, but with good conservative scholarship that actually refutes much of the liberal scholarship done in the NAB notes.

 

[jcrichton]

The notes are bad because they are bad liberal scholarship, not because they are hard to understand. Not only that, but they directly deny Catholic dogma and teachings, therefore they need to be abandoned immediately, and replaced with new, better notes. I mean honestly, get any evangelical study Bible like the ESV or NIV Archaeological Study Bible. You will notes with just as much depth, but with good conservative scholarship that actually refutes much of the liberal scholarship done in the NAB notes.

Hi, Grant!
I find it interesting that you understand this matter better than some Catholics… I’m quite illiterate when it comes to Bible languages/translations and extra Biblical books (including “commentaries”) but I enjoy following threads such as this… what is actually missing is the actual quotes (not links), including comparisons of these "commentaries.

…and perhaps a contact person/address to the Vatican–to get someone from the “school of Bishops” to actually read the farce (if they indeed are heretical/bordering on the heretical) instead of just passing the “seal” of approval and labelling it “good reading.”

Maran atha!

Angel