New American Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter thistle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thistle

Guest
The Catholic Study Bible I use is the NAB version. I notice in some of the threads some almost scathing remarks about the notes in this bible. Somebody even said the writer must be hostile to the Catholic Church. Obviously that can’t be correct when its a Catholic Study Bible.
I’m curious about why some folks are offended by the notes. Could someone give me a couple of examples of notes they don’t like and why they don’t like them?
 
Some of the notes are ok. On the other hand, some of them are pretty terrible. I don’t think that the writer was anti-Catholic. What I believe happened is that the notes were written sometime during the period when liberalism really had a firm hold on the Church (60s, 70s, early 80s) before JPII was able to turn the tide. One aspect of liberalism is embracing certain forms of historical and/or textual criticism that are biased and disprovable, and which are contrary to the Catholic faith. I don’t have time to go digging through the notes now, but I will quote from Jimmy Akin’s blog an example he gave of a rather… unfortunate note.
Jimmy Akin:
On Matthew 16 :21-23 [21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29).

HUH???

Jesus couldn’t actually predict the future? He wasn’t a true prophet? He didn’t know about his death and resurrection? He could only foresee that “his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death?”

Sorry, but this is flatly inconsistent with the Christian faith.
Click to expand...
He also says, “Second, the book introductions to the NAB rush willy-nilly to embrace modern higher critical theories that, while some may be tolerable or even correct, are by no means certain. These introductions present these higher critical theories as The Truth, when in fact many of these are speculative at best. (They also have a faith-undermining tendency for many who are not secure in their faith.)” In other words, a lot of the notes take some modern idea about a verse that may be true and present it as if it definitely is true. For instance, it may say something like, “modern scholars agree that this veres was added by St. Augustine” or something, when the truth is that 3 scholars came up with the idea but it’s so ridiculous that nobody has even bothered trying to debunk it, nevermind agree with it.
 
The NAB also takes liberties with the order of verses in Jeremiah. it is true that Jeremiah is problematic for scholars and many of the verses seem to be randomly interjected, but there is a traditional ordering of the book. The NAB, in its wisdom, chose its own order for Jeremiah and that makes it very difficult to find a specific verse. I don’t know if the NAB takes similar liberties with other book in the OT.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
Some of the notes are ok. On the other hand, some of them are pretty terrible. I don’t think that the writer was anti-Catholic. What I believe happened is that the notes were written sometime during the period when liberalism really had a firm hold on the Church (60s, 70s, early 80s) before JPII was able to turn the tide. One aspect of liberalism is embracing certain forms of historical and/or textual criticism that are biased and disprovable, and which are contrary to the Catholic faith. I don’t have time to go digging through the notes now, but I will quote from Jimmy Akin’s blog an example he gave of a rather… unfortunate note.

He also says, “Second, the book introductions to the NAB rush willy-nilly to embrace modern higher critical theories that, while some may be tolerable or even correct, are by no means certain. These introductions present these higher critical theories as The Truth, when in fact many of these are speculative at best. (They also have a faith-undermining tendency for many who are not secure in their faith.)” In other words, a lot of the notes take some modern idea about a verse that may be true and present it as if it definitely is true. For instance, it may say something like, “modern scholars agree that this veres was added by St. Augustine” or something, when the truth is that 3 scholars came up with the idea but it’s so ridiculous that nobody has even bothered trying to debunk it, nevermind agree with it.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. I must have a closer look at the notes. I only recently started reading this particular bible as I wanted one with study notes. If its so bad why is it still being sold?
Any other bible that’s good for study with lots of “good” notes?
 
Greetings,

The main problem I find is that there is no perfect study Bible out there for Catholics. I personally like the RSV-CE translation best, but at this point there is not a Catholic Study to accompany it. Dr. Hahn is working on one, but that may not be completed for many years. The Navarre Bible is great, but it is way too big to be a functional study Bible.

As for the he NAB translation, I find it to be too uneven for me. An example of this is the excessive inclusive language found in the Psalms. It seems like the Old Testament was translated many years before the New Testament…oh yeah it was! And the notes are not the greatest…I don’t think they are terrible. The biggest problem is, as mentioned above, the book introductions. The way too easily accept theories and dismiss the possiblity that tradition may be right. The one thing I do like about the Catholic Study Bible-NAB is that is comes with a wealth of additional study aids, like the concordance, essays, and maps.

For me, I currently have been using the New Jerusalem Bible as my primary study Bible. The translation is not as good as the RSV-CE, but it is more even than the NAB. The inclusive language that is used is not over the top, which makes the Psalms and New Testament more palatable. Also, the notes are actually pretty good for the most part. They give alternative rendering of passages that are difficult to translate. Also, I find that although they provide modern critical theories about the origins of various books of the bible, they also provide the traditional view as well. I find it to be a good balance. The regular edition also comes with an index and some nice maps.

So overall, I find the NJB, with notes, to be my Bible of choice right now. I am not completely happy with it…but until something new comes out I will probably stick with it.
 
40.png
mccorm45:
Greetings,

The main problem I find is that there is no perfect study Bible out there for Catholics. I personally like the RSV-CE translation best, but at this point there is not a Catholic Study to accompany it. Dr. Hahn is working on one, but that may not be completed for many years. The Navarre Bible is great, but it is way too big to be a functional study Bible.

As for the he NAB translation, I find it to be too uneven for me. An example of this is the excessive inclusive language found in the Psalms. It seems like the Old Testament was translated many years before the New Testament…oh yeah it was! And the notes are not the greatest…I don’t think they are terrible. The biggest problem is, as mentioned above, the book introductions. The way too easily accept theories and dismiss the possiblity that tradition may be right. The one thing I do like about the Catholic Study Bible-NAB is that is comes with a wealth of additional study aids, like the concordance, essays, and maps.

For me, I currently have been using the New Jerusalem Bible as my primary study Bible. The translation is not as good as the RSV-CE, but it is more even than the NAB. The inclusive language that is used is not over the top, which makes the Psalms and New Testament more palatable. Also, the notes are actually pretty good for the most part. They give alternative rendering of passages that are difficult to translate. Also, I find that although they provide modern critical theories about the origins of various books of the bible, they also provide the traditional view as well. I find it to be a good balance. The regular edition also comes with an index and some nice maps.

So overall, I find the NJB, with notes, to be my Bible of choice right now. I am not completely happy with it…but until something new comes out I will probably stick with it.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I might have a look at the NJB.
 
best notes that I can think of are for the Haydok. This uses the Douay as its base text and has wonderfully insiteful notes based off the the works of the Church Fathers.

to see an example of the NT note online try haydock1859.tripod.com/

As to the the verses already mentioned above the Haydok says

Ver. 21. From that time, &c. Now when the apostles firmly believed that Jesus was the Messias, and the true Son of God, he saw it necessary to let them know he was to die an infamous death on the cross, that they might be disposed to believe that mystery; (Witham) and that they might not be too much exalted with the power given to them, and manifestation made to them. (Haydock)

Ver. 22. Peter taking him, &c. out of a tender love, respect and zeal for his honour, began to expostulate with him, and as it were to reprehend him,[3] saying, Lord, far be it from thee, God forbid, &c. (Witham)

Ver. 23. Go after me, Satan.[4] The words may signify, begone from me; but out of respect due to the expositions of the ancient fathers, who would have these words to signify come after me, or follow me, I have put, with the Rheims translation, go after me. Satan is the same as an adversary: (Witham) and is here applied to Peter, however, unknowingly or innocently, raised an opposition against the will of God, against the glory of Jesus, against the redemption of mankind, and against the destruction of the devil’s kingdom. He did not understand that there was nothing more glorious than to make of one’s life a sacrifice to God. (Bible de Vence) — Thou dost not, i.e. thy judgment in this particular is not conformable with that of God. Hence our separated brethren conclude that Christ did not, in calling him the rock in the preceding verses, appoint him the solid and permanent foundation of his Church. This conclusion, however, is not true, because, as St. Augustine and theologians affirm Peter could fall into error in points regarding morals and facts, though not in defining or deciding on points of faith. Moreover, St. Peter was not, as St. Jerome says, appointed the pillar of the Church till after Christ’s resurrection. (Tirinus) — And it was not till the night before Christ suffered that he said to Peter: Behold, Satan hath desired to have thee; but I have prayed for thee, that “thy faith fail not,” and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren. (Luke xxii. 31.) (Haydock)
much more orthodox I think, don’t you?
 
40.png
quasimodo:
The NAB also takes liberties with the order of verses in Jeremiah. it is true that Jeremiah is problematic for scholars and many of the verses seem to be randomly interjected, but there is a traditional ordering of the book. The NAB, in its wisdom, chose its own order for Jeremiah and that makes it very difficult to find a specific verse. I don’t know if the NAB takes similar liberties with other book in the OT.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does, Ezekiel chapters 8-10 are a mess. Here are the verse numbers in chap. 10- chap.8:1-2, 4,then chapter 10:20-22,14-15,9-13,16-17,1-8, 18-19, 22-23.

And that kind of thing is why I use the NKJV as my regular Bible and the NAB when I need the books the NKJV omits.
 
I am a Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible person as well. The notes in them are very good.:tiphat:
 
Bauerice,

I have had the toughest time finding a study Bible that fits all my needs, which doen’t exists, but the NJB is pretty close. Another thing I didn’t mention about the NJB is that there is plenty of room to write in margins and highlight, as well as the fact that the type-setting is not painful to the eyes.

So for know, I am happy.
 
are we talkin about the St. Joseph Edition?
That’s what I have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top