New catholic, but dont understand the NABRE commentary. is it infallible?

[po18guy]

I note the points made by the fellow who is critical of the NAB. As to what else he believes, he’s on his own.

But, loook at the OP! Look at the post! A brand new convert and confusion appears when probing the Catholic bible. How can this be?

We are intended to pray for the bishops. Why is that? Look at the great Saints and the struggles they had reforming the Church - top to bottom. Read St. Catherine of Siena.

It is a never-ending struggle, as the Churchis always in need of internal reform. I have watched the maliase both from without and from within the Church. There are indeed wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The Church is sick. She needs a 21st century Doctor of the Church.

 

[Dovekin]

How did the faith last 1,950 years without the “indispensaible method” of these alleged scholars? Why did our Lord not teach itr?

The next paragraph after the one I quoted earlier addresses the question:

Certain elements of this method of interpretation are very ancient. They were used in antiquity by Greek commentators of classical literature and, much later, in the course of the patristic period by authors such as Origen, Jerome and Augustine. The method at that time was much less developed. Its modern forms are the result of refinements brought about especially since the time of the Renaissance humanists and their recursus ad fontes (return to the sources).
Pontifical Biblical Commission

Those who were there were as likely to use elements of historical criticism as any other method of interpretation. While it has been developed over the last few hundred years, the basics are visible much earlier. St Luke’s describes comparing multiple accounts to create his gospel, a literary technique that has to be understood to interpret his gospel correctly.

Of course, every method that leads can mislead. Some people even think the method Jesus taught us, ie sending his disciples to preach the Gospel, causes confusion. It is easy to see arrogance everywhere.

I do not object to people using other translations. But they all use a method, which can mislead. If you are not satisfied with the decisions made by fallible bishops, you should be wary of other idiosyncratic translations. Flaws are present in every translation.

If I have to rely on someone else’s efforts to translat the bible for me, I would rather rely on the bishops whom God has chosen for us. If you comfortable with other scholars and organizations, that is yout choice.

 

[commenter]

If I have to rely on someone else’s efforts to translat the bible for me, I would rather rely on the bishops whom God has chosen for us. If you comfortable with other scholars and organizations, that is yout choice

Just to reiterate, the NABRE was not translated, not footnoted, by the bishops. Bishops may have had (name removed by moderator)ut.

Other translations also likely had bishops consulting. Other translations also are bishop approved.

 

[po18guy]

Not saying that you are, but if you are justifying something, what is it that you are justifying? That a Bishop’s conference said or wrote this or that does not make it doctrine, nor does it of necessity make it edifying.

Look at the malaise in the Church! Does this arise from clear and coherent Apostolic teaching , or from the trendy ‘fuzzy theology’ that attempts to soften our Lord’s message so as to make it somehow more acceptable?

We will know them (including exegetical methods) by their fruits. The western Church is continuing to disintegrate. In the east and third world, where the Historical-Critical virus has not caught on, the Church is growing.

I dunno, I’m just a dull-witted know-nothing, but I see loss here, gain there. Pretty simple to this simpleton.

Footnotes and introductions to sacred scripture are meant to clarify, not to confuse.

 

[Zach]

I’m thinking of getting a Knox Bible. I’ve read its main strength is the translation and it’s considered a reading Bible as opposed to a study Bible. Are the footnotes minimal and were the footnotes written by the translator?

 

[mdgspencer]

The Catholic Church never teaches such books are infallible.
If such a Catholic body is said to have approved such a book, I would have to see who approved it. It may have been a committee, rather that the bishops as a whole who approved it. What you hear from such a committee is sometimes questionable, and doesn’t bear the authority of the Church.
However, I am sure that whoever came up with this would not say what they said is infallible.
.
Even the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” isn’t infallible. (Though it has great authority.) Under Pope Paul II what it said about capital punishment was changed, so that it finally said it can be justified in serious cases. (And of course this has just been changed again.)

 

[po18guy]

The Knox Translation was done with the mind of translating sacred scripture as if a Brit had written it for fellow Brits. It is very Anglo, unapologetically so, and the better for it. It is based on the Clementine Vulgate which traces back to Saint Jerome, a Saint I much admire (I share his volatile temper). Some call the Vulgate (and the Knox) idiosyncratic - but I call them warm and human. Not a trace of the “committee-think” that has ruined so many translations.

Virtually no notes (as Monsignor Knox had no agenda like - ahem! - some others), but every word in it outside of the preface was composed by Monsignor Ronald A. Knox.

 

[The27thPsalm]

Knox Bible Like @po18guy said, all notes are by the translator. When they are there, they are very helpful with understanding scripture, what little of the notes are there. Very good Bible for lectio divina.

 

[Dovekin]

Just to reiterate, the NABRE was not translated, not footnoted, by the bishops. Bishops may have had (name removed by moderator)ut.

Other translations also likely had bishops consulting. Other translations also are bishop approved.

Just to reiterate, the bishops decided to translate the NABRE; chose the translators and editors; established principles for translating it; set up a committee of bishops to supervise he translating and recommend it to the fully body of bishops for approval.

Other translations and commentaries may have had individual bishops contributing or consulting, but the impetus and organization was not “episcopal” per se.The US bishops have authorized the use of these other translations, but they have not claimed them as a translation they own. (well, they did recently buy the Grail Psalter…).

 

[Dovekin]

Not saying that you are, but if you are justifying something, what is it that you are justifying? That a Bishop’s conference said or wrote this or that does not make it doctrine, nor does it of necessity make it edifying.

Jesus instructed the apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations. That mission has continued in the Church, especially among bishops, who have preaching the Gospel as a primary component of their divinely established ministry. The NABRE is one way the bishops of this country fulfill that mission.

I doubt that you have a better understanding than the bishops of the malaise in the Church and of how the Gospel should be presented. Even if you do know better, you are not someone who has the authority to make decisions for the Church. I choose to support the Church’s efforts to preach the Gospel.

I support the use of historical criticism because it is what the Church has chosen to help us understand Scripture. It has enriched my faith greatly. I find it baffling that people reject it; it usually just sounds to me like people do not care about understanding scripture or tradition.

 

[po18guy]

Talking down now are we?

How about some well-reasoned arguments as to why the OP and I, as well as others are so confused and just why the arguments which you apparently possess, but which we have not heard, are not only correct, but crystal clear and 100% in-line with the ancient teaching of the Apostles?

 

[Dovekin]

How am I talking down to you? You asked me what I am trying to justify, so I answered.

The OP is a non-Catholic who is encountering a challenge to what he believes about scripture. What he needs is catechesis that teaches him how to respond to challenges to his faith. He clearly believes that Scripture is inspired, so that has to be supported while bringing a wider perspective.

How about some well-reasoned arguments as to why the OP and I, as well as others are so confused and just why the arguments which you apparently possess, but which we have not heard, are not only correct, but crystal clear and 100% in-line with the ancient teaching of the Apostles?

My claim is that I support the bishops in their effort to present the Gospel. I did not say anything about any arguments being “not only correct, but crystal clear and 100% in-line with the ancient teaching of the Apostles.” I suppose I am claiming that the bishops teach as successors of the Apostles, so “in-line with their teaching” is part of what I am saying in a certain sense, but probably not in the sense you meant it.

Other than that, I have found the study of Scripture is something that has enriched my faith and my understanding of Christ and the Church. Correct and crystal clear are not the kind of terms I would use, or that I even understand. I try to present my positions with clarity, addressed to common values I share with others so they can understand. But I do not always succeed with clarity or being correct.