Question about the NABRE footnotes

[Trying2overcome]

Some footnotes in the NABRE are absolute garbage and seriously heretical. I hate them. I’ve also heard that the prefaces to the biblical books may contain error, but I personally havent read them so I won’t comment on them. The problem is, I actually kind of like the translation. Its definitely not perfect, but I don’t think any translation is. So I have a question: Are the same people who translated this Bible the same who wrote the footnotes and prefaces? If so, I’ll probably get rid of it…thanks!

 

[AppalachianCatholic]

I have a “love/hate” relationship with the NABRE. The footnotes are indeed less than stellar at times (that’s putting it mildly) and the foreword to the various books of the Bible actually shook my faith for a time. Having said that, as far as just reading the Bible it’s my favorite translation. I ignore the notes and forewords or at least take them with a grain of salt.

 

[angel12]

Some footnotes in the NABRE are absolute garbage and seriously heretical. I

Do you have some examples of actual heresy?

 

[Trying2overcome]

The footnote to Deut. 32 8-9 says,

32:8 Divine beings: lit., “sons of God” (see also v. 43); members of the divine assembly; cf. 1 Kgs 22:19; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 82; 89:6–7. The nations are portrayed as having their respective tutelary deities.

This interpretation is not Catholic. Other bibles, including protestant ones, interpret Deut. 32 8 as meaning each nation has its own guardian angel, NOT deity.

The footnote to Psalm 58 2 says,

58:2 Gods: The Bible sometimes understands pagan gods to be lesser divine beings who are assigned by Israel’s God to rule the foreign nations. Here they are accused of injustice, permitting the human judges under their patronage to abuse the righteous, cf. Ps 82.

This is not the correct interpretation by Catholic standards. The ‘gods’ mentioned in Psalm 58 are human judges, NOT lesser divine beings. This footnote serves to confuse the Catholic reader.

The footnotes to Psalm 82 say,

Blockquote Psalm 82: As in Ps 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel’s God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Dt 32:8–9). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Ps 82:1) to rebuke the unjust “gods” (Ps 82:2–4), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Ps 82:5–7). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the Psalm (Ps 82:8).
82:5 The gods are blind and unable to declare what is right. Their misrule shakes earth’s foundations (cf. Ps 11:3; 75:4), which God made firm in creation (Ps 96:10).
82:6 I declare: “Gods though you be”: in Jn 10:34 Jesus uses the verse to prove that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called “gods.”
82:8 Judge the earth: according to Dt 32:8–9, Israel’s God had originally assigned jurisdiction over the foreign nations to the subordinate deities, keeping Israel as a personal possession. Now God will directly take over the rulership of the whole world.

Huh? These notes seem to admit the existence of other deities! Also, the title to psalm 82 is literally “The Downfall of Unjust Gods.” An implicit acknowledgment of multiple gods. Isn’t the Catholic teaching that there is only one God? But even more troubling is the footnote to John 10 34

10:34 This is a reference to the judges of Israel who, since they exercised the divine prerogative to judge (Dt 1:17), were called “gods”; cf. Ex 21:6, besides Ps 82:6, from which the quotation comes.

You see? The editors and the ones who wrote the footnotes KNEW that psalm 82 was referring to human judges, not deities. Yet, in the psalm 82 footnotes, the editors keep repeating that psalm 82 speaks of literal gods.

 

[Kathleen18]

You are dealing with an ancient culture. The ancient Hebrews did not always worship one GOD. And their neighboring cultures certainly did not have one GOD to worship. It is probably a bit of propoganda too. The GOD of Israel essentially won over the gods of the neighboring cultures. It is not heretical teaching.

 

[MaryT777]

I agree; for plain reading it is also my favorite translation. Never read the footnotes for I hear so many bad things about them.

 

[porthos11]

The footnote to Deut. 32 8-9 says,

32:8 Divine beings: lit., “sons of God” (see also v. 43); members of the divine assembly; cf. 1 Kgs 22:19; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 82; 89:6–7. The nations are portrayed as having their respective tutelary deities.

Not at all. It is not opposed to the Catholic faith to believe or theorize that pre-exilic Israel was henotheistic rather than monotheistic.

 

[pnewton]

Huh? These notes seem to admit the existence of other deities!

That is not what is meant, of course. No one who wrote these were polytheist. Rather the point is that the people of the time, pretty much everywhere outside of Israel, were polytheists. Furthermore, even God spoke in this manner, that is, recognizing the polytheism of atheist. That is why he does not just say He is God (I AM), but specifically the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and why he tells his people not to have other gods before him. Now, we understand that to mean other priorities before God. But when the commandment was given, it was an acknowledgement of the polytheism of the people of that time.

Footnotes in any Bible are really not worth reading, or at least should always be read with a grain of salt. One is far better off reading the Catechism along with the Bible. Nonetheless, we need to be careful with using the word “heresy” unless we are really learned in Catholic theology. There is a great deal of freedom in what a Catholic can believe.

 

[Trying2overcome]

That makes some sense. Thanks. If only the footnotes had explained this ‘gods’ stuff the way you did, it would have been somewhat better. The notes were just so casual in saying, “Yeah, the bible acknowledges that there are other gods.” And they don’t even bother to fully explain that these gods were false or anything. Especially the note on psalm 82:8. It makes it seem like there were other gods, but the most powerful one, Israel’s god, conquered them. And not figuratively either. Or the Deuteronomy footnote which goes against many, if not all other, bible commentaries and ambiguously says that each nation has its own deity. Again, not figuratively. These can easily mislead people. Besides, these notes are just one of many problematic notes in the NAB.

And I disagree with your second point, that footnotes in any bible aren’t worth reading. The Douay Rheims-Challoner Bible has good notes, even if they are few. They are good and orthodox and don’t cast doubt on scripture, The same with the Haydock bible, and also the Confraternity Bibles from 1941 to 1969.

 

[pnewton]

And I disagree with your second point, that footnotes in any bible aren’t worth reading.

You are right, of course. I overstated my opinion and my own preference, but my own background is rather different than most Catholics, so I should not have been so strong.

 

[bobperk]

The NAB and NABRE footnotes are terrible. They doubt the traditional authorship of all the Gospels, cast doubt upon the ability of the prophets to foretell future events, doubt the authorship of half of St. Paul’s epistles, consider Genesis a ripoff of Mesopotamian literature, claim that Mary never said the Magnificat, consider the Emmaus passage from St. Luke made up, and half the time dismiss the saying of Jesus as authentic. The footnotes basically, in very many instances, adopt a secular skeptic’s view of the Bible and smugly claim to tell the “real” truth about Scripture. It should be considered a scandal that the USCCB uses this translation and the foolish footnotes on its websites.

A while back, someone put together a good criticism of this sacrilegious mess: https://www.fisheaters.com/thenewamericanbibleherisies.pdf

 

[pnewton]

A while back, someone put together a good criticism of this sacrilegious mess:

They lost me by presenting the dictation theory of inspiration as Catholic teaching, as well as dismissing the unified opinion of Pope Paul VI and the USCCB This is why I have always said the Catechism makes a good tool to understanding Scripture, as opposed to Ben Douglas. The Catholic Church encourages reading the Scripture and has given this translation to the faithful. This guy calls it a “near occasion of sin.”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

People who are more Catholic than the Catholic Church (if that has any meaning) are always a greater danger than even the liberals and progressives that stay within the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.

 

[NJada]

I completely agree. It really frustrates me those notes, it’s like, uh, aren’t you supposed to be Christians, you who are translating the Bible here? I’ve heard of people who lost their faith because of those notes.
That being said, actually some of the notes are very helpful. They apparently were written by people skilled in analyzing a piece of literature and that kind of modern historical-critical method. The notes will also point out the meanings of people’s names, outline the chiastic structure of a narrative, and other really useful bits of info. But then they flat out deny the historicity of things from the Gospels and the historical Books of the OT, oftentimes making it sound like some parts were added for some petty reasons.

I suppose some historians look at it like, “Well, Isaiah lived in the 700s B.C., but the things written in the Book of Isaiah are prophecies of things that would later happen in the 500s B.C… And we all know miracles and prophecies don’t actually happen, therefore the Book of Isaiah was completed around 500 B.C., or at least those parts that contain prophecies.”

One other positive thing though, is their cross-references are excellent! That’s my favorite part. I get a lot out of using those.
I use it as my secondary translation, while the DRC is my main translation. I really like the DRC and I think there are good reasons to trust it, but it’s definitely not perfect, and sometimes the NAB helps for that.

But I would be interested to hear specifically some comments on the quality of the NAB’s translation itself.

 

[Hereiam]

Some footnotes in the NABRE are absolute garbage and seriously heretical.

I think you might be over reacting, just a tad…but if you consider “footnotes” as somehow inspired, well then the problem might be with your perception rather than what is offered.

 

[george.s.v]

Two general (rather rhetoric) questions:

1. Given all these “negative points”, how would you consider that this Bible is officially approved by the Church?
2. Do you really think that this kind of vague speculation (instead of a serious, detailed discussion) is able to clarify anything?

 

[Trying2overcome]

I personally think it’s nothing more than scandal for the notes of this translation to be approved. They should have remained with the 1970 NAB notes since those notes are far more superior to the notes found in New American Bibles from 1991 onwards. For example, in Deut 32 8, each nation has its own guardian angel, NOT deity. And the footnotes in the 1970 NAB also clarify that psalms 58 and 82 are talking about human judges not literal deities.

 

[Trying2overcome]

Another problematic foot note is the one for 1 Corinthians 6:9. Here is the verse s translated in the NABRE:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites

and here is the footnote:

The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10.

You see what they’re doing? They are ‘admitting’ that the condemnations of homosexuality in the New Testament are really only condemnations of pederasty (sexual relations between men and boys) and not ALL homosexuality. In this age that we live in, where homosexuality is shoved down our throats as something good, we cannot afford to have our own bibles tell us stuff like this. They also take Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10 and try to squeeze them into their ridiculous interpretation, even though these verses make no mention whatsoever of “boy prostitutes” or pederasty, just homosexuality.

 

[angel12]

You see what they’re doing? They are ‘admitting’ that the condemnations of homosexuality in the New Testament are really only condemnations of pederasty (sexual relations between men and boys) and not ALL homosexuality. In this age that we live in, where homosexuality is shoved down our throats as something good, we cannot afford to have our own bibles tell us stuff like this. They also take Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10 and try to squeeze them into their ridiculous interpretation, even though these verses make no mention whatsoever of “boy prostitutes” or pederasty, just homosexuality.

And you’re positive you know Greek better than they do?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I personally appreciate that the footnotes and introductions acknowledge current debates amongst biblical scholars. I find it quite refreshing actually. I’m trained as a historian, so that might have something to do with it.

Mind you, I don’t give these footnotes the same weight as the scriptures themselves…

 

[Trying2overcome]

I don’t know greek and I don’t have much issue with the translation of these verses. Its the interpretation of them.