Question about the NABRE footnotes

[pnewton]

For example, in Deut 32 8, each nation has its own guardian angel, NOT deity.

Since you used that as an example, let me point out that 4000 years ago, there was no conception of guardian angels. While I understand the skepticism and dislike for these footnotes, as they do present a lot of speculation and opinion, what is considered the “traditional” understanding of Scripture can also be speculation and opinion, just an older version. Sometimes tradition can offer contradictory opinions, like who the brothers of the Lord were. Should nothing be noted on stuff like this, since there is no one true opinion? It is a good question. I do not know the best answer for others.

 

[pnewton]

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.”

Exactly. There is an underlying bias against the miraculous among many biblical scholars. A person can be educated to the point of blindness. So, like watching the news today, if you do read these notes, they need to be weighed in light of the spin of academia, more that any spin left or right. The same caution must be used when reading the notes of a Protestant Bible. They too can be useful, but require caution.

If you ever get a chance to drop in a Bible book store, check out Dake’s Bible, just for grins. There is one though called Thompson’s which simply links verses together, but even that can be nothing by elaborate proof-texting. The best commentary will always be the Catechism. Flip to that when there is a tough question.

 

[pnewton]

edited to death, I hope

 

[mrsdizzyd]

This might be in the wrong spot…

 

[bobperk]

The problem is that only the NAB and NABRE use this interpretation in the footnotes. And note that they footnote reads “…MAY refer to catamites…” I’m pretty sure St. Paul would have been aware of the moral law concerning homosexual behavior, so why would he modify it to refer only to “boy prostitutes?”

 

[Crusader13]

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!

It’s true the NAB doesn’t exactly come across as a “Catholic” bible at times. I believe that was intentional though and when you look at the history behind the NAB, you can see that they were hoping to produce a bible that could be used by all Christians. The problem is, non Catholics don’t want to read a strictly Catholic bible.

When I look at the NAB I can definitely see that it is a product of its time and it represented the thinking of many within the church during the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s; the footnotes reflect this as well. Today I think most people are looking for a good faithful Catholic bible that reflects Catholic teachings and translation practices.

The NAB still hasn’t fulfilled this yet and I don’t know if it ever will.

 

[Genesis315]

Even the very recent papal encyclical, Spe Salvi (pars 46-47), analyzes that verse in connection with purgatory.

 

[Spyridon]

I too find the NABRE commentary quite vexing at times…

I’ve done much research and learned to accept translation choices I don’t much care for - “mighty wind” in Gen 1:2, “young woman” in Isa 7:14, “favored one” in Lk 1:28, the word “hell” appearing 0 times in the entire Bible, use of “holy Spirit.”

After researching these, I can accept all of them as orthodox variations.

However, there are many things written in the NABRE commentary which no matter how much I research it and try to understand it, I cannot accept it - it just flies in the face of what I believe. Things like denying Matthew wrote his Gospel without even attempting to defend that 1800 year old tradition just drive me mad, so I don’t think about it anymore.

 

[bobperk]

Even with the examples that you accept, they still seem to really stretch it in order to say something against tradition, but still in the “spirit” of the original language, or some other nonsense along those lines.

 

[Spyridon]

I could give you details explaining why the translation choices I illustrated are acceptable - not my personal taste, but they can be accepted.

The commentary is a different story, but the translation itself is solid.

 

[bobperk]

I agree with you. I would say “acceptable” in the sense that those examples render a word from the original language to English in an acceptable manner. But it is also done apart from tradition. There is the option to render a word traditionally and in keeping with the sense of the original language, but the NABRE committee instead often chose to render a word acceptably but apart from tradition.