Stumbled by Notes in NAB Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tom7

Guest
Hello all

I have been affiliated in a Sola-Scriptura (spelling) denomination for 15 years. After taking on a position of teaching responsibility in my church I suddenly saw the need for an authoritative body to interpret Scripture. If I had a query about a Scripture I would search bible.hub commentaries and be confronted by numerous interpretations of a given verse. This got me seriously looking into the Catholic faith as I believe this is your main “selling point,” (forgive the crass expression but it fits well), that of having an ancient authority to interpret Scripture.

I purchased an NAB RE edition. After reading the introductions to each Bible book I felt like throwing the thing away. For example, after reading the introduction to Genesis I was amazed that it talked about not calling chapters 1-11 “history,” but “stories,” because they contain the thinking of the writers after adapting older “myths” to fit the Jewish people. They have no basis in history.

My question is: If Christ talks of Noah’s day and even adds details about it not recorded in Scripture (eating and drinking, men marrying etc), how can the Catholic scholars write that the story is not historical but simply a story with no basis in actual history? Another example, Paul talks of Adam as if sin actually entered into the world through him. Paul also talks of Eve being deceived. Peter wrote (although again the introductory note says it probably wasn’t Peter) that the world was destroyed in the times past by a flood and he uses this example to warn others. Was Jesus, Paul and Peter incorrect in believing these to be history?

Thank you for considering this.

Tom
 
Last edited:
The NAB and NABRE have a well-known reputation for having lousy notes.
I suggest you simply choose another Catholic Bible to read the notes instead. Try RSVCE, Challoner, or Haydock.

I would however note that the Church does not require Catholics to take Genesis literally. It’s understood by most clergy and catechists to be divinely inspired scripture, but written in the form of “stories” which readers back in the time it was written and in the time of Jesus would have understood as being a literary or catechetical writing style. There are certain truths in it that the Church teaches as truth, for example that all mankind descended from one Adam and one Eve, not from multiple “first parents”. But we don’t have to take literally that the world was created in 7 days or that a flood destroyed the entire planet etc. We can take it all literally if we want, and some Catholics do, but we don’t have to. The NAB was pushing the non-literal interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Invest in an RSV-2CE edition of the Bible, like the Didache Bible from Ignatius Press or the Ignatius Study Bible series (RSV edition, the entire New Testament is complete, but for now the Old Testament books are sold separately). I would also suggest “A Catholic Introduction to the Bible - The Old Testament” by Drs. Brant Pitre and John Bergsma. Like Tis Bearself said, the NAB is notorious for confusing, skeptical footnotes and is a product of liberal 1970s scholarship that was so very much “en vogue” 40-50 years ago. Thankfully, a new crop of orthodox Catholic and Protestant Biblical scholars has emerged within the last couple of decades and are thankfully putting much of the lousy scholarship to rest.
 
The historical critical method of commentary was all the rage at the time those notes were made, and so that’s the style of notes it has. They are valuable in their own way, but not the only approach we should have to scripture. If it’s not for you, I suggest finding commentary focused more on theological orthodoxy or patristic witness.
 
First, as you can see already from the responses here, there is no such thing as “the official Catholic Bible commentary.” There are a large number of commentaries that are acceptable to Catholics and the Vatican: they range from the St. Jerome Commentary, (the historical-critical school) to the Navarre Bible and its commentaries (Opus Dei). And a lot in between.

Why? Because the Church has always been reluctant to make pronouncements unless it feels it’s necessary; and even then, it wants a general consensus before doing so. So, for example, Genesis: If, as a Catholic, you want to take it literally, just as an Evangelical would, you can. And if, as a Catholic, you feel that almost none of it is literally true, that it’s just a story to illustrate certain theological points (God created the universe; the universe is good; sin entered the world through man; etc.), then you can do that, too. Both are Catholic interpretations.

Now on any issue, you should immediately turn to the Catechism and the documents of Vatican II. In this case, Dei Verbum, Vatican II—

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

“…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

This is paraphrased in Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 32-33:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

“In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.’”

“One can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual….”

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.
  2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written for our instruction.
  3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge =leading). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem
 
Last edited:
part 2…

Let me go back and emphasize one part: “…that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” If you keep that firmly in mind, any supposed problems with the Bible fall away. For example, Genesis: What was “that truth…for the sake of salvation” in Genesis? You could have a variety of answers: God created the universe; the universe is good; etc. But if you start down the road of “Did God create everything in the order given in Genesis…?” Then you have to ask yourself: “Does that matter? Does the order of creation affect your salvation?” Most people would say “No, it doesn’t matter at all. It’s a detail used to tell a nice story, but it’s not relevant to salvation.”

To illustrate this, take any story from the New Testament. The Prodigal Son, for example. There are a lot of details in the story. How many are NECESSARY? How many could be changed without changing the moral of the story? Does it matter if the son goes to a far country or a near country? Does it matter if his inheritance was $1000 or $1 million? Does it matter if he goes back home on a Tuesday or a Thursday? And so on. And please note that at the end of any of these parables, the Apostles don’t rush up to Jesus and say “What was his name? How long ago did this happen? How many cattle did the father own?” etc. Why not? Because if they did, they would be showing that they were clueless about the meaning of the story. It’s a story about forgiveness. The details are irrelevant.

You mentioned Noah and the flood. Again, what is the essence of the story that is put there “for the sake of salvation”? Does it matter if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights? (note that the number “40” appears in a lot of places–Jesus goes into the desert for 40 days, etc. Did the author use “40” because he meant that exact number, or was he simply trying to say “it rained a lot”?) Do the dimensions of the ark lead to salvation–if it were 10 cubits bigger or smaller, does that somehow affect the salvation of mankind? And so on. So if you ignore the “details,” what are you left with? Mankind sinned. God didn’t like that. God decided to punish mankind. But he decided to save some people because they were virtuous. And so on. Does any of THAT tell you anything about salvation? Of course. You shouldn’t sin, because God won’t like it. You might be punished by God for sinning. God will protect virtuous people. Etc.

Now some people (even on this forum!!) will come along and say, “No, no, every detail matters. Every detail is infallibly true!” But of course that’s NOT what either Dei Verbum or the Catechsim says.
 
Last edited:
Tom7 said:
Hello all

I purchased an NAB RE edition. After reading the introductions to each Bible book I felt like throwing the thing away. Tom
Click to expand...
Semi-rant alert!!! I have the NAB and NAB/RE only for reference. Some, possibly most of the intros and footnotes are OK. Some are just plain horrible - modernist/revisionist. Added to your example: Mary probably did not utter a single word of her Magnificat, as the commentators did not think that it fits the story. They suggest that Luke essentially “copied and pasted” it from other Jewish sources. AYKM?

Further, the intro to Matthew states that we have no idea who wrote it. We call it "“Matthew” for the sake of convenience. AYKM2.0?

In earlier Catholic bibles, the editors were named in back, out of humility. The prayer to the Holy Spirit before and after reading scripture was placed before the book of Genesis. In the NAB and NAB/RE, the editor’s names are prominently displayed up front. Hmmm. Worse than that, the prayer to the Holy Spirit has been removed. AYKM3.0?

Saint Stephen the Martyr is “filled with grace” (Acts 6:8), but the Blessed Virgin is only “favored one” (Luke 1:28) AYKM4.0?

There are most likely many more examples, but even these four examples sour me on not only the notes and intros, but the entire translation.

Somewhere in small print it states that the intros and notes are the opinions of the authors - but so what? They are horrible and IMO such potentially misleading and faith-corroding opinions do not belong in a Catholic (or any other) bible.

You want good notes and intros? And, a good, reverent, tradition-driven translation? Of course you do!

Get any one of the various 1941-1969 Douay-Confraternity bibles. Maybe $10-$20 on Amazon or eBay. 100% solid, unapologetically Catholic intros and footnotes. Sure and confidence-inspiring. Along with the Knox bible, the Confraternity has the best New Testament translation, IMO.

I now resume normal breathing.
 
Last edited:
One must be careful to extrapolate much from the “sake of salvation” line in Dei Verbum, because it leads many to begin cherry-picking what is and what is not essential for our salvation. The Bible is inerrant in all it contains, even though some of its contents my be in figurative or symbolic language. But to state that the Bible contains errors, or to demand that some passages are purely symbolic because current science or historic studies disagree is to make the error of limited inerrancy as applied to the Sacred Scriptures. Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation? | Catholic Answers
 
Last edited:
I am so appreciative for all the comments here. Some have been very helpful. However it disturbs me that the Church doesn’t exercise more control over what is allowed to be published in its name. I’m not for cult like control but some of these opinions raise so many more questions about Scripture and it distracts from the reading of it.
 
Tom7 said:
some of these opinions raise so many more questions about Scripture and it distracts from the reading of it.
Click to expand...
No offense, but your last comment surprises me. The purpose of reading the Bible, or one of the main purposes, is to find answers to our questions. The more questions we raise, the more fruitful our reading becomes. That, at least, is my experience.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
Now on any issue, you should immediately turn to the Catechism and the documents of Vatican II. In this case, Dei Verbum, Vatican II—
Click to expand...
This is excellent advice for the OP. It is unfortunate, but hardly surprising that he should pick up a NABRE for its NOTES of all things!
Tom7 said:
I’m not for cult like control but some of these opinions raise so many more questions about Scripture and it distracts from the reading of it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! There are some VERY good Catholic Study Bibles out there, which have already been mentioned, but I will recap anyway:
  1. The Haydock Bible. There are several editions; a complete, an abridged, and an updated one. They are 1811 for the complete in large folio, then later on from 1847 forward in large quarto. The abridged one in 1853 by Canon Husenbeth, cuts out some of the notes on classical antiquities that support biblical understanding, as well as some purely once contemporaneous, but now trivial ones. Then my favorite: the Oakeley-Haydock of 1878 through 1910. This is a pretty hard one to find, but updates the notes wonderfully with 19th century discoveries in biblical languages, culture, and new found manuscripts. It has all of the Husenbeth abridged notes, but adds to it all of the new revisions which makes it perhaps larger than the original folio. These Haydock Bibles are perfect for studying the Bible in a devout manner and are absolutely free of any ridiculous unprovable conjectural hypotheses. In fact the Haydock Bibles stand absolutely ALONE of all the study bibles in providing the source writer/document for ALL of its notes. One of the reasons I really like this one is that (like the original Haydock) it compares the readings of many different bibles on difficult passages. For example it will give the Hebrew, Prot. (KJV) Syrian, Samaritan and many others in trying to arrive at the most understandable or correct translation in its notes. It uses a revised Douay/Rheims text.
  2. The next in excellency would be the Ignatius Study Bible. It is fantastic in that it explains why many of the scandalous modern opinions are either simply conjectures with no more basis in fact than an array of other orthodox opinions which it is currently so fashionable to overturn and denounce.
    (cont. next post)
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the Ignatius Study Bible is only out in NT as a single volume. The OT is still in production and hasn’t been released yet. However, getting the NT would be absolutely vital for someone looking for Orthodox Christian Biblical Truth. It uses the text of the RSV-CE.
  1. The Navarre study bible. This is out in a series of volumes, and can be relatively expensive to obtain. However there is a single volume NT which is very good. Its notes tend to be more meditative, although still somewhat scholarly too. It also uses the text of the RSV-CE.
  2. Some others that might be interesting: The Ronald Knox Commentary on the NT in 3 vols. (just the commentary) meant to accompany the Knox NT. The Confraternity Commentary 1 vol. (just the commentary) meant to accompany the Confraternity Bible NT. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible, with many notes (although sometimes biased in favor of modern historical/critical conjectures.)
 
Last edited:
Tom7 said:
This got me seriously looking into the Catholic faith as I believe this is your main “selling point,” (forgive the crass expression but it fits well), that of having an ancient authority to interpret Scripture.
Click to expand...
If you are looking for an authority that interprets Scripture, why do you react so strongly when you find one? The NAB was produced by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and their authority stands behind it. Not every detail, not every translated word, but in a general sense it was approved by the US bishops. You seem to want an authority that will tell you what you already believe, which is not exactly how authorities work.

As others have told you, you do not have to agree with the US bishops. You can choose other commentaries. I like the Jerusalem Bible because the Ecole Biblique produced it and I trust them. But if you want something with the authority of the Church behind it, and you live in the USA, the US bishops are that authority.
Tom7 said:
Were Jesus, Paul and Peter incorrect in believing these to be history?
Click to expand...
Where did you get the idea that they believed these to be history? If I tell you the prodigal son spent his money on women, would you assume I believe in the historicity of the prodigal son? Or that his older brother was a reliable source of information about him? How can the embellishments Jesus made to the Noah story be history? They may be true, but they are not part of the recorded history. They are part of the story of Noah, known and shared by everyone, which Jesus and Peter use to talk about baptism, the death of Jesus and the Resurrection.
 
Dovekin said:
The NAB was produced by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and their authority stands behind it.
Click to expand...
I think it would be more correct to say that they “support” the publication, for whatever you want to read into that. It’s also interesting to note that the NABRE as published in their BIBLES in NOT approved for Liturgical use by the Vatican. A hybrid version of the NABRE is used, which is NOT published for general use as a Bible.
 
Last edited:
AmbroseSJ said:
The Haydock Bible… updates the notes wonderfully with 19th century discoveries in biblical languages, culture, and new found manuscripts.
Click to expand...
And not so wonderfully, knows nothing of 20th or 21st century “discoveries in biblical languages, culture, and new found manuscripts.”
AmbroseSJ said:
The Ignatius Study Bible
Click to expand...
Apparently a polemical text designed to refute “scandalous modern opinions.” Not an authority of the type Tom seeks, but another display of multiple opinions about how to read the bible,
AmbroseSJ said:
The Navarre study bible.
Click to expand...
Produced at Univeridad de Navarra, it is the product of one particular school of thought. Insightful sometimes, but another example of opinions like those at Bible Hub. As are the works cited in Ambrose’s #4. These reflect an array of Catholic readings, which is not much different from the problem Tom is trying to avoid, of multiple unauthoritative opinions.

I am afraid he single authoritative source you are seeking is not available in the Catholic Church. There are some advantages to the Catholic approach, which treats the Bible as the Church’s book. This limits some of the divergences, but not all.
 
We’ve crossed paths before, so there should be no need to re-debate. Your article points out–as I did–that there are several interpretations possible for Catholics. There is NOT one “official” interpretation. As I said, you can go from Opus Dei (Navarre Bible) on one end to the Jerome Commentary (historical crititical) on the other. Both are Catholic, as are all the versions in the middle.

Let me quote the final two sentences of your article: “Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ.” Exactly.

If in 2019 I begin a story by saying “Once upon a time…” you would expect that I am going to tell you a fairy tale or a made-up story. Two thousand years from now, someone reading “Once upon a time” might interpret that as a statement of fact, and that I was then going to relate established history.

And yes, I agree with the article and with Catholic opinion: you have to look at the whole Bible. Further, the “history of Israel” is part of the inspired context of the Old Testament. So although you should not look for historical accuracy, you can’t just remove the “lessons” (or whatever you want to call them) from their historical context.

As for “errors,” if you believe in the literal truth of every word and sentence, you will have great difficulty in explaining all sorts of things: Which is it, “the poor” or “the poor in spirit”? They are two different things. Or the conversion of Paul: Acts 9:7 says those around him heard a voice, but they didn’t see anything; Acts 22 says those around him saw “the light” but didn’t hear anything. Which is it? If you are a literalist, you’ve got a real problem to solve. If you see these things as incidental details that don’t matter to the essence of the story, you don’t have any problem at all. As for me, I belong to the “no problem” camp. (Which, I would like to remind everyone, is a Catholic position.)
 
Tom7 said:
Church doesn’t exercise more control over what is allowed to be published in its name.
Click to expand...
It does. “Nihil obstat” and “imprimatur” are guarantees by a bishop (or bishops) that there is nothing contrary to the Catholic faith in a book. If you don’t see these at the beginning of a book, it may or may not contain doctrinal error.

If, for example, someone came along and wrote a book saying Jesus married Mary Magadalene (of course this is the subject of a number of books…) it would not get official approval. And in the old days (1559-1966) it would get placed on the Index librorum prohibitorum (list of forbidden books).

But this is a subject that Protestants have trouble understanding. Their view is that the Catholic Church is an authoritarian organization that strictly controls religious thought and inquiry. And of course that is the opposite of the truth. As I said before, the Church believes in consensus (but not unanimity) and is very reluctant to pontificate (pun intended) on matters where there is no consensus. Anyone can see that in areas where the Church came out with an official teaching that was not backed by consensus (birth control, for example). These instances are so rare that they become famous.
 
Last edited:
Back to the original poster’s question:

The Bible is supposed to be the “word of God.” God is trying to communicate truths to mankind that mankind might not infer from the world around them.

But the Bible should be considered a “library” rather than a “book.” The Bible contains all sorts of genres: poetry, myths, history, parables, letters, etc. etc. It was written over a span of centuries by multiple authors living in totally different societies (Roman Judea was not Babylon of the 6th c. BC). So to approach every sentence in the same way is simply the wrong way to do it. You wouldn’t approach Shakespeare’s “Henry V” and a modern history of Henry V in the same way–or at least I hope you wouldn’t. So why approach every sentence in the Bible the same way?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top