The NAB and the Catholic Faith

[Antuane]

 

[TK421]

The NAB is the Bible I purchased when I started studying the Catholic Bible with the additional sacred texts that aren’t found in protestant Bibles, and I have been very happy with it.

Footnotes and introductions are commonplace in protestant Bibles. Because Catholics rightfully place such a strong importance on understanding doctrine in exact terms, I can understand why they can be leery over this, but this is something you should consider: for those of us that dig into footnotes and introductions, such as myself, we’re not the kind of people that are going to just be lead astray because of a single footnote that doesn’t entirely describe everything about the passage and the Catholic teaching that is related to it. I have the CCC sitting next to my NAB, and the later is entirely compatible and complementary with the former.

It’s a good thing that the NAB doesn’t explicitly state that Mary remained a virgin. It is not the CCC and it is not the proper place of the NAB to hash out every doctrine and teaching in the footnotes. The scripture is a primary source, and it ought to be left as such. The scripture does not say that Mary remained a virgin after birthing Jesus, and so the footnotes do not say it either. If the footnotes did, I guarantee that it would look bad. It would look like we’re trying to forcefully shoehorn a teaching into the scripture that isn’t actually there. A person that wants to explore these additional truths will have to delve deeper into gaining an understanding of Tradition and the authority of the Magisterium.

I suppose for a younger audience being catechized, it may be very important that the scripture be understood in light of the CCC as well, but for an adult coming into the faith, I think the NAB is very illuminating.

 

[classica87]

Personally, I do not like the NABRE; it is often so poorly laid-out and formatted that is is distracting to read. The only edition I’ve seen that fixes this problem is the St. Benedict Press one, which moves all footnotes to the bottom of the page, rather than using the two column format that might give your a full column worth of notes you must skip over to get back to reading. It’s irksome.

The translation is not so bad, but the Presbyterian church I attended for many years used the NIV, so I am used to hearing this sort of language. I don’t particularly like the footnotes either, but then again, I don’t particularly like the NABRE to begin with, and footnotes matter far less to me than translation and readability, since I rarely use them. If I wanted a study Bible, I’d buy one.

I am eagerly awaiting an Ignatius Bible in the mail. I bought the small NT paperback and loved it; if the NABRE is not your cup of tea, just get the RSV and move along. The language is reverent but readable, and the footnotes are solid and conservative. I personally just like the RSV because it sounds more like the translations I grew up with; fore some people that translation is the NABRE. As long as you’re using a Church-approved translation, it’s personal choice.

 

[Fragile]

**

It leaves it up to ambiguity, which then increases the doubt in someones mind “Well, maybe She did or didn’t” instead fo actually saying that nothing happened, because Our Lady is a perpetual virgin, case closed and dismissed.

Now let’s be realistic here, how many Catholics are going to bother picking up Patristic commentaries on Sacred Scripture? How does that leave poor old Joe, who frankly, doesn’t have time to peruse Patrisitic commentary on Sacred Scripture, but wants His daily dose of Sacred Scipture, and then poor old Joe, being a Catholic, buys this Catholic Bible (NAB) , opens it to St. Matthew’s Gospel and for better comprehension and acting under the assumption that the footnotes are there to help aid His understanding in a consistent and orthodox manner, finds this:

“25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.” End qoute

Now that’s going to make him think twice because, well, who knows, “It may have or may not have happened”.

Another thing that irks me to oblivion over this Bible is again, the footnotes and the text helps. The footnotes keep expounding on this idea of the Q-source. I think this Q-source is heretical. It does nothing but basically state that these Gospels came from a single-source (Then you can pretty much scrap the idea of Divinely inspired, because if there was a Master Text, who needs Divine Inspiration right?").

I also am irritated by the gender neutral stupidity. I have enough polticial correctness to deal with in the secular world, let alone inside the Church. Especially not when this gender netural stupidity totally eradicates the meaning of a verse from what it was meant to mean.

The NAB irritates me. If I could find one WITHOUT gender neutral stupidity and garbage footnotes, then I would consider it as a good/acceptable translation.

RSV or the Douay Rheims are the good translations. **

I think the footnotes show that you can not arrive at all of the teachings of the Church by scripture alone, yet the one I have has a plethora of apologetic pages defending/defining the teachings of the Church. They are in color and thicker, inserted throughout the bible so “poor old Joe” can’t miss them!

 

[CalCatholic]

The NAB is the Bible I purchased when I started studying the Catholic Bible with the additional sacred texts that aren’t found in protestant Bibles, and I have been very happy with it.

Footnotes and introductions are commonplace in protestant Bibles. Because Catholics rightfully place such a strong importance on understanding doctrine in exact terms, I can understand why they can be leery over this, but this is something you should consider: for those of us that dig into footnotes and introductions, such as myself, we’re not the kind of people that are going to just be lead astray because of a single footnote that doesn’t entirely describe everything about the passage and the Catholic teaching that is related to it. I have the CCC sitting next to my NAB, and the later is entirely compatible and complementary with the former.

It’s a good thing that the NAB doesn’t explicitly state that Mary remained a virgin. It is not the CCC and it is not the proper place of the NAB to hash out every doctrine and teaching in the footnotes. The scripture is a primary source, and it ought to be left as such. The scripture does not say that Mary remained a virgin after birthing Jesus, and so the footnotes do not say it either. If the footnotes did, I guarantee that it would look bad. It would look like we’re trying to forcefully shoehorn a teaching into the scripture that isn’t actually there. A person that wants to explore these additional truths will have to delve deeper into gaining an understanding of Tradition and the authority of the Magisterium.

I suppose for a younger audience being catechized, it may be very important that the scripture be understood in light of the CCC as well, but for an adult coming into the faith, I think the NAB is very illuminating.

 

[edward_george]

**I dislike the footnote in St.Matthews Gospel, in the first chapter:

“25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.” End qoute

What bugs me is that this is a subtle attack on the Doctrine of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity. This footnote makes it sound as if “She may have been a virgin after, she may not have”…**

I don’t think it’s exactly an attack, subtle or otherwise. It’s just saying what the text says, and not trying to read into or exclude from it anything which isn’t there. That’s why we have to read Scripture within the tradition–this note is a perfectly neutral, scholarly statement, but it isn’t being heralded as dogma.

-ACEGC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Personally, I do not like the NABRE; it is often so poorly laid-out and formatted that is is distracting to read. The only edition I’ve seen that fixes this problem is the St. Benedict Press one, which moves all footnotes to the bottom of the page, rather than using the two column format that might give your a full column worth of notes you must skip over to get back to reading. It’s irksome.

The translation is not so bad, but the Presbyterian church I attended for many years used the NIV, so I am used to hearing this sort of language. I don’t particularly like the footnotes either, but then again, I don’t particularly like the NABRE to begin with, and footnotes matter far less to me than translation and readability, since I rarely use them. If I wanted a study Bible, I’d buy one.

I am eagerly awaiting an Ignatius Bible in the mail. **I bought the small NT paperback **and loved it; if the NABRE is not your cup of tea, just get the RSV and move along. The language is reverent but readable, and the footnotes are solid and conservative. I personally just like the RSV because it sounds more like the translations I grew up with; fore some people that translation is the NABRE. As long as you’re using a Church-approved translation, it’s personal choice.

I’m sorry, but there is no such thing as a small Ignatius small NT paperback, lol. That New Testament alone is bigger than my harcover 1966 Jerusalem Bible :yup:

Having said that - I absolutely love how it includes references to the CCC in its notes!

Peace,

 

[CalCatholic]

I’m sorry, but there is no such thing as a small Ignatius small NT paperback, lol. That New Testament alone is bigger than my harcover 1966 Jerusalem Bible :yup:

Having said that - I absolutely love how it includes references to the CCC in its notes!

Peace,

She is probably talking about the Compact ‘NT and Psalms’ from Ignatius Press (RSV-2CE) which you can get at Amazon (in bonded leather) for about $15. This is different from the ‘Ignatius Catholic Study Bible-NT’ with all the notes.

 

[classica87]

She is probably talking about the Compact ‘NT and Psalms’ from Ignatius Press (RSV-2CE) which you can get at Amazon (in bonded leather) for about $15. This is different from the ‘Ignatius Catholic Study Bible-NT’ with all the notes.

That would be correct. The Pocket NT-Psalms only has a few footnotes necessary for understanding the text, without cross-references etc. It’s a great “reader edition” NT in a handy size.

I did recently buy the full Ignatius Bible in hardcover, though; Isaiah, you are right there is no such thing as a small Ignatius Bible, even the “regular,” non-study kind. Thankfully, it’s not too heavy or cumbersome. I’m really enjoying it! The RSV-2CE is a great translation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That would be correct. The Pocket NT-Psalms only has a few footnotes necessary for understanding the text, without cross-references etc. It’s a great “reader edition” NT in a handy size.

I did recently buy the full Ignatius Bible in hardcover, though; Isaiah, you are right there is no such thing as a small Ignatius Bible, even the “regular,” non-study kind. Thankfully, it’s not too heavy or cumbersome. I’m really enjoying it! The RSV-2CE is a great translation.

Got it!

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible-NT on paperback is less than $20. Like I said, it’s huge but I love it.

I recently got the Oxford RSV-CE Compact - Black leather with a zipper - the zipper has the miraculous medal! The font is really small but I finally gave in and got bifocal glasses (I’m a weebit hard headed), not a problem to read with my bifocals. Really small and easy to carry around.

I have the St. Joseph’s NABRE with the Large Font. I have been finding myself drawn to this one for private devotion, I used to prefer the NKJV for private devotion. Although every now and then I alternate my devotions with the Jerusalem Bible - I really like the format of the single column text they use.

Peace,