Why are the NABRE footnotes approved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pmitch72402
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pmitch72402

Guest
Why is the NABRE approved by the USCCB when it has such questionable footnotes like the one on Matthew 16:21-23
This first prediction of the passion follows in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see [Mt 26:29]

Is it because it’s only the readings that are approved without regard for the footnotes?
 
Agree that the footnotes are barmy. The translation itself is “fine” (as I’ve read different translations, the NABRE has fallen out of my favor), but the footnotes, I’ve found, are usually worth ignoring. I think we stick with it because it’s a more accessible version (easier to understand) than others.
 
I got the Douay Rheims, the NRSVCE, and the NABRE New Catholic Answer Bible in front of me, which has a lot of very good inserts in it (written by Paul Thigpen and Dave Armstrong), but, unfortunately has the bad footnotes. The NRSVCE does not have footnotes on these particular verses. The Douay Rheims does, but it is too long to type here. Definitely an orthodox Catholic interpretation. I went and got some other Bibles. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible explains it in pretty good detail. The RSVCE has notes on Peter’s confession, but not the following verse (in the second edition, at least). But, I am kind of glad you brought this up, because it does show some of the problems with footnotes. I actually noticed in the RSVCE (which I love), at least in the second edition, that there was no attempt made to link the deuterocanonical books to the New Testament. (I was reading Sirach and I was checking for footnotes).
 
This always turns into a 🍿 thread. There are even worse examples in those footnotes.

There is a decided modernist bent to those notes. That, and the relative weakness of the translation are my main bones to pick with the NAB/NABRE.

It stand in stark contrast to the notes and introductions of the bible which immediately preceded it: The 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible. Now that is a 100% no-nonsense Catholic Bible.
 
I’ve got a pretty significantly large collection of Bibles, I’ll have to check that one out when I get the chance
 
I’ve often wondered about this myself. From what I’ve gathered, the footnotes are meant to convey insight into understanding Scripture. However, there is as a lot of leeway that is allowed because the notes themselves aren’t meant to convey official church teaching, but instead reflect the ideas and philosophies of the translators themselves.

I’ve always looked at the NAB as the flagship or symbol of modern Catholic theology and studies of that time. If translations such as the Douay Rheims, King James, and ESV represent a more traditional and literal understanding of scripture, then translations like the NAB and NIV reflect the modern and progressive understanding of scripture.

The NAB was seriously moving towards the far end of the modernistic spectrum when they came out with their 1991 translation of the Psalms. Things had gotten so bad that the NABRE was an attempt to go back the other way and introduce a translation which was more literal and less encumbered by the ideologies of their collaborators.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
However, there is as a lot of leeway that is allowed because the notes themselves aren’t meant to convey official church teaching, but instead reflect the ideas and philosophies of the translators themselves.
Click to expand...
And why should a reader of the Bible be interested in philosophies of the translators? If the notes are not authorised, what are they doing in the Bible? Who allowed this and why?
 
Crusader13 said:
Things had gotten so bad that the NABRE was an attempt to go back the other way and introduce a translation which was more literal and less encumbered by the ideologies of their collaborators.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the NABRE is a marked improvement, especially the psalms.
 
ontheway1 said:
And why should a reader of the Bible be interested in philosophies of the translators? If the notes are not authorised, what are they doing in the Bible? Who allowed this and why?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they weren’t authorized. They were allowed in there because they represented the current (at that time) understanding and view points of the collaborators with regards to Scripture. The theory of Q for example, with regards to the authorship of Matthew, is not an official Church teaching, but it is obviously believed by some scholars and theologians. You’ll find this reflected in the notes of the NAB.

As to why would someone would be interested in reading a bible that reflected the translators philosophies, I guess that depends on the reader and what they prefer. I see this in those who love the Knox translation. For some, his translation reflects the perfect balance between beauty and clarity. Others don’t care for it that much, if it all.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
I didn’t say they weren’t authorized. They were allowed in there because they represented the current (at that time) understanding and view points of the collaborators with regards to Scripture. The theory of Q for example, with regards to the authorship of Matthew, is not an official Church teaching, but it is obviously believed by some scholars and theologians. You’ll find this reflected in the notes of the NAB.
Click to expand...
OK. I am not challenging your statement, but rather the idea that the “current” ideology should be given space to accompany the Bible. We all know where current fashions and ideologies can lead.
 
The US bishops approved the footnotes, first supervised by a group of 3 bishops, including one with a PhD in Scripture. It is worth your while to examine why you object to a footnote and figure out what you can learn from the perspective.

The translation cannot be printed without the footnotes; they are official guidance, if I understand correctly.
 
ontheway1 said:
OK. I am not challenging your statement, but rather the idea that the “current” ideology should be given space to accompany the Bible. We all know where current fashions and ideologies can lead.
Click to expand...
No worries. I agree with you. I don’t know why the current trend of biblical studies should influence bible translation, but it does. Sometimes negatively.

I think that happened with the NAB during its various changes over the ensuing decades. I don’t remember the exact wording in the preface of my copy, which is about 25 years old, but I think they intended it to be an ecumenical Bible. With the hopes that it would catch on and be widely accepted by non-Catholics seeking to enter the Church. Maybe they felt that by eliminating some very Catholic passages, non-Catholics would be less put off by it.
 
Crusader13 said:
I think they intended it to be an ecumenical Bible. With the hopes that it would catch on and be widely accepted by non-Catholics seeking to enter the Church. Maybe they felt that by eliminating some very Catholic passages, non-Catholics would be less put off by it.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. The trend to make the church into somethign similar to a protestant denimination has been going on for some time. This is probably the reason it is reflected in the Bible translations.
With the blossoming of the ecumenical movement, we are witnessing the next phase: what could be called a de-christianization of the church. An attempt at remaking Christinity and Catholicism into a global deist movement. I hope I am way wrong on this.
 
Last edited:
Here I remind of the footnotes to Luke 1:45 and following, suggesting that Luke made up Mary’s Magnificat - that she never uttered a word of it - not even by the Holy Spirit, her Spouse.

Modernist without doubt.
 
Do you have a reliable source for your information? Since I have never heard such a claim before, are you sure of it? It frankly sounds like someone made something up and taught it to you.

The Nihil Obstat controls the entire content of any publication which bears it. To wit:
“The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that book of pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.”
Click to expand...
No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed…

I’m sorry, but I simply cannot see any of your claims here.
I see nothing about three Bishops or the bible cannot be read apart from the notes(?) If so, IMO, the entire bible condemns itself.

Are you sure you want to post this and stand by it?
 
Last edited:
The bishops’ Subcommittee on the Translation of Scripture Text is usually 5 bishops, not 3 as I said before. Two bishops were on the subcommittee throughout the revisions from 1990-2010. It is under the committee on doctrine, listed on the USCCB website though you can find listings of members elsewhere on the web.

Maybe I’ll find answers to your other questions tomorrow, if you are not able to.
 
No matter the number of Bishops on the committee, the Nihil Obstat has its limits, which are clearly explained.

The Nihil Obstat is not a blanket or even a partial endorsement. It is a limited declaration that the attached document does not directly oppose Catholic teaching - not that it is consistent with Catholic teaching or tradition.

I note that the NAB and RE coincide with the largest exodus from the faith in 2,000 years.

Cause or effect? Does it matter?
 
What disturbed me was the introductory notes in Mathew
The post - A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by ⇒ Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
I guess they didn’t believe that Jesus foretold this event but that it was included after the event.
 
The Q & A that were released on Facebook with the new edition in 2010 has the below. I found it among the links at the end of the Wikipedia article on the NABRE.
Permission is almost never granted to print the NABRE without the introductions and explanatory notes. (The few exceptions are for audio products or certain works intended for scholarly use, such as parallel Bibles.) The reason is two-fold. First, canon law (specifically canon 825) requires that Scripture be “provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.” Second, in undertaking their review of the text, the bishops who recommended the NABRE for approval reviewed the notes and introductions in great detail, often requiring additions to ensure that the note was as helpful as possible.
Click to expand...
 
The Nihil Obstat is a minor part of the bishops involvement in the NABRE. It was a project of the bishops, supervised by an official subcommittee and approved by the administrative and ultimately, the whole body of bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top