WHY DO "inspired" Catholics criticized the commentaries of the New American Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kyrby_Caluna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kyrby_Caluna

Guest
WHY DO “inspired” Catholics criticized the commentaries of the New American Bible? Do they think the US Bishops (I’m from the Philippines) did not study the commentaries before approving it? Are they more reliable and intelligent than the Bishops?
 
Why have you started 8 threads in gigantic, bold lettering, asking questions that could easily all be asked in one thread?
 
K_C,
The footnote on 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is a good example, where we are told that St. Paul “did not have the notion of Purgatory” [italics added] in mind when he wrote that passage (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). For goodness’ sake, these verses provide foundational, biblical text for the dogma of Purgatory.

That’s one faux pas that stands out in my mind, in addition to some comments to the effect that St. Matthew, the Gospel writer, was "confused’ when citing the Old Testament prophets.

Besides the disturbing, or less-than-Catholic-inspiring, commentaries and footnotes, very often the wording of the biblical text itself, which accrued largely from principles of so-called “dynamic” translation, seemed flat and doctrinally insipid–at least to this reader.

Needless to say, I sold all but one of my NABs (keeping one around for reference, and for consulting the introductions and commentaries–not all of which were problematic). For devotional or even exegetical reading, I fly primarily, gratefully and relievedly to the Douay-Rheims Bible and, as a Latin neophyte, to the Vulgate.

You completely overestimate my humble observations by cataloging them–sarcastically, right?–as “inspired”. Rather, when I see Sacred Scripture and Catholic dogma treated with such distressing nonchalance and/or reckless license, I get a knot in the pit of my stomach because something seems frightfully amiss.

By the way, I am half Filipino (my mom–God grant her eternal rest–was from Quezon City). My prayers go out to your bishops in the face of the anti-life politics that is threatening to destroy the Catholic national identity of the Philippines at this time.

Maraming salamat (po)! : )

Cordially,
PAB
 
There are lots of threads and comments saying why the NAB isn’t so good.
I’m more interested in the answers to the 2nd and 3rd parts of this person’s question.

Do they think the US Bishops didn’t not study the commentaries before approving it? Are they more reliable and intelligent than the Bishops?

(btw, I think the OP used the word “inspired” not sarcastically, but as a sign the he or she knows these Catholics are acting with a good heart, and are inspired to try to correct what they see as incorrect.) I don’t know much about the NAB in general, or what decisions go into approving a translation, so I’m not taking “sides.” I just am very curious about the questions I put in bold!
 
True, anti-life politics is getting more support now in my country. Most of my Catholic friends are pro-RH bill and they even malign the bishops for being anti-RH bill. Just as “inspired” Catholics criticized the USCCB for their endorsement of the NAB, also “inspired” Filipino Catholics are criticizing the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) for being anti-RH bill. Anyway, those are different issues but the common denominator is, we don’t have the authority to criticize our Bishops. The best thing we need to do if we are not in agreement with our pastors is to understand why they do such things. I don’t have anything against the NAB including its commentaries. I always agree with the Bishops because they are more reliable than those “inspired” Catholics.
 
Well, seeing the threads the OP has started – I am of the opinion–he/she is in this forum to stir the pot.
 
People…stop commenting on the post and the poster and discuss the questions!!! :o

Otherwise people like me who are genuinely curious have to re-post the same question for discussion…and then ppl complain that the question has already been asked. 🤷

It really seem the majority opinion (on these boards at least) that the NAB is no good. I have a neutral opinion, cuz I don’t know enough about it. Still, inquiring minds want to know:
  1. Why don’t ppl trust the Bishops?
  2. Do or do not the bishops rigorously review a translation and its notes before approving them? (the answer to this may shed light on #1)
 
pataburd said:
For devotional or even exegetical reading, I fly primarily, gratefully and relievedly to the Douay-Rheims Bible and, as a Latin neophyte, to the Vulgate.

…when I see Sacred Scripture and Catholic dogma treated with such distressing nonchalance and/or reckless license, I get a knot in the pit of my stomach because something seems frightfully amiss.

Cordially,
PAB
Click to expand...
Lousy footnotes and commentaries aren`t restricted to the NAB, either. Even the Revised Standard Version has a couple of questionable commentaries re OT books.

i heard a Scripture scholar say (disapprovingly) that a New Jerusalem (i think) Bible footnote describes Cherubim as creatures from Babylonian mythology.

Imagine the footnotes R Funk and Co (The Jesus Seminar) would have dreamed up!

One of these decades, ill purchase a Haydock Douay-Rheims! Its commentaries, combined with the RSV prose, would make a good combo. Plus Scott Hahn et al.
 
+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into ALL this Bible’s versions thereafter . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”**
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** ewtn.com website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**It’s oft been reported that Pope Benedict XVI ** personally uses the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE).Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …**​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

NAB [The New American Bible} with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991) [also a paraphrase not a word for word translation]. It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​
. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Word+​
 
Jesus_123 said:
+Mother Angelica of worldwide…
Click to expand...
Okie, didn’t answer the OP’s questions.

BTW, is the new revised standard bible the same one that is promoted by CAF, or is that different from the revised 2nd edition, which i just bought? All this is confusing. :confused:
 
Garyjohn2 said:
Okie, didn’t answer the OP’s questions.

BTW, is the new revised standard bible the same one that is promoted by CAF, or is that different from the revised 2nd edition, which i just bought? All this is confusing. :confused:
Click to expand...
It’s a different one. The NRSV-CE is the RSV-CE with inclusive language, while the RSV-2CE is the RSV-CE modified a little more to fit the Catholic Church’s teachings a little better. I too am interested in a good answer to the OP’s questions. :cool:
 
Because the commentaries are vague and often liberal and not representative in FULL of traditional Catholic theology.
 
+My original post on this thread was posted to illustrate the fact that the Vatican itself has had grave problems with the New American Bible . . . and rejected the one that is being sold in the marketplace today . . . owing to completely unacceptable use of “inclusive language” . . . the commentaries aren’t the only problem with the NAB translation . . . the creators of those commentaries didn’t just translate . . . they radically and arbitrarily changed the centuries old Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . .** God’s** Holy Word . . . and have attempted to revise it according a radical feminist agenda of our age . . .
:signofcross:
CDF NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE LITURGY

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], 1995

[In 1995 the **Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued “secret norms” to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the United States) to guide their revision of the Lectionary used at Mass. Prior to this time the Congregation had REJECTED two versions of Scripture (the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] and the Revised New American Bible [NAB]) for use in the Liturgy,

**owing to the unacceptable use of inclusive language. **
These norms remained “secret,” even from most bishops, until just prior to the June 1997 meeting of the bishops’ conference. This meeting approved, by subsequent mail ballot, a version of the Lectionary agreed upon by a working committee of Vatican officials and US bishops in March 1997. This Lectionary conforms to the previously issued Norms. …]
  1. The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the :bible1: Biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.
  2. The **first principle **with respect to :bible1: Biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language used by the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred :bible1: Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. “Dei Verbum” III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.
  3. The translation of ** Scripture** should faithfully reflect the :bible1: **Word of God **in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant mode of human expression
without “correction” or “improvement” in service of modern sensitivities

a) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.

b) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

4/l.** The natural gender of “personae” in the Bible,** including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2. The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts **must not be changed **insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3. In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional Biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained.

4/4. Similarly, in keeping with the Church’s tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5. There shall be NO systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text.

4/6. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

To read the rest of the Holy See’s Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith’s publication please cllick on the following link:

:compcoff: Link: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNORMS.HTM

[Adoremus Bulletin, III, No. 5, July/August 1997]
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . in dedication to our Father Who Art in Heaven+​
 
Jesus_123 said:
+My original post on this thread was posted to illustrate the fact that the Vatican itself has had grave problems with the New American Bible . . .
Click to expand...
This is good info, thank you. I appreciate the response, but I have to say your posts are a little hard to read, with all the sizings and colors and such. 🙂 It’s ok though.

In any case, what are we to do? Don’t the US Bishops rigorously go through these translations and notes before they are approved? If they do, shouldn’t we honor their decision? If they don’t, are we to honor it anyways? Are we in a position to judge what is rigorous enough or not? I don’t know the answers to these.

If the Vatican “rejects” these translations, but our more local Bishops approve them, what are we to do?

This post, and original post, is not about the NAB translation. It is about the authority of the Bishops, their education and competence when it comes to approving texts, our right to disagree with them, and our appropriate expression of that disagreement.
 
The biggest fault of the NAB commentary is the modernist theory that the New Testament is not the testimony of eyewitnesses or writers under the supervision of eyewitnesses, but the result of community development.

The modernist principle is that no one, not even Jesus Christ can see the future. Mark 13 describes the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BC (King Nabucodonosor destroys the city too) and applies this as preimage to the somewhat different destruction of the second Temple: no King and only the Temple is destroyed the city was saved. Consequently Mark had to be written on or after 70 AD, and the rest of the Gospels after that.

The tradition theory is: first is Matthews Logia (collection of Jesus’ sermons) written 36 AD , this was used either by Mark (between 42 and 45 AD under the supervision of Peter) on the sixties Luke (under the supervision of Paul) and also the present second edition of Matthew. This theory completely explains the so called Synoptic problem (Logia and Mark as common source).
 
Some Bishops don’t care for their flock. What makes you think they will be careful of Bibles much less people?
 
The Vatican corrected the NAB for the leactionary read during mass before they let it be used for if I remember right it was too inclusive and/or something? But the Vatican wouldn’t use it as is without the their corrections in church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top