Why Do the Notes and Introductions in the NAB read like a non believer wrote them?

[jimmy]

I have a Haydock Bible but it’s so massive it’s hard to carry around. I wish they would make a personal sized edition. Even the Jerusalem Bible has liberal notes.

The other bibles mentioned all are good ones but what I want is a** modern Catholic Study Bible** with good notes so I don’t have to rely on my old Evangelical Bibles to defend sacred scripture. I don’t think one exists. I hear that there is one with just the NT, but most of the liberals attack the OT.

The Ignatius Study bible is a modern catholic study bible. Scott Hahn did the notes.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

Fair enough, the objections to certain passage interpretations.
Our pastor taught scripture in seminary for many years and does not like the translation either.

I mainly concerned with the OP’s talk about fables, and non-believers writing the notes etc…

The transmission and interpretation of scripture can be almost horrifying in it’s messiness. There are literally thousands of scripture interpretation “threads” or families over the centuries.
In some cases, copyists’ column notes even became part of scripture!
Copyists lost their place while copying and mixed up the verse sequences. Those errors became part of scripture. It’s an incredibly messy endeavor. Human beings are really messy creatures and make lots of mistakes. We also tell stories to convey absolute truths. That truth is still truth, because it is God’s inspired truth, even though conveyed by human beings.

I don’t study scripture to look for facts and contradictions, I read it prayerfully. Interpreting scripture requires training and expertise, just like physics or chemistry does. If you’re going to study scripture you can’t demand definitive answers for many of these things (like the multiple stories of Paul’s conversions for instance), because definitive answers don’t exist, and there is no sense pretending they do. As Sirach says, scripture must be read through the eyes of faith.

I really was not referring to fables, unless the Story of Adam and Eve or of Noah were fables. Jonah could be a moral fable as well as the book of Job, and that does not take away from the authority of these works, but if you say that Genesis is just a bunch of fables, then the foundation of the Bible collapses. Don’t take my statement to mean that God created the Universe in a week, I recognize that for God a day is as a thousand years…or billions…but what about original sin? Is that a fable?

 

[clem456]

I really was not referring to fables, unless the Story of Adam and Eve or of Noah were fables. Jonah could be a moral fable as well as the book of Job, and that does not take away from the authority of these works, but if you say that Genesis is just a bunch of fables, then the foundation of the Bible collapses. Don’t take my statement to mean that God created the Universe in a week, I recognize that for God a day is as a thousand years…or billions…but what about original sin? Is that a fable?

Ok gotcha.
No, original sin is not a fable.

 

[Gorgias]

Contrast the Confraternity with the NAB/RE:

The OP is discussing the notes, not the translation itself. Nevertheless, let’s look at a couple of your assertions that are easy to counter…

1. Hell exists in it! - the word “Hell” is not in the NAB/RE

Actually, the NAB’s translation is better, using ‘Gehenna’ when Jesus and James said ‘Gehenna’ and ‘Tartarus’ when Peter said Tartarus, and not arbitrarily changing these references to ‘hell’.

1. Saint Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ, not merely the “presence.” 2 Corinthians 2:10

Actually, prosopon is only translated ‘person’ in one other place in the Bible; in all other instances, it’s translated ‘face’ or ‘appearance’ or ‘presence’. The RSV, too, translates this as ‘presence’. The question here is whether Paul is making a doctrinal statement about sacramental forgiveness, or if he’s saying something completely different…

1. The NAB/RE notes for Mary’s “Magnificat” basically allege that Luke either made it up or essentially copied and pasted from elsewhere.

That’s an unfair summary of the note, which simply states that there isn’t a strong textual connection between the Magnificat and the event of the visit of Mary to Elizabeth, and that it ‘may have been’ a Jewish Christian hymn. In addition, it notes that some Latin versions of Luke 1 have Elizabeth as the author of the Magnificat.

 

[Gorgias]

1 Corinthians 3:15 ~ But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

The text of ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.

Catholics often use 1 Cor 3:15 as a proof-text for Purgatory.

Then perhaps we should stop proof-texting!

More to the point, perhaps we should stop using this verse as some sort of ‘gotcha’ citation for purgatory – since it fills that role rather poorly, and is easy to refute, as such!

 

[Gorgias]

eyesoftheworld:

what I want is a modern Catholic Study Bible with good notes so I don’t have to rely on my old Evangelical Bibles to defend sacred scripture. I don’t think one exists. I hear that there is one with just the NT, but most of the liberals attack the OT.

The Ignatius Study bible is a modern catholic study bible. Scott Hahn did the notes.

I think that’s the one that eyesoftheworld is referencing; the ‘Scott Hahn’ version currently exists as a single volume NT, but there’s not yet a full OT & NT version. (Note that there is an Ignatius RSV-CE, but it’s not the version with the study notes; you seem to be conflating the two here…)

 

[eyesoftheworld]

I think that’s the one that eyesoftheworld is referencing; the ‘Scott Hahn’ version currently exists as a single volume NT, but there’s not yet a full OT & NT version. (Note that there is an Ignatius RSV-CE, but it’s not the version with the study notes; you seem to be conflating the two here…)

I hear good things about this but right now I am reading through the OT, something I have never done.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think it is quite fair, first of all, to question the ability or motivation behind the NAB translators. The Confraternity OT, begun in the 50’s and translating from the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, eventually found its way into the original NAB. The scholars of the NAB and NABRE are well respected in the field of biblical scholarship, some of them have been members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. There has been indeed a few Protestant scholars on the translation committees but this is simply in accord with Dei Verbum 22.

Yes Hell exists, but the Greek word behind it is typically Gehenna or sometimes Hades (Mt 16). If the sacred authors used different words, should not the translation reflect this when appropriate? Also, if one is willing to take the time to look up the history behind Gehenna, one will have a far greater appreciate as to why Jesus referred to the horrors that had historically had taken place at the Valley of Hinnon. (2 kings 23:10). Check out Matthew 5:22 in the NAB and RSV-2CE. The NAB is more literal and the note is far more helpful in the NAB than in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.

Gehenna is both literary and geographical in nature. Hell is doctrinal. No one has even told me to go to Gehenna, for example.

The human mind is wired to seek stability over chaos, to desire a foundation upon which to build, a basis for thought. The “older” bible translations rely less on textual criticism and more on the Tradition of the Church - which is much more solid and consistent than the multifarious manuscripts and scholarly opinions employed today. Modern scripture scholarship tends more to entertain all (or at least more) possibilities than preceding generations, with Tradition perhaps considered more a method of nuancing the translation. The problem with this is that, before author set to work, Tradition was all there was to produce the scriptures. All scripture contains a degree of retrospect for example, none of it being recorded as it occurred. To simplify, Paul taught for years before he ever wrote. And, since what he wrote did not conflict with what he taught, even his recollective ability is contained in his writings.

My beef is that a little too much historical-critical methodology has been employed in our age. While it most certainly has its place, its place is not to control or dominate the conversation. We must also recognize this perfectly human attitude which holds that, the further we are away from a given situation, the more we must know about it. Recorded information, such as scripture, being also subject to the observable effects of entropy, and nature abhorring a void, the more opportunity for innovation there is, both in modern thought, and the work it produces. The inculturation of the translators creeps in, and what concerns me is that we live in an age of relativism. Thus, we will see some of this reflected in the intros and footnotes - if not in the translation itself. It is a mindset which cannot help but flavor the work.

Examine a D-R or a Confraternity in comparison to the NAB or /RE. The contrast is less so in the translation itself (although it may be seen), but more so in the introductions and footnotes, which are assembled with a certain level of opinion. The notes and intros in a pocket Confraternity NT are solid and confidence-inspiring to the human mind - exactly as intended in the scriptures. Switch to the NAB and cloudiness and doubt creep in, rather than increased clarity. To me, this demonstrates a greater reliance on “modern” or “current” scholarship and textual criticism, and less on the Tradition of the Church. Simply put, I don’t like it.

 

[Gorgias]

I hear good things about this but right now I am reading through the OT, something I have never done.

Then read on, brother! Nothing makes the NT come alive like an understanding of how the OT prefigures and anticipates it!

 

[mccorm45]

Gehenna is both literary and geographical in nature. Hell is doctrinal. No one has even told me to go to Gehenna, for example.

The human mind is wired to seek stability over chaos, to desire a foundation upon which to build, a basis for thought. The “older” bible translations rely less on textual criticism and more on the Tradition of the Church - which is much more solid and consistent than the multifarious manuscripts and scholarly opinions employed today. Modern scripture scholarship tends more to entertain all (or at least more) possibilities than preceding generations, with Tradition perhaps considered more a method of nuancing the translation. The problem with this is that, before author set to work, Tradition was all there was to produce the scriptures. All scripture contains a degree of retrospect for example, none of it being recorded as it occurred. To simplify, Paul taught for years before he ever wrote. And, since what he wrote did not conflict with what he taught, even his recollective ability is contained in his writings.

My beef is that a little too much historical-critical methodology has been employed in our age. While it most certainly has its place, its place is not to control or dominate the conversation. We must also recognize this perfectly human attitude which holds that, the further we are away from a given situation, the more we must know about it. Recorded information, such as scripture, being also subject to the observable effects of entropy, and nature abhorring a void, the more opportunity for innovation there is, both in modern thought, and the work it produces. The inculturation of the translators creeps in, and what concerns me is that we live in an age of relativism. Thus, we will see some of this reflected in the intros and footnotes - if not in the translation itself. It is a mindset which cannot help but flavor the work.

Examine a D-R or a Confraternity in comparison to the NAB or /RE. The contrast is less so in the translation itself (although it may be seen), but more so in the introductions and footnotes, which are assembled with a certain level of opinion. The notes and intros in a pocket Confraternity NT are solid and confidence-inspiring to the human mind - exactly as intended in the scriptures. Switch to the NAB and cloudiness and doubt creep in, rather than increased clarity. To me, this demonstrates a greater reliance on “modern” or “current” scholarship and textual criticism, and less on the Tradition of the Church. Simply put, I don’t like it.

I have no problem with much of what you have written here. I think there needs to be a balance concerning the notes, the NAB being certainly too concerned with the historical-critical notes. The NABRE NT is being revised currently and there is going to be an overhaul of the notes. They are attempting to have the Bible approved for both study and use in the liturgy. It’ll take a few years.

Back to Gehenna, that is where a note should discuss its connection to hell, which the NAB does. The word is Gehenna though, not hell in the Greek.

 

[po18guy]

The OP is discussing the notes, not the translation itself. Nevertheless, let’s look at a couple of your assertions that are easy to counter… Actually, the NAB’s translation is better, using ‘Gehenna’ when Jesus and James said ‘Gehenna’ and ‘Tartarus’ when Peter said Tartarus, and not arbitrarily changing these references to ‘hell’. Actually, prosopon is only translated ‘person’ in one other place in the Bible; in all other instances, it’s translated ‘face’ or ‘appearance’ or ‘presence’. The RSV, too, translates this as ‘presence’. The question here is whether Paul is making a doctrinal statement about sacramental forgiveness, or if he’s saying something completely different… That’s an unfair summary of the note, which simply states that there isn’t a strong textual connection between the Magnificat and the event of the visit of Mary to Elizabeth, and that it ‘may have been’ a Jewish Christian hymn. In addition, it notes that some Latin versions of Luke 1 have Elizabeth as the author of the Magnificat.

Well, we can hammer the notes even more easily. Your points are technically true - but are they accurate? Jesus said “Gehenna” but did He mean that one would spend eternity in an Israeli valley where corpses were burned? Does not the doctrine of hell describe what Jesus meant, rather than what He said?

No one has ever explained to me just how to forgive sins outside of the presence of Christ. Can it even be done by a Christian?

Further, should the Church change Mary’s “Magnificat” to the “Proclamat” for the sake of literary accuracy?

Should the “Hail, Mary” prayer be revised to read “favored one”? Was Saint Jerome completely wrong in the texts he used, and in the result he obtained from them?

Your view depends upon the texts which you are using. A different text produces a different result. What risks being lost is meaning. Words have meaning. Should Church Tradition, which fed the first two or three generations of Christians, be downplayed?

I look at the big picture. The implementation of Vatican II has been less than optimal, if not a failure - which is only now being corrected. The same zeitgeist which motivated the implementation of VII held some amount of sway over the translation and notes of the NAB.

Unless one does not believe in the spiritual realm and its influence.

 

[po18guy]

Back to Gehenna, that is where a note should discuss its connection to hell, which the NAB does. The word is Gehenna though, not hell in the Greek.

Gehenna describes what Jesus said, and what his audience 2,000 years ago understood. Hell describes what he meant and what you and I, as average Catholics today, understand. Context must be related to doctrine. One way to accomplish this is via the text - the other being via the notes.

 

[TMC]

It is odd (to say the least) to see so many Catholics attacking the New American Bible and it is particularly disturbing to see the attacks on the late Father Brown.

The NAB notes do NOT read like they were written by non-believers - they read like they were written by biblical scholars and theologians, because they were. The NAB is approved and used by the US Bishops (the USCCB), and it is the bible you find on the bishops’ website - complete with notes and comments. It is also on the English bible you will find on the Vatican website - with notes and comments. The USCCB website describes the current edition of the NAB “is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors.”

As for Fr. Ray Brown - he was a Catholic priest and a prominent bible scholar. He was twice appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission (By Paul VI, and then again by John Paul II). For a Catholic to refer to this dedicated servant of the Church as a “Modernist” or a non-believer is beyond the pale.

Sorry if this post sounds cranky - but the quick way some label everything they don’t understand or don’t agree with as heretical or atheistic is deserving of some annoyance, IMHO.

 

[sirach2v4]

How can the Church teach that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit if the Bible contains fables and things that according to the notes probably never happened?

In a lot of human knowledge, there is a boundary to the knowledge. When it comes to the Bible, I note first that Jesus never seemed to deny anything that was in the Hebrew scripture. He even quoted from the early part of Genesis, which the “scholars” have a lot of problems with. That’s a perspective I like to keep in mind.

Second, I keep waiting for somebody to tell me which pages to tear out of the Bible, and I never get a response.

third, the Second Vatican Council issued a document on the Bible, called Verbum Dei [the word of God]. It insists that all modern techniques of scientific analysis be used in studying the Bible, including literary analysis – a study of the different types of writing there is in the Bible. Quite a lot of the OT is poetry and everything is not literal in poetic writing.

 

[CalCatholic]

It is odd (to say the least) to see so many Catholics attacking the New American Bible and it is particularly disturbing to see the attacks on the late Father Brown.

The NAB notes do NOT read like they were written by non-believers - they read like they were written by biblical scholars and theologians, because they were. The NAB is approved and used by the US Bishops (the USCCB), and it is the bible you find on the bishops’ website - complete with notes and comments. It is also on the English bible you will find on the Vatican website - with notes and comments. The USCCB website describes the current edition of the NAB “is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors.”

As for Fr. Ray Brown - he was a Catholic priest and a prominent bible scholar. He was twice appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission (By Paul VI, and then again by John Paul II). For a Catholic to refer to this dedicated servant of the Church as a “Modernist” or a non-believer is beyond the pale.

Sorry if this post sounds cranky - but the quick way some label everything they don’t understand or don’t agree with as heretical or atheistic is deserving of some annoyance, IMHO.

I agree:thumbsup:

 

[po18guy]

It is odd (to say the least) to see so many Catholics attacking the New American Bible … The NAB notes do NOT read like they were written by non-believers - they read like they were written by biblical scholars and theologians, because they were. The NAB is approved and used by the US Bishops (the USCCB), and it is the bible you find on the bishops’ website - complete with notes and comments. It is also on the English bible you will find on the Vatican website - with notes and comments. The USCCB website describes the current edition of the NAB “is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors.”

One then wonders how on earth Monsignor Ronald Knox performed this same task in 14 years for his translation of the Vulgate. As to the NAB, I don’t think that any given translation should be held above criticism. Particularly since the Vatican would not approve of the NAB or /RE in unaltered form for liturgical use. It was apparently a little too New and a little too American. The USCCB does not sell us the Vatican-approved version used in the liturgy. Why not? The USCCB holds the copyright to the NAB/RE and generates operating funds from its sale.

Doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.

As to the USCCB itself, it is also not above scrutiny, being a 501c3 tax-exempt organization. Legitimate questions have been raised about some of its other activities.

 

[mccorm45]

The vatican would not approve of the NAB or /RE in unaltered form for liturgical use. It was apparently a little too New and a little too American. Yet, the USCCB will not sell us the Vatican-approved version used in the liturgy. Why not? The USCCB holds the copyright to the NAB/RE and generates operating funds from its sale.

Doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.

The bishops and Confraternity of Christian Doctrine are working on that right now. He plan is to have a Vatican approved NAB that is available in print and used in Mass.

For more on copyright and permission for NAB follow the below link. It is comparable to other translations.
catholicbiblesblog.com/2013/07/copyright-permission-and-nabre.html

 

[po18guy]

The bishops and Confraternity of Christian Doctrine are working on that right now. He plan is to have a Vatican approved NAB that is available in print and used in Mass.

For more on copyright and permission for NAB follow the below link. It is comparable to other translations.
catholicbiblesblog.com/2013/07/copyright-permission-and-nabre.html

We certainly need help here in the American Church. I cannot believe that they were blindsided by the Vatican on the liturgical usefulness of the NAB. Did the USCCB operate in a vacuum?

 

[mccorm45]

We certainly need help here in the American Church. I cannot believe that they were blindsided by the Vatican on the liturgical usefulness of the NAB. Did the USCCB operate in a vacuum?

Things like this occurred in other places. Look at the history of the NRSV’s eventual acceptance in the Canadian lectionary. It took almost twenty years, with numerous mis-steps.

On another note, there is a new bible available called the New African Bible, which uses the NABRE. It’s notes and commentary are entirely fresh, composed by African biblical scholars, most notably Cardinal Turkson. It is available for purchase through the Pauline sisters of Africa:
catholicbiblesblog.com/2013/08/the-nab-new-african-bible.html

 

[po18guy]

Things like this occurred in other places. Look at the history of the NRSV’s eventual acceptance in the Canadian lectionary. It took almost twenty years, with numerous mis-steps.

On another note, there is a new bible available called the New African Bible, which uses the NABRE. It’s notes and commentary are entirely fresh, composed by African biblical scholars, most notably Cardinal Turkson. It is available for purchase through the Pauline sisters of Africa:
catholicbiblesblog.com/2013/08/the-nab-new-african-bible.html

That sounds quite intriguing. I will have a look into it.