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

[Gorgias]

Your points are technically true - but are they accurate?

LOL! I didn’t realize that there was a distinction between ‘truth’ and ‘accuracy’!

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?

Then interpret the passage when you proclaim it; don’t change the passage to fit your interpretation.

You seem to be advocating a sort of ‘dynamic equivalence’ in Scripture interpretation – I’m shocked!

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?

And here’s another problem with attempting to insert doctrine into the text of Scripture, rather than reading doctrine as it appears in Scripture: you’ve decided that this passage is speaking of the sacramentality of Reconciliation. But what if it’s not? I would argue, I think, that he’s referring back to the wording he used in 1 Cor – when making an appeal to excommunicate the man committing incest, Paul called upon Christ as his authority; similarly, here, Christ is Paul’s authority in his forgiveness of Corinthians. Not necessarily an appeal to sacramentality, per se, but to the authority of Christ which resides in Paul…

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

Keep the prayer the same, of course. Yet, although I don’t love the translation here, it does make sense. μεγαλύνω can mean that “I make” something great or “I proclaim” that something is great. The meaning here is clearly the latter: Mary isn’t doing anything for God’s greatness, but is simply declaring that God is great. ‘Magnify’, while traditional – and perhaps archaically spot-on – takes on an active sense of doing or creating in contemporary English; this would be the wrong translation here. Does it hurt our ears? Yep. Is it a bad translation? I might argue that it is not…

Was Saint Jerome completely wrong in the texts he used, and in the result he obtained from them?

St Jerome made a judgment call on how best to translate a tricky Greek participle. Does the Greek use the word ‘full’? Nope. Is “full of grace” a reasonable translation? Yep. Is it perfect? Nope. Are there other reasonable ways to translate κεχαριτωμένη? Yep. (I’m not going to argue that ‘highly favored one’ is the best among them, but to argue that “full of grace” is the only reasonable translation is foolish…!)

Should Church Tradition, which fed the first two or three generations of Christians, be downplayed?

No, but neither should later manuscript evidence and better understanding of the source languages be downplayed!

The same zeitgeist which motivated the implementation of VII held some amount of sway over the translation and notes of the NAB.

And there we have it… it’s the fault of Vatican II. It’s always the fault of Vatican II. I think we should declare a Catholic Godwin’s Law of sorts… whenever someone resorts to the claim “it’s Vatican II’s fault”, the discussion is over!

 

[po18guy]

LOL! I didn’t realize that there was a distinction between ‘truth’ and ‘accuracy’!

I speak of accuracy in conveying the Holy Spirit’s intent. Why not use “hell” since hell is doctrinal and Gehenna is not? We are speaking of the sacred scriptures, not some red book entitled “The Quotations of Chairman Jesus”!

We must recall here that the Church is facing down the specter of 50 years of poor catechesis, a de-emphasis on teaching the four last things, and a declining belief in hell.

“La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu’il n’existe pas." (“The devil’s finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist.”) - Charles Baudelaire

You seem to be advocating a sort of ‘dynamic equivalence’ in Scripture interpretation – I’m shocked!

I know of no other bible on earth in the English language that does not use “hell” Are American Catholics either so stupid that they cannot undertstand the concept of hell, or are they so advanced that they only grasp the concept of Gehenna? Makes me wonder why the catechism uses hell…

And here’s another problem with attempting to insert doctrine into the text of Scripture

Do I need an attorney before answering? I think that you might be accusing based on difference of opinion. How can we, with intellectual honesty, separate scripture from doctrine?

…rather than reading doctrine as it appears in Scripture: you’ve decided that this passage is…

What else am I thinking?

speaking of the sacramentality of Reconciliation.

Which commentary is this from?

Keep the prayer the same, of course. Yet, although I don’t love the translation here, it does make sense.

Everything in the NAB/RE makes sense or I doubt that it would have the Nihil Obstat. The question on so many minds is: does it accurately convery the meaning and intent of hte Holy Spirit? I defer to Jimmy Akin, who calls the NAB a “squishy” translation. Squishy, as in wiggle room. Is that how the Holy Spirit intended to convey revealed truth to succeeding generations?

Do you have a Douay-Confraternity bible, say from the late 40s or early-mid 50s? $10 on eBay. Read the Confraternity NT, intros and notes and you will be amazed at the contrast.

St Jerome made a judgment call on how best to translate a tricky Greek participle. Does the Greek use the word ‘full’? Nope. Is “full of grace” a reasonable translation? Yep. Is it perfect? Nope.

The perfect translation is no translation. It would be Gabriel’s words in Aramaic, except we don’t have them. Is “full of grace” inaccurate? Misleading? Was Mary partially full of grace? The Church has declared the Vulgate (and its approved derivatives) to be a sure, reliable source.

In an age where the Body of Christ is badly divided, and in which evil advances because of this, should not a Catholic bible translation defend and demonstrate, as closely as possible, the Catholic faith, from which those selfsame scriptures came? The Church was One in Jerome’s day - no “us versus them” mentality or bias. Either man chose Jerome to translate, or the Holy Spirit did. I tend to fall in with Jerome as to his translation - bearing in mind that perfection in translation is impossible. That is why we have the Church.

Since the rebellion in the 16th century, one of the primary charges against the Church is that of man-made doctrine. If there is a perceived difference between Catholic scripture and doctrine, that serves only to fuel the fire and broaden the gap. We defend against those accusations here at CAF on a daily basis.

No, but neither should later manuscript evidence and better understanding of the source languages be downplayed!

If indeed it is better understanding. It certainly is “modern understanding”, but times and biases change. I ask once again: why are our “modern scholars” so much more enlightened than all who went before? The passage of time with its attendant entropic effect indicates that they may be at increased risk of error.

And there we have it… it’s the fault of Vatican II. It’s always the fault of Vatican II.

Hold it right there! I did in no way, shape or form, blame Vatican II. “Zeitgeist” Did you see that in my reply? Look again - it’s there. The zeitgeist drove the admittedly poor implementation of VII. Do you not see any correlation at all here between a spirit-driven poor implementation of a council, and the adoption of a controversial (“squishy”) scripture translation? None at all?

 

[TimothyH]

My daily Bible doesn’t have notes or commentary. If I happen to be reading a Bible with commentary, I ignore it. Problem solved.

The early desert father’s walked off into the deserts of Egypt with hand written scrolls. They didn’t have commentary but prayed about it instead. If they couldn’t figure something out then they re-read it about a bazillion times and prayed some more. If it still didn’t click then they figured that God didn’t think it was important for their salvation and moved on.

The Bible is inspired text - where God comes to meet us and speak with us. Commentary can never do that. The inspired text is like lobster and filet mignon. The commentary is like the sprig of parsley garnish on the plate.

Pray two minutes for every minute spent reading the Bible. Ignore the commentary. Stick to the inspired text. Problem solved.

-Tim-

 

[po18guy]

My daily Bible doesn’t have notes or commentary. If I happen to be reading a Bible with commentary, I ignore it. Problem solved.

The early desert father’s walked off into the deserts of Egypt with hand written scrolls. They didn’t have commentary but prayed about it instead. If they couldn’t figure something out then they re-read it about a bazillion times and prayed some more. If it still didn’t click then they figured that God didn’t think it was important for their salvation and moved on.

The Bible is inspired text - where God comes to meet us and speak with us. Commentary can never do that. The inspired text is like lobster and filet mignon. The commentary is like the sprig of parsley garnish on the plate.

Pray two minutes for every minute spent reading the Bible. Ignore the commentary. Stick to the inspired text. Problem solved.

-Tim-

Excellent advice, Tim!

I know that I beat the Confraternity Bible drum as loudly as anyone, but each one of my copies has the Prayer to the Holy Spirit printed in the pages preceding the scriptures. Why don’t bibles have that any more???

 

[Gorgias]

I speak of accuracy in conveying the Holy Spirit’s intent.

In translating the Bible, we’re not interpreting the Holy Spirit’s intent – that, after all, is the job of the magisterium. Rather, we’re simply taking the words we were given, in the source language, and translating them into a target language.

Why not use “hell” since hell is doctrinal and Gehenna is not?

Again, the Bible is not the Catechism. Whereas the Catechism teaches doctrine – based on what the Bible actually says! – the Bible faithfully transmits God’s self-revelation. We’re not in the business of changing what it says because we think we know what it means…

We must recall here that the Church is facing down the specter of 50 years of poor catechesis, a de-emphasis on teaching the four last things, and a declining belief in hell.

I know of no other bible on earth in the English language that does not use “hell”. Are American Catholics either so stupid that they cannot undertstand the concept of hell, o

Mark 9:42 (and 11 other occurrences) –
Vulgate: Et si scandalizaverit te manus tua, abscide illam: bonum est tibi debilem introire in vitam, quam duas manus habentem ire in gehennam, in ignem inextinguibilem

Were Catholics of the first 1700 years of the Church’s history so stupid that they cannot understand the concept of hell? So why is ‘gehenna’, which was what the Scriptures say, good enough for them but not for us?

Makes me wonder why the catechism uses hell…

Now you’re starting to get it! The Catechism explains the doctrine found in Scripture! Attaboy!

How can we, with intellectual honesty, separate scripture from doctrine?

We do it all the time: some Protestants espouse the belief that ‘Scripture interprets itself’ – that it speaks doctrine plainly – but that is not the belief of the Catholic Church. Scripture is the basis for doctrine; but we don’t change the words of Scripture to make a doctrinal point.

What else am I thinking?

LOL… fair enough! However, your insistence on the phrase “in the person of Christ” screams sacramentality. Tell me – did you mean the phrase in any other way? Of course not.

In an age where the Body of Christ is badly divided, and in which evil advances because of this, should not a Catholic bible translation defend and demonstrate, as closely as possible, the Catholic faith, from which those selfsame scriptures came?

Not if it has to change the words of Scripture in an attempt to describe doctrine (as opposed, of course, to an attempt to express meaning, which is the intent of a translation).

I ask once again: why are our “modern scholars” so much more enlightened than all who went before?

Access to better manuscript evidence and a better understanding of ancient cultures, idioms, and languages, to name just two.

The passage of time with its attendant entropic effect indicates that they may be at increased risk of error.

Have I read you correctly? Are you really suggesting that the Church is in error in its approval of a translation of Scripture? Really?

Hold it right there! I did in no way, shape or form, blame Vatican II. “Zeitgeist” Did you see that in my reply? Look again - it’s there.

So, it’s not Vatican II, but “the spirit of Vatican II”? That’s just as weak a whipping-boy as any… (Pope Benedict would disagree with your ‘hermeneutic of discontinuity’ assertions…)

 

[livingwordunity]

I have a New American Bible. The NAB translation of the scripture verses is passable, but the commentary borders on heretical at times. An example is how in the NAB the Blessed Virgin Mary is conspicuously omitted from the commentary about the woman of Revelation 12 even though the woman of Revelation 12 was specifically referenced as Our Lady by Pope Pius XII in his infallible apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus (Defining the Dogma of the Assumption). The New American Bible commentators are generally modernist (liberal) scholars who ignore the most important method of biblical interpretation which is to interpret it in light of Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit.

I only use the RSV-CE with commentary. I heard that the Navarre Bible has an excellent commentary. And the 1966 English translation Jerusalem Bible (not to be confused with the inclusive language “New Jerusalem Bible”) is a good one. As a rule of thumb, I avoid any bible with the word “new” in the name of it because it doesn’t make sense to read something that was written in an ancient context with a modern spin forced upon it. And whenever a bible calls itself “new” it’s usually a dead giveaway that it will have inclusive language and a modernist spin.

 

[TimothyH]

Excellent advice, Tim!

I know that I beat the Confraternity Bible drum as loudly as anyone, but each one of my copies has the Prayer to the Holy Spirit printed in the pages preceding the scriptures. Why don’t bibles have that any more???

I don’t know why but I have a particular little devotion, a secret devotion really, to the Holy Spirit. I don’t talk about it much, but the thought of God dwelling inside of me gives me goosebumps and takes my breath away at times.

There is a most wonderful book which explains our faith from the perspective of the Holy Spirit, how everything - the Church, Mary, Jesus, the Scriptures - everything was prepared for us as a gift by the Holy Spirit.

The Paraclete: A Manual of Instruction and Devotion by Marianus Fiege.

bks8.books.google.com/books?id=D7X2ugAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE70ZG0fRPEOX_iMgfLdwwDwaj5sWOn8VaryCpX50VxTSRHDVbeJu79NEjTWfaK3HPkt6bMMEVUF6duoIcxV7CEGEL4e5d5QHZm1lpPPF1P-zG1RnJCy7YZflMsy-gZCgG2p8IEbp

-Tim-

 

[eyesoftheworld]

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 disagree. The notes are heretical. At points the notes suggest that the authors of the scriptures just made stuff up out of thin air…the suggestion that the Magnificat
was plagiarized by Luke (with no evidence) is offensive to Our Lady.

Be cranky all you want, but I respectfully disagree. The NAB notes are heretical at worse and offensive at best.

 

[mccorm45]

I have a New American Bible. The NAB translation of the scripture verses is passable, but the commentary borders on heretical at times. An example is how in the NAB the Blessed Virgin Mary is conspicuously omitted from the commentary about the woman of Revelation 12 even though the woman of Revelation 12 was specifically referenced as Our Lady by Pope Pius XII in his infallible apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus (Defining the Dogma of the Assumption). The New American Bible commentators are generally modernist (liberal) scholars who ignore the most important method of biblical interpretation which is to interpret it in light of Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit.

I only use the RSV-CE with commentary. I heard that the Navarre Bible has an excellent commentary. And the 1966 English translation Jerusalem Bible (not to be confused with the inclusive language “New Jerusalem Bible”) is a good one. As a rule of thumb, I avoid any bible with the word “new” in the name of it because it doesn’t make sense to read something that was written in an ancient context with a modern spin forced upon it. And whenever a bible calls itself “new” it’s usually a dead giveaway that it will have inclusive language and a modernist spin.

You might want to check out what the original RSV-CE has for a note on Rev 12:1 and Exodus 16:14.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

You might want to check out what the original RSV-CE has for a note on Rev 12:1 and Exodus 16:14.

Your blog is outstanding…I’ve been reading it for about a year.

 

[Linda_Marie]

I have some NABs that I’d like to get rid of. How might I do that?

The approved method of disposing of sacramentals (like blessed palm fronds from Palm Sunday) or old worn out bibles is to burn them. This is not disrespectful, but rather prevents them from being used for a profane purpose. A blessed Bible is a material sacramental. Even if it hasn’t been blessed, I would have a problem just tossing it in the recycling.


Disposing of Old, Worn-out
Sacramentals & Consecrated Material

When a material sacramental becomes so worn that it can no longer be used as a sacramental, a Catholic won’t casually toss it into the trash. To prevent desecration, the sacramental should be returned to the earthly elements. Holy water, for example, should be poured into a hole dug in the earth, in a spot no one would walk over. Combustible sacramentals, such as scapulars and holy books, should be burned and then buried.

 

[TMC]

I disagree. The notes are heretical. At points the notes suggest that the authors of the scriptures just made stuff up out of thin air…the suggestion that the Magnificat
was plagiarized by Luke (with no evidence) is offensive to Our Lady.

Be cranky all you want, but I respectfully disagree. The NAB notes are heretical at worse and offensive at best.

Well… given that the notes were written by and for Catholic bishops and theologians, and approved and published by Catholic bishops, and further put forward by the Vatican, if the notes are heretical then the entire Church hierarchy must be hip-deep in heresy – which it obviously is not.

I find the notes to be pretty much mainstream scholarship - hardly controversial. They are certainly consistent with the Church’s teaching, and there is nothing in them a Catholic should find offensive.

 

[po18guy]

In translating the Bible, we’re not interpreting the Holy Spirit’s intent – that, after all, is the job of the magisterium.

Has someone hacked your account?

 

[livingwordunity]

You might want to check out what the original RSV-CE has for a note on Rev 12:1 and Exodus 16:14.

Why? I have the standard blue cover RSV-CE, and the comment in it for Rev 12:17 says, “Mary, the mother of the Messiah, must also be included in the meaning.” And my RSV-CE Ignatius Study Bible says, “The woman of Revelation 12 is both an individual person and a collective symbol. She is Mary, the Mother of the Messiah and the spiritual mother of his disciples. But she also represents the faithful of Israel, crying out for the Messiah, as well as the Church, attacked by the devil for witnessing to Jesus.” If it left out something in the original RSV-CE it was corrected.
So, what’s your point?

 

[eyesoftheworld]

Well… given that the notes were written by and for Catholic bishops and theologians, and approved and published by Catholic bishops, and further put forward by the Vatican, if the notes are heretical then the entire Church hierarchy must be hip-deep in heresy – which it obviously is not.

I find the notes to be pretty much mainstream scholarship - hardly controversial. They are certainly consistent with the Church’s teaching, and there is nothing in them a Catholic should find offensive.

Are you reading the same thread I am reading? A lot of Catholics ARE OFFENDED by these heretical notes.

I have my doubts that the Bishops read the notes. I also agree with you that the notes are mainstream secular scholarship. Which you apparently seem to agree with.

• Did Luke plagiarize the Canticle of Mary from a no longer extent Jewish hymn? Where is the proof?
• Where is the evidence that 2 Chronicles 20 is fiction?
• Maybe Jesus really didn’t preach the sermon on the mount. It could be a “free composition” that Luke borrowed from Buddhist writings that seemed to fit the message he was trying to convey. Where do you draw the line with this garbage?

How do your beloved mainstream scholars come up with this ****? Are they privy to secret sources that Saint Jerome did not have access to?

I don’t wish to argue with you, but if you think this is mainstream Catholic thought, and if that is correct, maybe I need to return to Evangelicalism. But I don’t think it is mainstream Catholic thought. I am new to this site, but I just think you are the resident outlier.

 

[mccorm45]

Why? I have the standard blue cover RSV-CE, and the comment in it for Rev 12:17 says, “Mary, the mother of the Messiah, must also be included in the meaning.” And my RSV-CE Ignatius Study Bible says, “The woman of Revelation 12 is both an individual person and a collective symbol. She is Mary, the Mother of the Messiah and the spiritual mother of his disciples. But she also represents the faithful of Israel, crying out for the Messiah, as well as the Church, attacked by the devil for witnessing to Jesus.” If it left out something in the original RSV-CE it was corrected.
So, what’s your point?

I mention those because they could be accused of being “modernist” by some, most notable the one from Exodus. I believe it is the Confraternity NT that explicitly says on Rev 12 that the woman is not Mary. I would hardly accuse the translators and editors of either the Confraternity or RSV-CE as being “modernists” or “heretics” yet you can find notes in them, which if they were found in the NAB, would be labeled as such.

My point being that one should be extremely cautious of labeling approved translations in such disparaging ways. If you don’t like the NAB, read something else. There are plenty of options out there. One should consider having a couple of translations and commentaries to compare.

However, the NAB is not nearly as bad as some of its detractors claim it is. Yes, there are a half dozen or so notes which need to be revised, or at least, re-worded. They also need to have a few more theological notes to balance the historical ones. The majority are simply informative, neither “good” or “bad”.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

I mention those because they could be accused of being “modernist” by some, most notable the one from Exodus. I believe it is the Confraternity NT that explicitly says on Rev 12 that the woman is not Mary. I would hardly accuse the translators and editors of either the Confraternity or RSV-CE as being “modernists” or “heretics” yet you can find notes in them, which if they were found in the NAB, would be labeled as such.

My point being that one should be extremely cautious of labeling approved translations in such disparaging ways. If you don’t like the NAB, read something else. There are plenty of options out there. One should consider having a couple of translations and commentaries to compare.

However, the NAB is not nearly as bad as some of its detractors claim it is. Yes, there are a half dozen or so notes which need to be revised, or at least, re-worded. They also need to have a few more theological notes to balance the historical ones. The majority are simply informative, neither “good” or “bad”.

I find that “informing me” that Luke plagiarized the Canticle of Mary without evidence is simply heretical. As I read through the OT (Just Finished II Chronicles) that there are dozens of notes that “inform” me that this event did not happen, or that this event was fiction…and I find myself asking these note writers “were you there? How do you know?”

As far as the translation goes, it’s not that bad. It’s the notes and the introductions of the books I find problematic. So problematic that I have to read a Protestant Study Bible to defend the integrity of the Sacred Scriptures…because there is no modern Catholic Study Bible that does so.

 

[mccorm45]

I find that “informing me” that Luke plagiarized the Canticle of Mary without evidence is simply heretical. As I read through the OT (Just Finished II Chronicles) that there are dozens of notes that “inform” me that this event did not happen, or that this event was fiction…and I find myself asking these note writers “were you there? How do you know?”

As far as the translation goes, it’s not that bad. It’s the notes and the introductions of the books I find problematic. So problematic that I have to read a Protestant Study Bible to defend the integrity of the Sacred Scriptures…because there is no modern Catholic Study Bible that does so.

Then you need the New African Bible, which uses the NABRE translations with notes, intros, and commentary from African Biblical scholars and pastors.

paulinesafrica.org/catalogue/bible/the-new-african-bible/

 

[eyesoftheworld]

Then you need the New African Bible, which uses the NABRE translations with notes, intros, and commentary from African Biblical scholars and pastors.

paulinesafrica.org/catalogue/bible/the-new-african-bible/

I saw that you posted that, and I am very interested in getting a copy. I will take an African Bishop’s opinion any day over a “mainstream” American Bishop’s opinion:thumbsup:

 

[livingwordunity]

I mention those because they could be accused of being “modernist” by some, most notable the one from Exodus. I believe it is the Confraternity NT that explicitly says on Rev 12 that the woman is not Mary. I would hardly accuse the translators and editors of either the Confraternity or RSV-CE as being “modernists” or “heretics” yet you can find notes in them, which if they were found in the NAB, would be labeled as such.

My point being that one should be extremely cautious of labeling approved translations in such disparaging ways. If you don’t like the NAB, read something else. There are plenty of options out there. One should consider having a couple of translations and commentaries to compare.

However, the NAB is not nearly as bad as some of its detractors claim it is. Yes, there are a half dozen or so notes which need to be revised, or at least, re-worded. They also need to have a few more theological notes to balance the historical ones. The majority are simply informative, neither “good” or “bad”.

You making a straw man argument. I already showed, with direct quotes, that in two different versions of the RSV-CE the commentary says that the woman in Rev 12 is the Virgin Mary. And I made the point how this interpretation of the woman in Rev 12 is glaringly absent from the NAB version’s commentary (unless you can show me a newer edition of the NAB that has corrected this). I have both versions right here in my lap to look at. I’ve had my NABs for over 10 years, so if there’s been an update to the commentary since that time I will accept that. I think this is serious because the Virgin Mary is a big deal to Catholics, and that passage of Revelation was infallibly interpreted as being about her. I’m not calling on people to burn their NABs. The NABs translation is okay. And my NAB has useful ancient maps and nice colorful pictures. But the NAB commentary is generally not good. The RSV-CE’s commentary is far superior because it interprets in light of Sacred Tradition while keeping an ear to the Magisterium.