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

[mccorm45]

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). 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.

No straw man argument from me, simply putting forward some examples of awkward notes/comments in other translations. You are right about the later note in the original RSV-CE, I had forgotten that one. Perhaps I was thinking of the Confraternity one concerning Rev 12. Yet my point remains that the Confraternity note for Rev 12 or the earlier one I mentioned, but you didn’t address, in the original RSV concerning he manna in Exodus doesn’t mean they are heretical. The Magisterium never felt it I necessary to condemn the NAB nor have the translators been censored. Many of them have served on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. I have multiple translations, using them in different circumstances. None are perfect, some are better at different places than others. That is my argument.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

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. But the RSV-CE’s commentary is far superior because it interprets in light of Sacred Tradition while keeping an ear to the Magisterium.

Maybe the NAB note writers now believe that the woman in Rev 12 is actually Madonna

 

[livingwordunity]

No straw man argument from me, simply putting forward some examples of awkward notes/comments in other translations. You are right about the later note in the original RSV-CE, I had forgotten that one. Perhaps I was thinking of the Confraternity one concerning Rev 12. Yet my point remains that the Confraternity note for Rev 12 or the earlier one I mentioned, but you didn’t address, in the original RSV concerning he manna in Exodus doesn’t mean they are heretical. The Magisterium never felt it I necessary to condemn the NAB nor have the translators been censored. Many of them have served on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. I have multiple translations, using them in different circumstances. None are perfect, some are better at different places than others. That is my argument.

You’re right. The NAB has never been officially condemned by the Church. There isn’t anything (as far as I know) in it that is enough to call it heresy. But it’s borderline. The NAB Rev 12 commentary’s omission of the Virgin Mary isn’t technically heresy. But why choose that when there are a lot of other Bibles that have a much better commentary? I only keep my NAB because I’ve had it for so long, and I don’t know what else to do with it. I keep it for the ancient maps, and the actual translation isn’t bad. Actually, I have more than one old NAB around the house.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

You’re right. The NAB has never been officially condemned by the Church.

But is has been rejected by the Vatican for use in the Liturgy since 1970 and after each revision, (which revision is NABRE, the 3rd?)…Don’t you see a problem there?

I have a feeling that Pope Francis will take the NAB off the Vatican web site. Even the NRSV is preferable.

 

[powerofk]

Okay, first of all - as for the “Hell”/“Gehenna”/“Hades” comments. Jesus’s vision of Hell was based on the Valley of Hinnom “Ge-Hinnom”/“Gehenna”. The early writers obviously used the word “Gehenna”, which was the transliterated form of the Aramaic. The reason why most English Bibles use the word “Hell”? In English, Hell was originally word used by the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic tribes to describe the abode of the dead. It comes from the times when these tribes were pagan, and, like Hades in Greek mythology, was ruled over by a deity of the same name. It kinda stuck around as the name of the underworld when the Germanic tribes were converted to Christianity. Many other languages simply use the word “Inferno”/“Infierno”/etc. (literally: the fiery place) when Hell is mentioned. So don’t be upset if a translation uses the term “Gehenna” or “Tarturus” or “Sheol” or “Hades”. Those are actually the transliterated words written in the text. The equating of the word “Hell” with those words came much, much later.

Regardless, the NAB is actually quite faithful to the original texts. Some of the footnotes do leave a bit to be desired, especially in the OT - so get your interpretations elsewhere (preferably by someone who knows Catholic teaching). But it’s easy enough to be read without being dumbed down.

 

[abucs]

Having gone through the farce of a ‘Liberal’ Theology course at a Catholic University I can’t help thinking the ridiculous footnotes in the NAB are to aid and abet liberal Theological professors destroy their students faith.

Best avoid the NAB or simply use it to understand the lengths of insanity that anti-Catholic Catholics will stoop to in their attack against the Church.

 

[Miserissima]

Please get the book A Catholic Guide to The Bible from Catholic Home Study Services. It is my go-to reference for reconciling contradictions and explaining literary forms of different books, such as contextual hyperbole.

amm.org/chss/chss.asp

“Explains Catholic principles of interpreting the Bible. Takes the student through the Bible, offering pertinent information about the historical background, author, and literary style of each book. Selects readable passages from each book of the Bible so that the student can become familiar with the whole Bible and understand it as the Word of God.”

 

[jimmy]

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…)

The only one I know of is the Scott Hahn one. I have some of the individual volumes for each book of the NT. I had forgotten that it was only the NT so far, but Scott Hahn does plan on doing the whole OT as well.

Check out the Navarre bible commentaries. It has individual volumes for each book of the OT but I don’t know any commentaries that are a single volume for the whole bible. It has both the Latin and the English side by side, and it quotes the saints and popes a lot.

 

[TMC]

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.

I know that some Catholics ARE offended, but my view is that none SHOULD be offended - because the notes are most certainly mainstream Catholic thought.

To answer your specific questions would take a lot of space. If you really want to know (and not just argue), I would suggest reading some mainstream Catholic biblical scholarship, such as Ray Brown. Or if you distrust professional scholars, try reading Pope Emeritus Benedict’s scholarly works, which rely to a large extent on the same kind of critical analysis.

To be clear, I don’t necessarily agree with the three points you raise, and I believe you are mischaracterizing the notes to a certain extent. That said, I don’t see anything wrong with discussion and scholarship on things like the origin of the Magnificat, the literary choices the Gospel authors made in recording Christ’s teachings, and the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. These are all legitimate areas of inquiry, and the Catholic faith can embrace a wide variety of theories and thoughts on the answers to each.

 

[livingwordunity]

But is has been rejected by the Vatican for use in the Liturgy since 1970 and after each revision, (which revision is NABRE, the 3rd?)…Don’t you see a problem there?

I have a feeling that Pope Francis will take the NAB off the Vatican web site. Even the NRSV is preferable.

I do see a problem with the NAB. The only reason I still keep my old ones is because I’m not sure if it would be right to burn it.

 

[mccorm45]

But is has been rejected by the Vatican for use in the Liturgy since 1970 and after each revision, (which revision is NABRE, the 3rd?)…Don’t you see a problem there?

I have a feeling that Pope Francis will take the NAB off the Vatican web site. Even the NRSV is preferable.

It hasn’t been rejected for use in the liturgy since 1970. The current lectionary in the USA (and a few other territories) is the 1970 NAB OT and the 1986 NAB NT (slightly adapted). The 1991 Psalms were rejected, and rightly so do its use of vertical inclusive language.

It should be noted, as I wrote earlier, that the American bishops and the translators of the NAB are working on a project to revise the NAB NT and its notes, while working with the Vatican to make sure it will be approved for the Mass. Process will likely take about ten years. The result will be that a bible that can be purchased which matches the readings at Mass exactly as well as used in the prayers of the church in the USA.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-american-bible-to-be-revised-into-single-translation/

 

[CalCatholic]

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.

Well you better put the Navarre Bible in your ‘heretical’ book list, because they also mention a couple of interpretations of the woman.

**‘The mysterious figure of the woman has been interpreted ever since the time of the Fathers of the Church as referring to the ancient people of Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ, or the Blessed Virgin. The text supports all of these interpretations but in none do all the details fit.’ **

 

[Gorgias]

I disagree. The notes are heretical.
the suggestion that the Magnificat was plagiarized by Luke (with no evidence) is offensive to Our Lady.

Let’s dial back the rhetoric, shall we?

The suggestion that Luke took an early Christian hymn and inserted it in his narrative is not ‘heresy’. It does not suggest that the Scriptures aren’t ‘inspired’ or aren’t the Word of God. It does not suggest anything that contradicts Church teaching. Whether the Magnificat was spoken by Mary, or Elizabeth (as some Scriptural manuscripts purport), or by a later Christian author, it is still part of the canon and still expresses truths about Mary and about God. It still is part of the text that Luke was inspired by God to include in his Gospel.

If you want to say that you don’t like the notes, then say “I don’t like the notes.” Saying “the notes are heresy,” though, just damages your credibility…

 

[CalCatholic]

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.

I do agree with you that the NAB notes should have included the interpretation of the woman as the Virgin Mary.

 

[Gorgias]

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

• 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?

Are you reading the same notes that I am reading? Your assertions don’t match the notes:

• The suggestion isn’t that it was a Jewish hymn, but a Jewish Christian hymn.
• The problem with 2 Chron 20 isn’t evidence, but lack thereof. It doesn’t fit well into the narrative; it is a war story that is theological rather than military; it doesn’t correspond to anything in 1 Kings. So, some believe that the inspired writer was inspired to write this as a theological exposition on the faithfulness of the king. Is that true? I don’t know. The note isn’t saying it’s a fact, though.
• In Luke, it’s the Sermon on the Plain, not the Mount; moreover, who in the world ever suggested Buddhist writings as the source of this teaching? The notes mention the correspondences between Luke’s version and the other evangelists’ versions… but Buddhists?

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

In fact, thanks for asking. Yes, contemporary scholars have access to a greater amount of material than St Jerome did. It’s what scholars do, you know – since the time of Jerome, they haven’t just sat on their duffs and smoked pipes…

 

[Gorgias]

But is has been rejected by the Vatican for use in the Liturgy since 1970 and after each revision, (which revision is NABRE, the 3rd?)

Umm… pardon? The Vatican’s liturgies are in English?

In any case, you do realize that the Scripture readings at Masses in the U.S. are from the NAB, don’t you…?

 

[clem456]

I am truly perplexed at the degree to which persons who claim the Catholic faith can be threatened by thoughts, ideas, and interpretations of things, that don’t match their own.
Catholicism should not be a timid and fearful faith that finds “heresy” in anything it doesn’t agree with or understand. That’s not trust.
No trust = no faith.
Hey, maybe that should be a footnote in the NAB.

 

[abucs]

My militant feminist Theology professor was adamant that the interpretation that the woman was Mary was incorrect. She taught specifically that this interpretation was wrong and it was later read-in as such by a male dominated patriarchal Church that has always had problems with sexuality. (Her exact words).

These sort of arguments are well known in Theological circles. The glaring assertions and omissions in the NAB footnotes makes it abundantly clear whose side those scholars are on.

Not mine.

I’ve seen young Catholic students lose their faith because of a well planned avalanche of deliberately misleading biblical interpretations that seem to come from an accepted authority.

Calling this garbage out for what it is, can in no way be considered timid.

 

[CalCatholic]

My militant feminist Theology professor was adamant that the interpretation that the woman was Mary was incorrect. She taught specifically that this interpretation was wrong and it was later read-in as such by a male dominated patriarchal Church that has always had problems with sexuality. (Her exact words).

These sort of arguments are well known in Theological circles. The glaring assertions and omissions in the NAB footnotes makes it abundantly clear whose side those scholars are on.

Not mine.

I’ve seen young Catholic students lose their faith because of a well planned avalanche of deliberately misleading biblical interpretations that seem to come from an accepted authority.

Calling this garbage out for what it is, can in no way be considered timid.

Yes, this is one of the extremes, as is Catholic fundamentalism.

 

[Marysann]

I certainly understand the problems with the notes in the NAB, and I heartily recommend the Navarre Bible commentaries. The Navarre uses the RSV-CE translation. Scott Hahn’s commentaries are good too, but they are not as extensive as the Navarre. As for the Vatican’s use of English in the liturgy, this is the deal. We live in Rome and often go to the Vatican for the big feast days. Liturgies in St. Peter’s are in Latin and Italian, since that is the vernacular here. For non-Latin or Italian speakers, everything is also translated into English in the little white books that are given out at every event presided over by the Holy Father. At Midnight Mass this year on Christmas Eve, which is the last Mass we went to at St. Peter’s, the English translation used for the scriptures was the New Jerusalem Bible translation, which is used in English speaking countries in Europe. If my memory is correct, the RSV-CE is used in English translations of papal documents. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.