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

[LegoGE1947]

Thanks LEGO, I’ll look Michael Voris up on the net.

The only good thing I can say about this is that the course was so ridiculously ‘over the top’ and so intellectually bankrupt that I believe many who have had to endure it, who are not connected to the academic/educational part of the Church are now motivated to get involved and ‘fix up’ such problems.

Something went very wrong in the last couple of generations in the Church, at least in my part of the world.

It would seem it has gone very wrong in most parts of the western world.

 

[livingwordunity]

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.’ **

There’s nothing wrong with a commentary interpreting the woman of Rev 12 as the people of Israel and the Church as long as it is in addition to Our Lady. The Church has always recognized that the woman who gave birth to the Messiah is primarily to be understood as being Our Lady since she literally did give birth to Jesus the Messiah. The problem with the NAB Rev 12 commentary is that they OMIT Our Lady. And, to make matters worse, the NAB commentary seems to doubt that it actually happened by adding, “This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.” They don’t explain why Jesus’ birth wasn’t a myth.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

There’s nothing wrong with a commentary interpreting the woman of Rev 12 as the people of Israel and the Church as long as it is in addition to Our Lady. The Church has always recognized that the woman who gave birth to the Messiah is primarily to be understood as being Our Lady since she literally did give birth to Jesus the Messiah. The problem with the NAB Rev 12 commentary is that they OMIT Our Lady. And, to make matters worse, the NAB commentary seems to doubt that it actually happened by adding, “This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.” They don’t explain why Jesus’ birth wasn’t a myth.

You just added another reason I dislike this Bible.

 

[andrewstx]

This has piqued my interest so much that I am going to buy a replacement NABRE. I had one before and it was lost in a house move. Generally I read the RSV ce or the Orthodox study bible.

I do think it is more important to take one’s beliefs from the bible than trying to put them into the bible.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

This has piqued my interest so much that I am going to buy a replacement NABRE. I had one before and it was lost in a house move. Generally I read the RSV ce or the Orthodox study bible.

I do think it is more important to take one’s beliefs from the bible than trying to put them into the bible.

If you pay pal me $3.00 for shipping I will send you one of my four or five saint Joseph editions for free that I no longer use.

 

[pnewton]

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

I knew this one was not a problem off the top of my head.

But I say to you, whoever is angry* with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. _Matt. 5:22 NAB

I will look at the others later.

No offense to anyone, but this thread sounds a little like the KJV only-ists. We do not interpret Scripture for ourselves. The NAB surely is not a very literal translation at a time when the Church is moving toward more literal translations from Latin. But that is not morally good or bad. It is just a difference. The notes are not protected from any charism and may be intellectual good or bad, but that too is not a moral issue. This whole shotgun approach is unwieldy. It is easier to address one issue per thread.

 

[_thaddeus]

I must say:

There is no problem with normal aMerican Catholics commenting on their translation. They are not just run of the mill anti-Catholic creatures but honest scholars. Could be right or could be wrong but as long as they are Catholic and honest and just offering commentary it is interesting.

There is a much greater problem with political correctness perverting the translations.

 

[pnewton]

Regardless, the NAB is actually quite faithful to the original texts…

I just noticed you commented on this. Yes, on this, the NAB is actually more literal than just calling everything Hell when that is not what is being said.

I find the most literally accurate translation is the NASB, but on that, the notes have to be taken with the understanding they are not Catholic. But the language is very literal and consistent.

 

[mccorm45]

22 But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. _Matt. 5:22 NAB

Actually, if you compare that verse to the RSV, the NAB is more literal in a number of places.

22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother[a] shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults** his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell[c] of fire. -RSV

Matthew 5:22 Other ancient authorities insert without cause
Matthew 5:22 Greek says Raca to (an obscure term of abuse)
Matthew 5:22 Greek Gehenna**

 

[LegoGE1947]

pnewton;11754182:

I knew this one was not a problem off the top of my head.

But I say to you, whoever is angry*

with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. _Matt. 5:22 NAB QUOTE]

Actually, if you compare that verse to the RSV, the NAB is more literal in a number of places.

22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother[a] shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults** his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell[c] of fire. -RSV

Matthew 5:22 Other ancient authorities insert without cause
Matthew 5:22 Greek says Raca to (an obscure term of abuse)
Matthew 5:22 Greek Gehenna**
How about if someone is angry with his brother-in-law?

 

[TimothyH]

Secularism and relitivism are the works of Satan…and the NAB notes seem to me to be a byproduct of that. I see that as a problem as a new convert. Is it too much to ask to have a Catholic Study Bible that upholds the faith rather than cast doubts about the authenticity of Sacred Scripture?

I’ve read the Bible cover to cover four times. I think I might have looked at the notes five times, if that. The earliest Christians had no notes. They spent six months to a year with one book of the Bible reading it back and forth, up and down and sideways, interiorizing it until it was part of their life, part of their being.

There will always be heresy and faulty interpretations of scripture, right there with secularism, relitivism, modernism, persecution, temptation, suffering and the poor. Anyone who reads the Bible knows that Jesus warned us that it would be so and told us not to be surprised when it happened. Cruddy notes and poor translations are a fact of life. Being upset about the notes in the NAB as a product of secularism and relativism isn’t part of my plan to get to heaven. Like your right eye, pluck it out and throw it away - that’s all.

There are the writings of the Early Church Fathers. There are the writings of the Doctor’s of the Church. There are great homilies by towering figures such as St. Bernard and St. Louis De Montfort. There are the rules of life of the religious orders which mirror the Gospels. There are philosophical treatments of Scripture such as The Sentences by Peter Abelard and The Summa Theological by St. Thomas Aquinas. And then there is the Catechism. All of it is available for free on the internet.

What more could anyone want?

-Tim-

 

[livingwordunity]

No offense to anyone, but this thread sounds a little like the KJV only-ists. We do not interpret Scripture for ourselves. The NAB surely is not a very literal translation at a time when the Church is moving toward more literal translations from Latin. But that is not morally good or bad. It is just a difference. The notes are not protected from any charism and may be intellectual good or bad, but that too is not a moral issue. This whole shotgun approach is unwieldy. It is easier to address one issue per thread.

Actually, this is not anything like the KJV only argument since no one is arguing for the use of only one Bible. There are a variety of Bibles which I think are better than the NAB. Also, the only problem I have is with the NAB commentary. The commentary isn’t bad in every place, but there are some places that are very questionable and which could cause a reader who isn’t well-catechized to doubt their faith. For example, what do you think about what I said in post #122? We can object to a commentary when it appears to be inconsistent with how Sacred Tradition interprets a passage. The Church is silent on most of what is in the Bible. But there are some parts of Sacred Scripture which have been specifically interpreted a certain way by the Magisterium. For example, in the case of the woman of Rev. 12, we can say that the Church has infallibly interpreted this woman as being Our Lady. This is not to say that She hasn’t said that it can be interpreted to also mean the people of Israel or the Church, but since the Church has spoken and said that this verse is about Our Lady, it is a glaring omission to leave it out of a Catholic Bible commentary.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, this is not anything like the KJV only argument since no one is arguing for the use of only one Bible.

Actually, it is like the ‘KJV-only’ argument, because it states “unless my Scripture translation says X,Y, and Z, it’s not a valid translation.”

 

[livingwordunity]

Actually, it is like the ‘KJV-only’ argument, because it states “unless my Scripture translation says X,Y, and Z, it’s not a valid translation.”

I don’t have a problem with the NAB translation. The fact that I think the translation is good is the reason why I haven’t burned my old copies of it that I still have around the house. What I have a problem with is the horrible commentary which, at times, seems to encourage the reader to doubt the faith.

 

[livingwordunity]

The following is why it’s odd that the NAB commentary on the woman of Rev. 12 leaves out Our Lady:

Munificentissimus Deus - Defining the Dogma of the Assumption

Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

I don’t have a problem with the NAB translation. The fact that I think the translation is good is the reason why I haven’t burned my old copies of it that I still have around the house. What I have a problem with is the horrible commentary which, at times, seems to encourage the reader to doubt the faith.

I agree, the translation is okay. Not the best, not the worst. It would be nice to have alternate readings and notes that don’t undermine the Catholic faith or Christianity in general.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

What more could anyone want?

-Tim-

A Catholic Study Bible of comparable quality to the NIV Study Bible or the ESV Study Bible. That’s what. And Evangelicals beat the **** out of Catholics in the quality of the presentation of their faith through the Scriptures.

 

[TimothyH]

A Catholic Study Bible of comparable quality to the NIV Study Bible or the ESV Study Bible. That’s what. And Evangelicals beat the **** out of Catholics in the quality of the presentation of their faith through the Scriptures.

What Evangelicals do and don’t do is their own business. I do not hold them up to be the standard. I have the saints for that. There is an Evangelical Church on every street corner where I live and I’ve been to many of them. Studying the Bible with Evangelicals is what taught me to love scripture, and also what convinced me that the Catholic Church is everything it claims to be.

You can pine away for the study Bible of your dreams, or you can get into the written word of God on a daily basis, interiorize it, and make it part of your life. I choose the latter.

-Tim-

 

[CalCatholic]

I don’t have a problem with the NAB translation. The fact that I think the translation is good is the reason why I haven’t burned my old copies of it that I still have around the house. What I have a problem with is the horrible commentary which, at times, seems to encourage the reader to doubt the faith.

For those people out there that like the NABRE translation and are not wild about the notes, can buy the Oxford large print NABRE. All the notes in this Bible are at the end of each book and you don’t even have to see them while reading. The giant print St. Joseph NABRE has the same configuration. The Oxford NABRE does not have any maps, but the St. Joseph giant print has 8 maps.

 

[Gorgias]

Which commentary is this from?

Because, of course, if it’s an interpretation that you disagree with, then there better be a commentary out there that backs up the notion that your take on things isn’t correct?

In any case, my apologies – looking up my assertion in commentaries wasn’t my highest priority this week.

Nevertheless, the discussion centered around your assertion that 2 Cor 2:5 should have been translated ‘person’ and not ‘presence’ of Christ. From Fr Frank Matera’s II Corinthians: A Commentary: “Although it is possible to translate en prosopo Christou ‘in the person of Christ’, it is more likely that Paul means that he forgives the person in Christ’s presence, that is, with Christ witnessing or watching what he does.” (Matera, 2003, p. 61).

Naturally, I’m not so naive as to not know how this game is played. The next step in this dance, of course, is to tell us that you’ve never heard of Matera and suggest that his orthodoxy is suspect…

Nevertheless, there is it: a commentary to back up my assertion that the NAB translation in question is reasonable. Enjoy!

Blessings,
G.