Why does the Vatican use the NAB on its site?

[Andreas_Hofer]

The pope’s preference to persuade instead of discipline is documented in his approved biography Witness to Hope by George Weigel. So it’s not really just one person’s opinion (it’s actually at least 3 people: DominvsVobiscvm, George Weigel, and myself).

As a bit of redirection, I think this controversy over the NAB actually points us to the larger problem of the abuse of the historico-critical method in Scripture scholarship and theology in general. In my Christian Traditions course at school I watched the rise of Protestant Scripture scholarship cause a fairly quick decline in Protestant belief in Christ as we know him. The Jesus project is a great example. All of the most “influential” Protestant theologians of the last hundred years or so (i.e., the ones we read in order to get a sense of the motion of the different branches) gutted one aspect of Jesus or the other. If it were only Protestants falling into the idea that historical research is a better guide to interpreting the Bible than the Apostolic Faith this wouldn’t be too upsetting (bad, of course, but they cave on so many other things that it’s only to be expected). But the same idea has come to dominate modern “Catholic” theology as well. Which leads to Protestants and atheists having a say in the translation and commentary of a Catholic Bible…

 

[pnewton]

oat soda:

How good can the NAB be if they translated “Hail mary full of grace” as “Hail favored one”? This is a misstranslation of the greek kecharitomene meaning always full of grace which is in harmony with the immaculate conception.

Everything I have heard says that both are acceptable translations. Since this word is a rather rare there is some room for discussion.
You could also say “highly graced one.”

Grace or favor, in the perfect tense, in a large amount. I wouldn’t pick this word as proof of liberalism.

The basis for the immaculate conception is there. Proof of the immaculate conception was never in this verse.

I love this verse because of this mighty angel greeting this Jewish woman with such a regal greeting, “Hail!”

Can you say, “Queen of Angels!”

 

[Hananiah]

SocaliCatholic:

However, no layman is in charge of telling the laity what is good and not a good Bible. They were given no Authority to do so. It is personal opinion.

It is not just my personal opinion. Itis the opinion of the eternal Magisterium. It’s really quite simple.

(1) In numerous solemn Papal decrees and canons of ecumenical Councils the Catholic Church has defined that the Bible is completely immune from error, and anathematized the idea that it is only free from error within a certain limited domain.

(2) The NAB teaches that the Bible contains egregious errors in morality and history.

Alright, we have the major and minor premises of a syllogism here. The first is the infallible teaching of the Magisterium, and the second is an observable fact. Now all the individual has to do is recognize the conclusion which necessarily follows:

(3) The NAB contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church.

While it remains the approved Bible we use in mass, there is so much NAB bashing goin on, it is only fair to assume that people are arguing from a “perfect” Bible standard.

It is not fair at all. You are pulling this out of thin air, for it is nowhere in my study or in any of my posts on this forum. I don’t expect perfection in any Bible. All I expect is fidelity to Catholic teachings, which as demonstrated above the NAB does not have.

Mute point. It is irrelevant as long as the NAB was approved by the Catholic Church for use.

An episcopal approval and a Papal blessing are much lower on the authority scale of the Catholic Church than infallible ecumenical councils and solemn Papal decrees. The NAB could have 100 imprimaturs from 100 heretical bishops but that wouldn’t change the fact that it contradicts Catholic dogma.

The issue is not so much a “perfect” version of the Bible, but fidelity to the authority of the Chruch’s teaching!

Exactly. I have never said anything different. The whole point of my study is that the NAB is not faithful to Catholic teaching.

 

[Hananiah]

squirt:

And your scholarly credentials are … ?

My scholarly credentials are irrelevant to the central thesis of my study, namely that the NAB contradicts Catholic doctrine. All I have to do to prove that is quote the Popes and Councils, then quote the NAB, and say “look, they contradict each other.” It’s that simple.

Where my credentials might come in useful is where I turn the study into an apology for the traditional Catholic teaching. I am self-taught in such matters, but you can read what I have written and judge for yourself the quality of the work.

And your study has an imprimatur? nihil obstat?

No, but perhaps if it eventually reaches book length and I decide to publish it I will contact a bishop about it.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Hananiah:

It is not just my personal opinion. Itis the opinion of the eternal Magisterium. It’s really quite simple.

(1) In numerous solemn Papal decrees and canons of ecumenical Councils the Catholic Church has defined that the Bible is completely immune from error, and anathematized the idea that it is only free from error within a certain limited domain.

(2) The NAB teaches that the Bible contains egregious errors in morality and history.

Alright, we have the major and minor premises of a syllogism here. The first is the infallible teaching of the Magisterium, and the second is an observable fact. Now all the individual has to do is recognize the conclusion which necessarily follows:

(3) The NAB contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It is not fair at all. You are pulling this out of thin air, for it is nowhere in my study or in any of my posts on this forum. I don’t expect perfection in any Bible. All I expect is fidelity to Catholic teachings, which as demonstrated above the NAB does not have.

An episcopal approval and a Papal blessing are much lower on the authority scale of the Catholic Church than infallible ecumenical councils and solemn Papal decrees. The NAB could have 100 imprimaturs from 100 heretical bishops but that wouldn’t change the fact that it contradicts Catholic dogma.

Exactly. I have never said anything different. The whole point of my study is that the NAB is not faithful to Catholic teaching.

I am ignorant of the technical aspects of where the NAB could theoretically contradict official Catholic Magesterial teaching, if in fact it does or does not, however as long as we are in agreement about the most imporant point you made:

I don’t expect perfection in any Bible. All I expect is fidelity to Catholic teachings…

That statement satisfies my main concern.

In closing, I support you in your independent study of the NAB… however any findings are informative but non-binding on the lay people until the relevant authority in the Church has approved those findings.

With your dedication and knowledge, have you considered participating in one of the commities that is responsible for approving our Bibles?

 

[Antonio_B]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Yeah, you would think. Smirk

I don’t know if you’re aware, but the Church is currently in a state of doctrinal crisis. Most of the U. S. bishops are really Modernist heretics posing as Catholics, and our Holy Father, while personally orthodox, does not feel comfortable taking disciplinary actions against his brother bishops (or their projects) or even against many theologians.

There are many notable exceptions to the above description. But, unfortunately, the NAB is not one of them.

The last place a Catholic should turn to for Truth nowadays is a Catholic bishop.

I am fully aware of the crisis our Church is going through. Since I’m a fairly new member to this forum, I was surrpised to read your statement regarding our bishops. In some forums, such an statement would have earned you quite a chastisement from moderators!

Unfortunately you are correct, the Holy Father does not feel comfortable disciplining wimpy church leaders and dissenting theologians!

Antonio

 

[pnewton]

DominvsVobiscvm:

The last place a Catholic should turn to for Truth nowadays is a Catholic bishop.

The last place? How about an Episcopal Bishop, an independant charismatic church minister or a Mormon elder. I can think of worse places to turn for truth.

Should we all just intrepret truth as we each see it, read the Bible for our own personal understanding and generally form a protestant style Catholicism?

Rejection of established Church authority is a dangerous path. Even if we were in a deepening “crisis” and I do not concede that, we are far safer in the leaky ship that is the Church than tossed about on the waves of subjectivism.

I will trust my bishop, my priest and my pope. If I falter because of this, I trust god will understand.

 

[jurist12]

I think we are losing focus here. While the footnotes to the NAB may be questionable from the viwpoint of some, many of them are quite helpful. That being said what I want to know is how accurate and reliable is the translation itself. I am looking for a Catholic Bible that is done by and for Catholics. Many here favor the Douai-Rheims, but that is out for me, I was never thrilled about the KJV with it’s archaic language, the same holds for the Douai-Rheims. No Haydock either, Two volumes and not very portable. I have the RSV-CE, but like I said, I want a Catholic translation. The Jerusalem 1966 edition is out also as it is too much of a Dynamic Equivalence, that only leaves the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. The NAB claims to be a literal translation so is it true and is THE TRANSLATION ITSELF accurate? We must remember that the Bible is inspired, not the footnotes. In Christ, jurist12

 

[Antonio_B]

pnewton:

The last place? How about an Episcopal Bishop, an independant charismatic church minister or a Mormon elder. I can think of worse places to turn for truth.

Should we all just intrepret truth as we each see it, read the Bible for our own personal understanding and generally form a protestant style Catholicism?

Rejection of established Church authority is a dangerous path. Even if we were in a deepening “crisis” and I do not concede that, we are far safer in the leaky ship that is the Church than tossed about on the waves of subjectivism.

I will trust my bishop, my priest and my pope. If I falter because of this, I trust god will understand.

I used to feel the way you do. What has changed my mind? The actions, not just the words of my own Archbishop. Should I obey my priest? A few years ago I would have said “yes” with no reservations, but when my pastor decided to take out the image of Mary from the parish church, abolished the Pro-Life group who served in the parish for years, kicked out the Rosary ladies because they were “too noisy” and got rid of “Eucharistic Adoration,” I decided my obedience could not continue as in the past. Do you think my pastor’s actions are in communion with Rome? I doubt that highly.

A few weeks ago Cardinal George refused Holy Communion to a gay group who was challenging Church authority. The next day my Archbishop, Cardinal Mahony did the opposite. Actually he invited the same group to come to his cathedral, thus contradicting openly the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago. Now, who was right? I happen to believe that George’s actions were more in keeping communion with the Pope. Should I believe Mahony was correct in what he did? Do you see why this unqualified obedience to one’s bishop does not work anymore?

Now, do I acknowlege my bishop’s authority to teach in this Archdiocese? Yes, but ONLY when he teaches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I never felt that way about his predecessors, Cardinals Manning and McIntyre!

Antonio

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hananiah:

A Bible need not be perfect in order to be essentially faithful to the text in its translation and to the eternal Magisterium in its commentary. The RSV-CE, DRV, and Jerusalem all have their faults, but at least they meet these two qualifications. The NAB, on the other hand, doesn’t. It takes gross liberties with the text and its commentary is heterodox.

So what? Besides, the Magisterium is infallible, but the NAB contradicts Magisterial exegesis as well as solemn Papal decrees numerous times.

What exactly are you talking about? Who here has claimed anything about a perfect Bible? Where are you getting this cockamamy idea?

So what?

No, but the scholars who created the NAB are. This is what I have documented in my study.

Of the 64 translators of the 1970 NAB, 59 were Catholic, 4 Protestant, and one Jewish. This co-operation was of a kind hoped for by Vatican II, and strongly encouraged in the documents below. Read paragraphs 183 to 186 of the second document below.​

GUIDELINES
FOR
INTERCONFESSIONAL
COOPERATION
IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE
THE NEW REVISED EDITION ROME 1987
*
* Common Bible Work

If people who just happen not to be Catholics, can help Catholics with what they know, ISTM that this strenghtens the Church, not that it weakens it. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hananiah:

So far I have found three places where they mistranslate Scripture in order to make it appear to be in error. In the first two cases, I do not believe they are intentionally malicious; they are simply following their historical critical theories to the logical conclusion. Essentially, they believe that the Pentateuch was weaved together from 4 sources which contradict each other on many points. The redactor who did the weaving took out a few of the contradictions, but left most in. In two instances that I have discovered in Genesis the NAB scholars reverse what they believe to be the machinations of their redactor, and put contradictions back in which they reckon him to have edited out. The third case is a prophecy in Isaiah about a light shining on Galilee of the Gentiles. They replace Galilee with “district” even though all Hebrew Mss. and the Septuagint say “Galilee.” I believe they did this intentionally to reinforce their claim that St. Matthew was mistaken in his application of the prophecy.

OK - but, is it not common fairness to them, to assume that they have good & sound & weighty reasons for translating as they do ? They are the experts in the Bible, its background, and its meaning, after all. If they were incompetent bumblers, whom any of us could correct because they are simply incapable of undertaking a thing like a translation, then the question arises, why were they chosen ? It’s one thing to regret or to note their fallibility; but something else to condemn their labours in toto.​

I think it is really dreadful that there seems to be an almost automatic assumption among some people that modern scholars are either incompetent, or foolish, or malicious. It does immeasurable harm, if we start suspecting bishops and scholars, just because they come up with what we may consider - and , it may very well be, consider wrongly - to be unsatisfactory renderings. Why can’t it be assumed that they know what they are doing, that they are entirely competent to do it, & that the burden of proving otherwise rests with their critics ? ##

But in the statements I quote they are not commenting on nuances of Hebrew grammar, but making solemn decrees on a matter of faith. And I believe those statements meet all the conditions of infallibility of Lumen Gentium S. 25. Also, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II teach the same thing.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Antonio B:

Ben Douglas seems to be saying that the commentaries on it are defective but that is not the same thing as saying that the translation is bad.

The one I normally use is the Jerusalem Bible.

But the JB notes are suspect as those in the NAB, if one rejects NAB because of its notes’ - alleged - unorthodoxy​

 

[Antonio_B]

## But the JB notes are suspect as those in the NAB, if one rejects NAB because of its notes’ - alleged - unorthodoxy ##

Gee, I would love to know “how” or when someone criticized the Jerusalem Bible “notes” as inaccurate.

Antonio

 

[naprous]

Re: ecumenical cooperation in Biblical scholarship

Were you all aware that the Victorines of Paris (esp. Adam of St. Victor and Hugh of St. Victor) prominently consulted Parisian rabbis on interpretations of the Old Testament?

And they were only a few of the many Catholic theologians across the centuries who have engaged in such ecumenical cooperation.

I keep several Bibles around: The Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims for scholarly citation, the New English Bible for a clear read, The KJV for an elegant read, the RSV because I like it, and then something like The Message to make me shake it up again and look at the text in a new fresh way that makes me think about it. Oh yes, and the Greek, too (I can’t read Hebrew, alas). I also use www.crosswalk.com for accessing Biblical translations that I don’t happen to own. Very useful.

Naprous

 

[newcrusader92]

**We all have seen how bad the NAB can be for someone seeking out the truth. **

Why does the Vatican insist on using it on its web site?

Also, would this be an error on an issue of Faith on the Vatican’s part? After all, the Bible is probably the most important text our Faith has. If supporting a bad Bible such as the NAB on it’s web site is not a instance of leading the laity astray in a matter of Faith, what is???

Could you elaborate on how the NAB leads the laity astray in matters of faith? The laity is probably being led astray in matters of faith in other ways, even before the existence of the NAB.

I don’t know why the Vatican uses it, but I do know after comparing it with the NIV, both versions have similar or identical deviations from the Douay-Rheims.

After seeing that the NAB has a deviation regarding what the angel (Gabriel?) said to the Blessed Virgin Mary, all I can say is I can no longer trust it. As far as I know, only the D/R and the Vulgate have the well-known words, “Hail, full of grace” - the very words used in the Angelic Salutation of the Most Holy Rosary.

 

[Hananiah]

## Of the 64 translators of the 1970 NAB, 59 were Catholic, 4 Protestant, and one Jewish. This co-operation was of a kind hoped for by Vatican II, and strongly encouraged in the documents below. Read paragraphs 183 to 186 of the second document below.

If people who just happen not to be Catholics, can help Catholics with what they know, ISTM that this strenghtens the Church, not that it weakens it. ##

My point in calling the translators Protestants is not to say that they are formal members of Protestant denominations. On the contrary, many are Catholic clergy and religious. My point is rather that they deny dogmas of the Church, which makes them material Protestants.

 

[Hananiah]

## OK - but, is it not common fairness to them, to assume that they have good & sound & weighty reasons for translating as they do ?

No. They say right in the footnote why they translate it thus. “We want to put a contradiction here because we think there used to be one here but the redactor took it out.” That is not a good, sound, and weighty reason.
Gottle of Geer:

I think it is really dreadful that there seems to be an almost automatic assumption among some people that modern scholars are either incompetent, or foolish, or malicious.

The first time I approached the NAB I was under the impression that it was faithful to Catholic teachings. I had no such assumption. But then I started reading the commentary, and my initial impression was proven wrong. The translators demonstrated themselves to be heretics.

Why can’t it be assumed that they know what they are doing, that they are entirely competent to do it, & that the burden of proving otherwise rests with their critics ? ##

Well, I have written a 75 kb critique, which will be expanded in the coming weeks. I have provided sufficient proof that the NAB contradicts dogmatic Catholic teaching.

 

[Hananiah]

newcrusader92:

Could you elaborate on how the NAB leads the laity astray in matters of faith?

Crusader, see my critique of the NAB at the top of the “Catholic Issues” section at www.catholicintl.com

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hananiah:

My point in calling the translators Protestants is not to say that they are formal members of Protestant denominations. On the contrary, many are Catholic clergy and religious. My point is rather that they deny dogmas of the Church, which makes them material Protestants.

O–K.​

However, “Protestant” is not a synonym for “Catholic who disagrees with Catholic doctrine”.

A Protestant is someone who adheres to the Protestant type of Christianity - it is far from being a purely negative word, and the careless way it is treated as a synonym for “not Catholic” is an abuse of language, for which there is no need at all.

It’s as bad as saying that “Catholics believe in the Real Presence”

Both sorts of inaccuracy are not only slovenly; they make words useless, by distorting their meaning when there are other words which are adequate to say what is intended. This loose use of language makes discussion very difficult; C.S. Lewis calls it “verbicide” - which indeed it is ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hananiah:

No. They say right in the footnote why they translate it thus. “We want to put a contradiction here because we think there used to be one here but the redactor took it out.” That is not a good, sound, and weighty reason.

It would be interesting to see that.​

The first time I approached the NAB I was under the impression that it was faithful to Catholic teachings. I had no such assumption. But then I started reading the commentary, and my initial impression was proven wrong. The translators demonstrated themselves to be heretics.

Well, I have written a 75 kb critique, which will be expanded in the coming weeks. I have provided sufficient proof that the NAB contradicts dogmatic Catholic teaching.

It would be very interesting to read - I’ve been to the site: is there more than one version of the critique ?​