Source: http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2011/02/nabre-notes-and-commentary.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:57:43+00:00

Document:
Oh man, Timothy, this post opens it wide up to stockpiling the ammunition for each side to battle out their defense. Dei Verbum of Vatican II says it all about the NT in #18-19 and particulsrly the opening sentences of #19. Real events, apostolic witness and testimony and that the Gospels "faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught..."
I think that any honest, open-minded reading of the footnotes and introductions in the NABRE NT (since they are the same as NAB)shows a clear biasis, a heavy leaning, and in some cases an iopen rejection of the magisterial teaching of Deu Verbum. It is prejudicially based uipon the left of center historical-critical method. And while the translation of the NABRE may be a boon to some who are in the "know" in the world of Scripture translations, the fact is that a people's Bible depends heavily upon the footnotes and introductions to form and inform the readers. They carry even more weight in this sense that a translation (heck, even a translation as poor as the GNT isn't going to lead someone to hell).
But with that said I think that for those who accept Dei Verbum at its face value in the continuity of the Tradition, and those who prefer to read it in the light of the historical-critical method will forever be at odds. No Pax Romana in this area of theology as the stakes are too high: the reliability and veracity of the Word of God as interpreted for centuries by the Fathers and Doctors and most especially the Magisterium.
I have a very strong feeling that the late Raymond Brown now knows this to be true. I pray he has finally eneterd into that truest school of Scripture study after having left as part of his patrimony the ideas and concepts espoused by the NABRE and likeminded companions.
Bogus |ˈbōgəs| Counterfeit or fake; fraudulent; not genuine; pretend; phony; spurious; undesirable or harmful; incorrect, useless, or broken. Origin : 1839, Amer.Eng., apparently from a slang word applied in Ohio in 1827 to a counterfeiter’s apparatus. Some trace this to tantrabobus, a late 18c. colloquial Vermont word for any odd-looking object, which may be connected to tantarabobs, recorded as a Devonshire name for the devil. Others trace it to the same source as bogey as in bogeyman.
If you, dear reader, have the intestinal fortitude to dare compare side-by-side Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea (a verse-for-verse compilation of Patristic commentary upon the Holy Gospels) with the New American Bible’s BOGUS “introductions, footnotes, and explanatory material…added to facilitate devotional reading…and for purposes of study.” you will discover that the NAB’s notes are the most sustained assault upon the plenary inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures ever delivered under “official church” auspices. The following ten points are but small inklings of a whole galaxy of disorders to be found within this truly “New” and “American” bible. The following study was done using the 1986 edition of the New American Bible New Testament.
3. A Preponderance of citations from Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic texts, the Essenes of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
4. An overwhelming amount of notes concern Rabbinic traditions, Rabbinic prayers, Rabbinic literature, Jewish legends, Jewish writings, Jewish beliefs, Jewish notions, Jewish usage, Jewish sources, Jewish stories, Jewish practices, Josephus, the schools of Hillel and Shammai, and the Mishnah of the Babylonian Talmud.
5. An overweening emphasis on the hypothetical so-called Gospel of Q.
6. A fanatical obsession for pointing out the most minute Discrepancies.
10. While the Omniscient NAB Exegetes are so cocksure of all their impudent modernist figments and phantasies, at the same time they pepper their language with doubt and uncertainty about the authenticity or actual meaning of the Scriptures.
So, yes, I have opened up a mighty "can of worms". But alas, let's discuss this.
I do ask that we remain charitable, as well as keeping our comments concise as possible.
Tim, I will answer your second question: NO!
WhoooooWheee! This is the most exciting thread I've read all year!
And may I compliment Hiero on his charitable presentation. I love the examples!
(a) on the one hand fall short of what one could find in a good mainstream scholarly annotated Bible (such as the New Oxford Annotated Bible or other scholarly Bibles published by Oxford).
(b) represent a distinct scholarly approach that is appropriate only for a very narrow way of reading the Bible -- but not most spiritual ways of reading the Bible.
(c) miss a chance to do two things that could be done in a Catholic Bible: (i) simply explain complicated passages; and (ii) explain the Catholic reception history of passages, or even a few Catholic views on the passages.
So I have to wonder, who are these notes for?
(a) Someone wanting a scholarly annotated Bible would be better served by the New Oxford Annotated Bible.
(b) Someone wanting to read the Bible for lectio divina is better suited by a Bible without notes or a Bible with patristic and meditative notes (such as the Saint's Devotional Edition).
(c) Someone seeking a Catholic-oriented approach to the Bible would be better served by a series such as the Navarre Bible or the ongoing Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.
It seems that the NAB with footnotes is an attempt to make a modern secular study Bible, but not one that is as good as others on the market. What's the point of making a second-tier study Bible?
So, again, I ask, who is this for?
I'm a reader from Argentina.
The exact same problem plague the notes in some of the spanish language Bibles (for example "La Biblia del Peregrino", by the late Fr. Alonso Schökel, SJ, professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute).
For me it is clear that these people have lost the Faith.
But, besides that, I'd like to know what scientific evidence they rely upon to assert what has and what has not been said by Jesus. The only direct witness we have is the New Testament. If science shows that those texts have been tampered with, we would be forced to face the fact that we know absolutely nothing about Jesus. Not even if He ever existed. That would be the logical conclusion that the writers of these Notes refuse to follow.
Javier we do not have to reply upon science to know the truth of the reliability and historicty of the Gospels about Jesus. The highest magisterium of the Church, Pope and bisops teaching united in ecumenical council have assured in at Vatican II (Dei Verbum) that the Gospels faithfully hand on to us what Jesus DID and SAID when he lived upon earth. This magisterium also assures us that the Gospels rest upon the witness, testimony and preaching of the Apostles. The Fathers of the Church, even those who knew an Apostle or two and/or were friends of disciples of the Apostles assure of us this truth.
So if ANY Scripture scholarship disagrees with this magisterial teaching in these most fundamental aspects it is wrong and needs to be corrected. Our ancient and contemporary Faith does not need this reformation. Now who actually put the words onto parchment MAY be a different story...but what was out down comes to us from these Apostles of the Lord who saw and touched and heard the Word Himself.
I do believe the Gospels are a reliable witness. And I believe that when they say that Jesus spoke, those are His Words.
My point is these scholars cannot deny the authenticity of part of the Gospels, without by the same act denying them as a whole. They should conclude they can't affirm anything about Jesus (If they had any respect for Logic, that is).
I think we must not ignore the scientific field, because we could risk incurring in fideism. There is only one reality. Faith and science cannot contradict each other. If they do, it just means we got something wrong.
The biblical scholars who write these notes tend to ignore the scientific evidence that points to an early date for the writing of the Gospels (and against latter additions or edition). For example the works of Anglican bishop John A. T. Robinson, of Claude Tresmontant, of Father Jean Carmignac, and of Fr. José O'Callaghan S.J. (and Carlsten Thiede) on papyre 7Q5.
I simply do not find the NAB(RE) or its footnotes problematic. Even though I own several Bibles, including several NOABs, and even though I have switched from RSV to NRSV to NJB to ESV, I’ve always returned to the NAB, I enjoy the spiritual challenge of the footnotes, and I attribute much of my current spirituality to the NAB and its footnotes. So, I , for one, think that not all academically-minded people are best suited with an NOAB, nor do I find the footnotes spiritually distracting since, as I just mentioned, my spirituality has only been enriched by the NAB, and I’d really rather not own a Navarre Bible or an Ignatius Study Bible even though I’m Catholic.
So, based on my own private usage, the NAB is not as utterly deficient of merit as some might make it out to be.
I thoroughly enjoy (and recommend) the NAB (NT) strictly for the textual basis (it is based on the best Greek mss) as well as a very good translation model. It is just as good (in my opinion superior) to the best of the modern Protestant translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, etc) since it has the advantage of not falling into Protestant theological bias in rendering from the source to the secondary language.
In other words the use of the NAB is for serious study of the English NT as it has been rendered from the original Greek. The study footnotes are all too brief for any good use and they are from a moderate position. For a conservative Catholic position the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament is now the best in this type of format.
[The NAB] is just as good (in my opinion superior) to the best of the modern Protestant translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, etc) since it has the advantage of not falling into Protestant theological bias in rendering from the source to the secondary language.
I disagree with your premise on two counts. First, I think the NAB is a particularly Protestant translation, adhering to the same philosophies, theories and presuppositions pioneered by Protestant translation teams. The evidence can be found in the multiple instances where the traditional translations of the NAB were changed to follow the Liberal Protestant lead of the Protestant Historical-Critical school as well as the already noted tendency to prefer Jewish interpretation, which is the Protestant bias as well. Genesis 1, the dialogue of the annunciation, Isaiah 7 and 9, and many other passages exist to show this trend of the NAB becoming more Protestant than even some Protestant Bibles can go. Furthermore, The NAB notes are notorious for stating highly speculative Liber Protestant hypotheses as if these were settled Catholic dogma.
Second, one of the major problems with the NAB is that its original translators had no rooted tradition to restrain or guide them. In the void, the NAB rushed toward the already highly developed Protestant critical texts as the basis for its translation, resulting in a number of changes and deletions to the end product. The result is this: the NAB and its notes is an unrestrained product of Liberal Protestantism - containing nothing that had not already been said and argued by Liberal Protestants of the previous generation.
What would I suggest if asked? I think that just as the new translation of the Latin Liturgy is about to be put in place, it would be very helpful for the Church to develop a new translation of the Latin Scriptures and for the Church to limit its notations to necessary comments devoid of speculations, hypotheses, and the like. That would be my preference.
I would sincerely hate to have such an anti-Protestant bias, not only because it displays contempt, and not only because it throws all recent ecumenical efforts of Holy Mother Church to the wind, but because Protestants are truly producing the best Bibles on the market without a doubt. The Holman-Standard Christian Bible is one of the best translations I've read in years, but it's a shame that the anti-Catholic biases of the publishing house prevents any version containing the Apocrypha/Deutero-Canonicals. And I've heard more collective praise of the ESV from both Catholics and Protestants than I have of the NAB/Douay-Rheims/RSV combined. Thank God for Protestants, I say, Liberal and Conservative.
I notice it is the Conservative Protestant scholars who are producing the Bible translations you praise (ESV, HCSB) and not the Liberal Protestant scholars. Would that the Catholic Translators would be willing to learn from Conservative Protestants as well!
I would argue that we have enough solid translations, albiet the RSV, NABRE, Douay-Rheims, NJB, or NRSV to choose from. We just need the Catholic publishers who are willing to use these translations to make great Catholic study Bibles and other editions which are high in quality and content. I think Saint Benedict Press is a wonderful breath of fresh air and show great promise. Oxford University Press, which isn't Catholic, can usually be dependable on their editions. Then there is Ignatius Press, which seems to be taking their sweet time with the ICSB, and seem to be unwilling or able to publish different editions of their RSV-2CE.
The dilemma that would a solid Catholic publisher would face if using the NABRE as the basis for a good orthodox Catholic study Bible would be that their annotations and articels would have to have to point out, refute and correct many of the NABRE footnotes. What you would end up with I imagine would be a kind of schizophrenic Catholic Study Bible. So I do not think we can even have a genuine 100% faihtufl Catholic Study Bible using the present NABRE as I understand that publishers are required to include the NABRE footnotes in their editions and cannot simply use the NABRE translation with their own footnotes (such as the Protestants are able to do).
How about a publisher who could suppliment the NABRE notes and Biblical cross-references with cross-references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It could have it's own 'box' next to the Biblical cross-references on each page. I would definitely be interested in a tool like that, which would connect it directly to the CCC. The only Bible that I have seen that comes close to this is the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.
The only Bible that I have seen that comes close to this is the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.
What about the Navarre Bible: New Testament Expanded Edition? It includes extensive cross references to the CCC.
True! Forgot about that one. Due to it's size, I tend to overlook it as an actual portable Bible/study Bible and see it rather as a reference volume. But you are right!
And once again we are back to the notes and commentary as the insurmountable problem of the NAB. Although there are a few folks who would apologize for those notes, many many of us simply disagree with them on too many levels for them to be helpful. But since the copyright owners require that the notes, commentary, speculations and opinions be published in every edition of the NAB, there is no way to accomplish two things: 1. Counterbalance the negative qualities of the included commentary without creating more problems, and 2. do it without creating an unprintable 5000 page tome.
Get the copyright holders to scrap the notes and you're still working with a middle of the road translation - neither the worst nor the best.
Also, the only thing keeping me from using the RSV-2CE as my main translation is the lack of an appropriate edition. If there were a St. Benedict Press edition (such as my RSV-CE large print edition) I would have switched already.
Is there a way for us to encourage Ignatius Press off its sticking spot?
I was raised and confirmed in the Catholic faith, but when my parents divorced during my teenage years I eventually found myself regularly attending a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. As soon as I was able to do so, even though it meant waiting several years, I left those people, their religion, and their New World Translation of the Bible and came home to Mother Church.
I did not waste my time when associating with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I learned how to read koine Greek, taught myself the basics of Hebrew and how to speak and identify the Aramaic of Jesus’ time. I became well-versed in the history of Biblical manuscript transmission, lexicography, and etymology.
While I know some believe that certain footnotes seem to be teaching contrary to Catholic doctrine, I assure you that this is due mostly to the error of the reader. For instance, the footnote at Matthew 16:21-23 has been explained by some to teach that Jesus did not or could not foresee or predict his own passion. In reality it only stresses that Matthew reorganized Jesus’ prediction of his future passion and resurrection into a quote that was not a direct “saying” of Christ. The way it is written in Matthew, Jesus’ words on his upcoming suffering sound like a bombshell after Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, but in reality the author assembled all of Jesus’ on his passion into this spot merely for brevity’s sake. Christ’s teaching on his passion was far more gradual as space permitted for the author.
1 Corinthians 3:15 is another such footnote which many do not understand correctly. The footnote merely states that Paul was not intentionally writing about purgatory or eschatology in this context as found in his letter to the Corinthians. This does not conflict with the truth that the verse applies to purgatory, as the Church came to understand it afterwards. Most of the Bible writers did not know that the Holy Spirit was having them write down certain principles and teaching regarding Christ and further revelation about God, especially with regards to writers of the Old Testament. This is just one of those cases, and it just happens to be Paul who at the time did not have purgatory in mind even though it applies.
Granted, the footnotes are using expressions that in the vernacular might sound like they are speaking contrary to Church Tradition, but I guarantee you that they are not. I believe that there is a gap of misunderstanding between those who composed these footnotes (not realizing that your average Catholic has no idea that your vocabulary is one of higher academia) and the Catholic who, at first blush, cannot reconcile what they are reading with what they know of the faith.
I am saddened by the responses of some who make the NAB and the upcoming NABRE (isn't it far too early to mbe aking decisions about a book that hasn’t been released—is it not foolish to 'judge a book by its cover'?) sound akin to the work of heretics. Perhaps we should be quicker to admit that we don’t understand what we are reading, and instead of coming to conclusions to make none at all until we learn the processes and gain some mastery to at least be in the position to accept or dismiss.
I was just thinking about that this morning, in regards to the RSV-2CE. I think people need to email them or call, letting them know that they would like to see the RSV-2CE in more attractive editions. When I have talked with them in the past, they mentioned the possibility of a large print edition, without being specific. I have never understood why they would go through the trouble of the 'revision' yet only have it published in a very limited number of formats and styles. For example, Ignatius publishes a number of books relating to mens ministry, why not hire someone who could develop some additional material which could be added as supplements to the RSV-2CE. I know that is something that I have been hoping, and even doing mock ups myself, for a couple years now.
in its original spanish version language, the Navarre Bible has been published in a single compact volume. It retains the text in vernacular, and has Notes. The notes usually quote from the Fathers, the Catechism, or works from Saint José María Escrivá.
The interesting part is that the single volume edition is printed in the USA, by the Midwest Theological Forum. (The Imprimatur is by Reverend John F. Canary, S.T.I., Vicar General, Archdiocese of Chicago).
You might ask them to do the same for the english version.
Thank you for your comment. I think it provides a helpful perspective on this issue.
WHOSE TAMPERING WITH OUR BIBLES? The Partiality of Translators Regarding Blasphemy Against the Holy One of Israel Jesus Christ.
I just posted on my website some research I have done into the partiality of translators.
I have read your post on your blog and have replied. Again this is exactly what I am talking about. I am most disappointed at what I found written in your post.
It appears you do not have the Greek text in front of you or you would have noticed the different spellings in the words. Also you do not differentiate between nouns and verbs.
First off the word in koine Greek for the noun "blasphemy" is "blasphemeo" not "blasphemia." Being accused of "blasphemeo" (a noun) is different from the act of speaking impiously "blasphemy" (a verb). The Greek text is a little more precise than American English at telling which is which.
Second, koine Greek is an inflectional language. This means that it takes root words and make deriviatives of them by adding prefixes and/or suffixes to the words. This can change the meaning ever so slightly.
Third, none of the four verses in question use "blasphemeo." They each use derivatives of the word. Both Matthew 27:39 and Mark 15:29 use the word "eblashphemoun" while in Luke 22:65 the word is "blashpemountes" and in Luke 23:39 the word is "eblashemei."
In Matthew 27:39 the verb is in the imperfect active indicative. Literally the verse reads: "The one yet beside going harmed speak him stirring the heads of them." The expression "harmed speak" is blasphemeo. It literally means to beat an evil expression onto someone, to mark them with an impression, as if the word could leave a mark on them to identify them to all onlookers as insulted or having had evil called down upon them.
In modern English we do not say: "They that passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads." That is no longer allowed as proper English, though it once was.
After 1950 the term used in the common vernacular was "revile," this most modern translation say that those who "passed by reviled him." Since to revile carries the same meaning of impressing harm-speak on a person, it is used, especially since using the term "blasphemed" is considered archaic and bad grammar.
The same is true of the other verses.
And of course Matthew and the Jews in first-century Palestine did not speak koine Greek. So Matthew is only using an equivalent in Greek to match the action of speaking evil about Jesus. There is nothing to indicate that in Aramaic the action was expressed by a term which could only mean "to blaspheme" in American English usage.
The same can be said regarding the other verses in question.
Points taken. Except this isn't necessarily a modern phenomenon.
HOLY NAMES OF DIVINITY, WHOLE VERSES AND CERTAIN PHRASES Found in the Rhemes New Testament of 1582 BUT NOT FOUND in the New American Bible’s New Testament of 1986.
Please explain to me how the various Holy Names of our Lord can appear in the Rhemes New Testament of 1582 209 times more than they do in the New American Bible? or how 47 foundational verses and phrases from the New Testament can be expurgated by Modernist Non-Saints and be called "the word of God"?
I think that ultimately, the most disappointing aspect of the NABRE notes released to date is that they tend to close off alternative interpretation -- even scholarly interpretations.
Let me take a simple example -- the opening passage of the Bible -- Genesis 1:1-3. These verses famously can be read in multiple ways -- a fact which is noted in most contemporary translations. For example, I casually checked some Catholic translations [RSV, NRSV, and NJB], some Protestant translations [NLT, HCSB, and NET], and a Jewish translation [NJPS] -- all of these carefully note the alternative possible translations in their footnotes.
However, the NABRE, for all of its lengthy annotations, fails to note this basic fact. In fact, reading the NABRE excerpts released to date, one would never realize that there was any ambiguity or possibility of multiple translations in the Hebrew Bible -- which is certainly one of the most characteristic features one notes when one reads original languages.
Points taken. I did not distinguish between verb and noun nor the various spellings of the word. The verb for to blaspheme still works better in those places than "harm-speak" newspeak. But this is no modern phenomenon either.
Lk. 22:65 - And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.
I have also done another piece about partiality.
Mr Hernz, could you explain to me how the various Holy Names of God could appear 209 times in the Rhemes New Testament of 1582 where they dont appear in the New American Bible of 1986? Could you explain how 47 verses and phrases in the New Testament (many foundational) could be expurgated by Modernist Non-Saints and be called "the word of God"?
I think Mr Hernz that we have been handed a stone instead of the bread of life and a serpent instead of a fish for our people's teeth are badly broken and they are horribly snake-bit.
I appreciate the debate and the back and forth discussion, but I would ask that you ease up on the 'non-saint' and other ad hominen attacks. I know you are passionate about this, but please stick with the translations.
Carl - I appreciate what you are trying to do with the NAB notes. But I think it is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps if the NAB was meant to be for scholars or college level students of the Bible I agree with your perspective.
However these notes appear in children's Bibles and also Bible destined for RCIA candidates. If someone like you has to come to this blog and type paragraphs of explanation just to have a Catholic understanding then I'm of the mind that there is no way they should be circulated the way they are.
Concerning the NAB, U.S. Catholics appear stratified into three layers that do not mix well, this blog is an microcosm of this hypothesis. They are: 1. Those who like the NAB and think it needs no more than a slight tweak to be great, 2. Those who hate the NAB and think it should be scrapped, and 3. those who think it is a mediocre translation with serious problems that prevent it from being taken seriously.
To improve the perception of the NAB, I think the following areas need to be addressed. 1. The comments and notes: whether or not they are are orthodox the notes are seriously divisive. Many thoughtful and learned scholars, easily named, are of the opinion that the notes are often misguided and sometimes worse. 2. The English Style: The translation style needs a rethink since, however well intentioned the stylists may have been, the current style has the effect of seriously alienating potential readers. 3. The Not Christian Hermeneutic: the theory of interpretation which chooses against Catholic and Christian interpretation, especially in the Old Testament and Psalms, needs serious adjustment. Since the Church has decreed that this is the only Bible which can speak for the Church in the United States, the hermeneutic needs to be Christian and Catholic or risks further alienating Christians of all conditions and levels of education.
I would argue that if the Church wants to widen appreciation for the NAB it will need to seriously address the three topics mentioned above. Until she does, I believe Catholics will likely continue in their stratified state with any future revisions failing to win new adherents.
Carl, I would be open to your ideas about the NAB notes is the only complaints came from the uneducated or the ordinary pew person. However, complaints about the theology of the footnotes and introductions has come from other Scripture scholars and professors, and even from one who was part of the original NAB team, the late Msgr. John Steinmueller (put his name into Amazon search and be amazed at the amount of scholarly Catholic books he wrote).
His last book on the topic that I am aware of and which I own is entitled, "The Sword of the Spirit Which is the Word of God". This book focuses not just on NAB but on all forms of modern scholarship that is contrary to the Tradition.
I ended my comments by stating that those who composed the notes where out of touch with their audience, but I never stated that only laypersons have problems with them or that I agree with the way the footnotes are.
I merely stated that they don't mean what a lot of people get from reading them. I also stated how saddened I was to see that others view the NAB as more of a heretical work than anything.
My personal feelings I did not express in my post. I did not think my personal view was as valuable as being able to test out the data presented and learn that we might be making the mistake. But for what it is worth I believe that the footnotes should either be easier to understand or that basic catechesis for the Catholic must include a program to bring everyone up to speed with the language of the scholar. From an academic view the footnotes are not inaccurate, and that is all I was stating about the NAB. That can be proven by demonstration. My opinion and feelings on the matter are different and cannot be verified as being such.
There is no such thing as a perfect Bible translation, the NAB included. But I am not attempting to do the NAB any favors by my comments. It doesn't need me but can stand on its own merits, regardless of what anybody thinks of them.
When I was stuck with the New World Translation and attempting to get out of the religious organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I learned to appreciate what I once took for granted--and that was an important point to understnading everything I wrote after it. My real goal in my comment was to get people to stop and stand silent and see if they could notice God’s love in this provision, regardless of it not living up to some of our expectations. We as Catholics don’t realize how good we have it with this translation, and what a demonstration of how much God values us in making his word so accessible in this form. It is God’s love that should be searched for in what we are being presented. Eventually, with the passing of history, all mistakes will be corrected. But we only have now to notice God’s love. I am praying we do not miss identifying it in the latest gift of the NABRE, even if human error and pride (that of scholar and layperson, translator and reader) might make it a challenge to do so.
Carl - I do see what you are saying and I agree with your overall thrust (just not necessarily some of your conclusions). However, I really like your vision, spirit and approach to the topic. Thanks.
I do not mean this as a personal attack, only as an observation. You began your comments (and your subsequent comments included) very personal appeals to your own individual struggles which led you to make the claims you are making. You also gave us personal and specific examples of why we should trust your personal assurances over against the opinions of others. After that, I don't think you can claim that you are not giving us your opinion without damaging the credibility you tried earlier to build.
Which are you: A struggling survivor of a non-Christian religion who taught himself 3 extinct languages to become a passionate apologist for the Catholic Church and her scholars? or, are you an unbiased thinker simply trying to offer a reasonably obvious solution to a common misunderstanding regarding the NAB without recourse to a larger context?
I see what you are saying. It certainly isn't the worst out there and compared to the official JW translation, ours is much better, even if it could stand to be improved. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion here.
I would appreciate, once again, that you provide your data without the vitriol.
The NAB daringly mistranslates verses that constitute the Church's perennial teachings on Virginity. St Jerome spilled much ink in defense of Celibacy and the English martyrs spilled much blood in defense against heretical corruptions of these particular verses.
Vulgate : Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierum, sororem circumducendi?
Rhemes 1582 : Have not we power to lead about a “woman,” a sister?
Vulgate : Propter fornicationem autem unusquisque suam uxorem habeat, et unaquaeque suum virum habeat.
Rhemes 1582 : But because of fornication "let" every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
NAB 1986 : But because of cases of immorality every man “should” have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
Vulgate : Etiam rogo et te germane compar.
Vulgate : Honorabile conubium in omnibus, et thorus immaculatus.
Rhemes 1582 : “Marriage honourable in all,” and the bed undefiled.
NAB 1986 : “Let marriage be honored among all” and the marriage bed be kept undefiled.
Vulgate : Qui dixit illis, non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est.
Rhemes 1582 : Who said to them, “Not all take this word,” but they to whom it is given.
NAB 1986 : He answered, “Not all can accept this word,” but only those to whom that is granted.
I am sitting here scratching my head. Those verse all pretty much match up. As I read them over it seems the differences are matters of synonym choices? For instance, Hebrews 13:14 is nearly identical.
They are not identical. The Rhemes New Testament of 1582 has very lengthy note on this verse. I will supply but a part of it.
Againe, The Eng. Bib. 1577. our new Translatours corrupt the text in that they translate, in omnibus, among al men, because so they thinke it vvould sound better to the ignorant, that Priests, Religious, and al vvhosoeuer, may marie: vvhere they can not tell either by the Greeke or Latin, that in omnibus should be the masculine gendre, rather then the neutre (as not only Erasmus, but Oecum. in Collect. the Greeke doctors also take it) to signifie that mariage should be honorably kept betweene man and vvife in al pointes and in al respectes. See S. Chrys. and Theophyl. in hunc locum. For there may be many filthy abuses in vvedlocke, vvhich the Apostle vvarneth them to take heede of, and to keepe their mariage-bed vndefiled. But the third corruption for their purpose aforesaid, and most impudent, is, Beza in no. Test. Grcolat. an. 1565. that some of the Caluinistes for, in omnibus,translate, inter quosuis, vvith a marginal interpretation to signifie al orders, conditions, states, and qualities of men. So boldly they take away al indifferencie of senses, and make Gods vvord to speake iust that vvhich them selues vvould, and their heresie requireth, in vvhich kind they passe al impudencie and al heretikes that euer vvere.
You misquoted the verses above from the Rhemes 1582, and in particular have given a somewhat misleading impression by adding punctuation not in the original, and also omitted the notes included in that edition.
Regarding the quotations from the Vulgate -- as you may know, there is not one Vulgate but many. One thing we are sure of is that the often quoted Sixto-Clementine Vulgate was not available to the Rhemes translators (it did not appear until 1590, and then with so many errors that it was immediately withdrawn). In fact, we know that it was not even similar to the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, since many annotations quote Latin not existing in our current editions of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate or are translated at such variance as to suggest a different source text.
Haue vve not povver to lead abouta vvoman a sister, as also the rest of the Apostles, and our Lordes brethren, and Cephas?
Note: A vvoman a sister. The Heretikes peruersely (as they do al other places for the aduantage of their Sect) expound this of the Apostles wiues, and for, vvoman, translate, vvife, al belles sounding vvedding to them. [Subnote: new Test. 1580.] Vvhere the Apostle meaneth plainely the deuout vvomen that after the maner of Ievvrie [Subnote: Mat. 27, 55.] did serue the preacher of necessaries, of vvhich sort many folovved Christ, and sustained him and his of their substance. So doth S. Chrysostome, Theodorete, and al the Greekes (Occu. in collect super hunc lo.) take it. So doth S. Augustine De op. Monach. c. 4. and S. Hierom li. 1 adu. Iouinianum c. 14. both disputing and prouing it by the very vvordes of the text. S. Ambrose also vpon this place. And the thing is most plaine, for to vvhat end should he talke of burdening the Corinthias vvith finding his vvife, vvhen him self (c. 7, 7. 8.) clerely saith that he vvas single?
Sidenote: He nameth Cephas (that is Peter) to proue his purpose by the example of the cheefe and Prince of the Apostles. S. Ambro. S. Chrys. Oecum. vpon this place.
But because of fornication let euery man hauehis ovvne vvife, and let euery vvoman haue her ovvne husband.
Note: His ovvne vvife. He saith not, as the Protestants here pretend to excuse the vnlavvful coniunction of Votaries, Let euery one mary: [Subnote: ten eautou] but, let euery one haue, keepe, or vse his ovvne vvife to vvhom he vvas maried before his conuersion. for the Apostle ansvvereth here to the first question of the Corinthians, vvhich vvas not, vvhether it vvere lavvful to mary, but vvhether they vvere not bound vpon their conuersion, to absteine from the company of their vviues married before in their infidelitie, as some did persuade them that they ought to doe. [Subnote: The Apostle biddeth not al to marie, but to keepe their vviues before maried.] Hiero. li. 1 cont. Iouin. c. 4. Chrys. in hunc locum ho. 19.
Note: Sincere companion. The English Bibles vvith one consent inteprete the Greeke vvordes, faithful yokefellovv, perhaps to signifie (as some vvould haue it) that the Apostle here speaketh to his vvife: but they must vnderstand that their Maisters Caluin and Beza mislike that exposition, and [Subnote: S. Chrys. Theodore. Occum. Theophyl.] al the Greeke fathers almost much more reiect it, and it is against S. Paules ovvne vvordes speaking to the vnmaried. [Subnote: Suspitious translation.] [Subnote: S. Paul had no vvife.] That it is good for them to remaine so, euen as him self did. 1 Cor. 7, 8. Vvhereby it is euident he had no vvife, and therfore meaneth here some other his coadiutor and fellovv-labourer in the Gospel.
Sidenote: This Clement vvas aftervvard the 4 Pope of Rome from S. Peter, as S. Hierom vvriteth according to the comon supputation.
Mariage honorable in all, and the bed vndefiled. For, fornicatours & aduouterers God vvil iudge.
Note: Mariage honorable. The Apostle (saith a holy doctor) saith, Mariage honorable in all, and the bed vndefiled. And therfore the seruants of God in that they are not maried, thinke not the good of mariage to be a fault, but yet they doubt not perpetual continencie to be better then good mariage, specially in this time vvhen it is said of continencie, He that can take, let him take. De fid. ad Pet. c. 3. apud Aug. in fine. Marke the doctrine of the fathers and of the Catholike Church concerning matrimonie, that it is honorable, and so honorable, that it is a holy sacrament, but yet [Subnote: 1 Cor. 7. v. 38.] inferiour to virginity and perpetual continencie: honorable in all, that is, all such as may lawfully marie and are lawfully maried: not in brother and sister, not in persons that haue vowed the contrarie, to vvhom the same Apostle saith it is damnable. 1. Tim. 5. v. 11. [Subnote: Hovv mariage is honorable in al, if the Apostle did so say, as he doth not.] And this vvere the meaning of this place, if it vvere to be read thus, Mariage is honorable.
Who said to them, Not al take this vvord, but they to vvhom it is giuen.
Parkinson’s disease, which I have had for over 10 years now.
I also had the privilege of working as an employee of both my parish office and my diocese—which I retired from after serving as associate-director of the IT department.
I am also a stand-up comic, and when I’m well enough I use my comedy to promote further understanding about my disease to the unwary.
I am sorry this was not put into my posts to completely identify myself as this is not the Carl Hernz Show. I already did that recently, thank you.
I knew this was going to happen. I knew if I said anything that sounded a bit in favor of the NAB I would be thrown over the virtual coals of the World Wide Web when the worm and virus program do not die, there to weep and grind my teeth over folks who take commenting on websites (and themselves) just a little bit too seriously.
While I doubt I will ever try this again, I do hope you will understand if I use this experience as fodder for my next standup benefit for young onset Parkinson’s disease.
Don’t worry. I won’t use anyone’s real screen name.
AH come on Carl, don't go. This is getting good. Can't wait to leave the fort (have video blocking here) and check out your youtube video.
Let's stick to discussing particular points of the translation as oppose to making comments that could be misunderstood as personal attacks.
In one post that brims with knowledge, charity, and commendable love for the Church and scriptures, Carl managed to have himself feeling sorry for posting in a blog about Catholic Bibles.
53 comments, Timothy, what have you done? You have unleashed a tsunami! By the way Carl, I think the NAB will be a better translation after this revision and I will be purchasing a copy.
I have been sitting on this topic, the NAB commentary, since I started this blog because I knew it would bring forth a spirited debate. I continue to hope that this topic, perhaps at some point in the future, can be discussed in a more detailed, yet charitable way.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : ...et Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas.
Rhemes 1582 - and the Spirite of God moued ouer the waters.
NAB 1986 : ...while a mighty wind swept over the waters.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est.
Rhemes 1582 - Heare Israel, The Lord our God, is one Lord.
NAB 1986 : Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Quia primum omnium mandatum est : Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est.
Rhemes 1582 - That the first commaundement of al is,Heare Israel: the Lord thy God, is one God.
NAB 1986 :The first is this : Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Una est columba mea.
NAB 1986 : One alone is my dove.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.
Rhemes 1582 - For there be three vvhich giue testimonie in heauen, the Father, the Vvord, and the Holy Ghost. and these three be one.
NAB 1986 : It will come to pass in the last days, God says, that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh.
NAB 1986 :Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God some-thing to be grasped.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Hic erat, quem dixi : Qui post me venturus est, ante me factus est : quia prior me erat.
Rhemes 1582 - This vvas he of vvhom I spake, He that shal come after me, is made before me: because he vvas before me.
NAB 1986 :This was he of whom I said, The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.
Rhemes 1582 - And our Lord sayd to Satan: The Lord geue rebuke on thee Satan: and the Lord that chose Ierusalem geue rebuke on thee: Why, is not this a firebrand, taken out of the fire?
Hieronymopolis, the NAB is not the only translation that translates 1 John 5:7 differently than the Rheims N.T. Here is a list; The New Vulgate, RSV, NAB, NRSV, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem, CCB, NASB, NIV, just to name a few! The difference is probably due to the fact that different Greek manuscripts were used to translate this verse. I don't think that there is any conspiracy to remove the Trinity from any verses of the Bible, if so why would the Vatican allow it in its official translation.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : ...Erit sepulcrum ejus gloriosum.
NAB 1986 : ...His dwelling shall be glorious.
* (Note from the Rhemes) 10. Christ after his death, which to the vvorld was ignominious, vvould be gloriously buried, by very honorable persons, Ioseph and Nicodemus, with abundance of most precious spices, vvrapped in finne linnen, and laide in a nevv monument: to shew that the glorie of the iust beginneth from their death: where the glorie of the vvicked endeth. Christs sepulchre stil also remaineth glorious, honored euen by the Turkes: much more by Catholique Christians.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Emitte agnum Domine dominatorem terrae, de Petra deserti ad montem filiae Sion.
NAB 1986 : Send them forth, hugging the earth like reptiles, from Sela across the desert, to the mount of the daughter of Zion.
(Note from the Rhemes) 1. In the great miserie of the Moabites, the Prophet saw one special cause of consolation, that Christ the lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world, should be borne of their lineage, by one of thier progenie.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Et tu Bethlehem Ephrata parvulus es in millibus Juda : ex te mihi egredietur qui sit dominator in Israel, et egressus ejus ab initio, a diebus aeternitatis.
NAB 1986 : But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah, too small to be among the clans of Judah, From you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel ; whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.
(Note from the Rhemes) 2. 2. From the beginuing, from the dayes of eternitie.] To signifie that Christ taking mans nature, vvas neuertheles eternal God vvith the Father and Holie Ghost, the prophet addeth that he vvas from the beginning, and from the dayes of eternitie.vvhich maner of speach, by iterating the same termes, as also seculum seculi, secula sæculorum, & the like, signifie absolute eternitie. Christ man and God. Though the same wordes put single, in some places do only importe long time, or during such a state: asExo. 21. v. 6, Psal. 23. v. 7. & 9.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Posuit David puero suo excitare regem ex ipso fortissimum, et in throno honoris sedentem in sempiternum.
Rhemes 1582 - He appointed to Dauid his seruant for to raise vp a king of him most strong, and sitting in the throne of honour for euer.
(Note from the Rhemes) 34. In Dauids progenie God preserued the kinglie state til the captiuitie: and the estimation of the royal bloud vnto Christ. But in al this Dauid was a figure of Christ. VVho sitteth in the Throne of honour absolutly for euer.
"The idea that to speak of the soul is unbiblical was accepted to such an extent that even the new Roman Missal suppressed the term anima in its liturgy for the dead. It also disappeared from the ritual for burial." (Ibid).
"And the Lord formed man of the slime of the earth : and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. "
"My being [rather than the traditional “My soul”] proclaims the greatness of the Lord…"
" What profit would a man show if he were to gain the whole world and destroy himself in the process? What can a man offer in exchange for his very self?"
Let's remember that this post is about the commentary, not simply posting every verse you dislike.
Also, if you want to discuss particular verses, it would be best to address each individually, and then allow people to be able to respond, instead of just heaping verse after verse after verse. I am not sure that is helpful.
Interesting debate. I'm not an expert on these issues. One thing I do know is that for me personally, I've tried a few different bibles, and for some indescrible reason, the NAB has given me the most peace and comfort throughout the years. Maybe it is because it matches the readings in the American Catholic Mass...maybe it is because it has been the main one I've read in my life. One thing I do know is that the Sacred Scriptures do say that we should seek God, which is why these issues are so important to us.
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate - Via peccantium complanata lapidibus, et in fine illorum inferi, et tenebrae, at poenae.
Rhemes 1582 - The way of sinners is paued with stones, & in their end, hel, & darkenes, and paines.
NAB 1986 - The path of sinners is smooth stones that end in the depths of the netherworld.
Unfortunately Hieronymopolis, terms like Gehenna and Hades (Netherworld) are literally what the text reads in Greek, so I don't think your point has anything to do with a desire by the NAB translators to abolish fear in the hearts of men.
How about an answer to the previous post on the War Against the Soul. Because Souls and Hell go together like Milquetoast and Modern "Catholics."
Look, I appreciate your contributions to this thread, but you have yet to answer anyones replies to your posts. Instead, you just keep posting more and longer comments which don't address ultimately what the post was initially about: the NAB commentary. I would appreciate it if you could please: 1) Respond to the questions and replies others have asked in regards to your comments; 2) Shorten your posts in general (perhaps provide links if you want); 3) Stop making uncharitable comments about individuals or groups of people.
I have set out to show in my posts that the New American Bible (notes, text, and all) is the most sustained assault upon the plenary inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures ever delivered under “official church” auspices in the English-speaking world. I offered "Ten Points" to back up my thesis. (None of which were answered.) I showed how the NAB is missing 209 Holy Names of God from the New Testament where the first English Catholic Bible has them. How the NAB has expurgated 47 verses and phrases from the New Testament, some fundamental to the Catholic religion. That the NAB systematically mistranslates verses that constitute the Church's perennial teachings on the Celibate state. That the NAB translation undermines the Trinity, Wars on the Soul, censors the word Hell as well as obscuring or removing Messianic prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament.
Much thanks to you, Heironymopolis, for your efforts in organizing this factual information for us.
I totally agree with you, that the NAB is an erroneous by-product of excessive liberalism following Vatican II. It has the unfortunate side effect (like the loose Liturgical Translation that accompanied it) of disconnecting our sense of Catholic identity, as traditionally known. It needs to be scrapped completely, instead of giving it another face lift.
It's pretty sad when a 400 year old Protestant Bible translation is closer in meaning to the Church's Latin than a "Catholic" Bible not even published yet!
FYI: Some comments have appeared today that previously, and mysteriously, were placed in a spam folder.
The Gospel of Q? Wouldn't that be the most accurate of all, seeing as it would be supposedly written by the time-travelling demi-god (maybe the devil? it's said he's called the "Father of Lies" on many planets) from Star Trek?
I would assume Q could have gone back 2380 years (from the 24th century, remember!) and have written an account of Jesus - but it won't exist for another 400 years.
Two points: Star Trek in later seasons turned decidedly atheistic (in comparison to Kirk's remark in one early episode on a Pagan planet, "We don't need all those gods... We do fine with just the one), and Q was decidedly tricky.
In the end, I wouldn't trust a Gospel according to Q.
I know this is a very old thread, but I am just curious as to which Bible translation you support if the NABRE is so awful?

References: in fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
in fine