Laudate_Dominum Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Well, the NAB is full of gender-revisionist language; that's the main thing I don't like about the text itself. The footnotes and introductions that often accompany it are what's really atrocious.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 And the Church also approved the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-CE for use in the Mass is the U.S. For reasons that I'm unaware of, the NAB dominates.
StColette Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 21 2005, 06:54 PM']Correction is not debating. [right][snapback]653357[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I was referring to Littleles' post. It was inching toward a debate.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 So that you don't think it's just me saying this, I've found a quote from James Akin that supports my view: "The book introductions commonly state highly speculative higher critical theories as if they were facts and have a general tone which serves to undermine the reader's confidence in the books he is reading. To use the expression I did earlier, they tend to be faith-damaging rather than faith-building. The footnotes, likewise, are problematic. Some, especially in the early editions of the NAB, contained flat denials of Catholic doctrine, and even the footnotes of the more recent editions contain things that contradict what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says."
StColette Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 So I'm hoping they fixed these "flat denials of Catholic doctrine" in later edition ?
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='StColette' date='Jul 21 2005, 07:10 PM']So I'm hoping they fixed these "flat denials of Catholic doctrine" in later edition ? [right][snapback]653373[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I doubt it. Catholic Biblical scholariship is so messed up these days I don't see anything totally orthodox coming from the publishers who tend to publish these things. The Ignatius study Bible seems good, but it uses the RSV-CE translation anyway. All the editions that I own of the NAB are pretty problematic (some more than others).
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Can't wait for the new Ignatius Study Bible with "translation tweaks."
cmotherofpirl Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 21 2005, 08:17 PM']I doubt it. Catholic Biblical scholariship is so messed up these days I don't see anything totally orthodox coming from the publishers who tend to publish these things. The Ignatius study Bible seems good, but it uses the RSV-CE translation anyway. All the editions that I own of the NAB are pretty problematic (some more than others). [right][snapback]653382[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I think St Ignatius and Navarre are the best notes to be had.
phatcatholic Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 i just bought Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts from the Ignatius Study bible. heretics beware.......
Technicoid Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Don't despair. The tide is turning. Let's keep up with our prayers and devotions. I don't have a problem with the NAB translation of the scripture itself, but the notes seem to be heavily biased by critics who've misapplied redactive techniques to the text. After having followed modernist and postmodernist approaches to literature for much of my adult life, I can see how these people come to their conclusions, but the logic is always based on the assumption that modernist redaction trumps the contemporary interpretation of the text. Sorry. I don't buy that assumption. I figure the people [i]closest[/i] to the period have a better understanding of the text than we. Since we have access to what they wrote, we have a record of their beliefs. Bill
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='Technicoid' date='Jul 22 2005, 12:17 AM']Don't despair. The tide is turning. Let's keep up with our prayers and devotions. I don't have a problem with the NAB translation of the scripture itself, but the notes seem to be heavily biased by critics who've misapplied redactive techniques to the text. After having followed modernist and postmodernist approaches to literature for much of my adult life, I can see how these people come to their conclusions, but the logic is always based on the assumption that modernist redaction trumps the contemporary interpretation of the text. Sorry. I don't buy that assumption. I figure the people [i]closest[/i] to the period have a better understanding of the text than we. Since we have access to what they wrote, we have a record of their beliefs. Bill [right][snapback]653835[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'm with you. Modernist scholarship is quite naive in its own way. Many of the presuppositions and philosophical underpinnings of their hermeneutic are lame.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 22 2005, 01:14 AM']Jerusalem Bible and RSV-CE are good right? [right][snapback]653925[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yep
FiatLux1860 Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Hm, I've noticed there's been talk of the footnotes accompanying Matthew's version of Christ's entry into Jerusalem in the NAB. I got curious and flipped to that section in my NAB (copyright 1991), and I'm afraid I'm a little lost as to what the problem with those notes are. The footnotes say, "That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake." What do the better/ more accurate versions of the Bible say in their footnotes to explain away this strange conundrum?
phatcatholic Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 most bibles don't have footnotes i'll consult my commentaries when i get home.....
jmjtina Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Gosh, I love my Douay-Rheims and RSV-CE. Anyone own St Ignatius and Navarre notes? is there one you like better? I'm wanting to invest. maybe both if they serve two different purposes. Beats watching TV.
phatcatholic Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 (edited) i have the whole navarre collection, and the gospels and acts from the ignatius study bible. as far as content is concerned, the main difference is that the navarre is more devotional in nature while the ignatius is more for apologetics. the navarre is awesome at showing u how rich and beautiful our faith is. the way it explains bible verses and what the church teaches is straight-up poetic. footnotes easily turn into wonderful essays on a topic, if it deserves a lengthy treatment. also, it always has the perfect quote from a saint, or pope, or doctor of the church to summarize what we believe. the ignatius study bible is the freakin sword of truth. i take that onto the battlefield this thing is biblical scholarship at its finest. it has charts, and word study inserts (for example, on the petros/petra distinction) and just piercing commentary. its made for bible study and for a defense of catholicism. they both serve their purpose well, and if you can afford to, i would highly suggest getting both of them. you'll find them the cheapest at allcatholicbooks.com pax christi, phatcatholic Edited July 22, 2005 by phatcatholic
jmjtina Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 (edited) whoa, I don't know. guess, I WILL have to buy both. But I think I'll start on the......navarre first. Thanks Nick. Gosh, books like that makes me happy. <------this is soooo MY smilie!!!!!! : Edited July 22, 2005 by jmjtina
phatcatholic Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='jmjtina' date='Jul 22 2005, 02:52 AM'] <------this is soooo MY smilie!!!!!! [right][snapback]653982[/snapback][/right][/quote] hehe, no doubt!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now