MStar Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 What does anyone here know about the New American Bible? I have learned that it is the official bible of the Catholic Church and is endorsed by the bishops. Lately I've been noticing some very liberal slants within the footnotes and then a nearly-Catholic friend sent me this article [post="0"]http://web.archive.org/web/20040726064507/http:/www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/NAB.htm[/post] because he was getting fed up with the NAB and did a bit of searching into it. He said that that article addressed lots of his frustrations with that translation and I had also noticed a bit of that stuff. I don't know what to make of it. I don't have time to research it furthur just now (far to busy with school and all) but it concerned me and I was hoping some folks on here would give me their take on it. Please read some of the article and respond! And if the Church really doesn't have a problem with those things, then what is their teaching about the bible? Is it not true that the bible is inspired and that the writers did not err; contrary to what some of the footnotes in the NAB imply? Some clarity on the Church's position about this would be nice, and thoughts about the NAB's liberal scholasticism. I hope these questions make sense, hopefully there are some folks on here who understand what I'm getting at, because right now I'm not sure where else to go for answers and don't have time to search in other places anyways. I would really, really appriciate some answers to these things, and I apologize if I don't respond quickly, but I look forward to what people here have to say about it. Thanks so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Not heretical, but the footnotes are carptastic. It's what happens when ecumenism is taken too far and compromises made in order to foster kumbaiyah-ness. Not sure, but I *think* some of this is addressed in the RNAB (revised NAB). Just do what most peeps do outside of the lectionary...use the NRSV, Navarre, Jerusalem, or Douey-Rheims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I hate the NRSV because it goes overboard on the inclusive language. We use the RSV-CE in Grad school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I use the New American Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximilianus Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) Dang CatherineM, I change my preference to the NRSV becuase of the 'issues' with the NAB, now I have to move on to the RSV-CE..... Forget it I'm sticking with the Vulgate. Edited October 2, 2008 by Maximilianus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Link for the article is not working. Had to copy and past into address bar to get there. I try to be skeptical when I look at the footnotes as I know you are getting more of the author's opinion rather then actual Bible meaning. I hate footnotes though as I think they can lead more people astray then they help. A very intelligent, and very Catholic, priest I know prefers the Old Jerusalem Bible. He said that whenever you read "scholars believe" that more than likely that is the author just writing that to support his opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majella Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Stick to the Vulgate or the Douey Rheims Bible! All the new translations are doubtful!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MStar Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1668234' date='Oct 1 2008, 11:59 PM']Link for the article is not working. Had to copy and past into address bar to get there. I try to be skeptical when I look at the footnotes as I know you are getting more of the author's opinion rather then actual Bible meaning. I hate footnotes though as I think they can lead more people astray then they help. A very intelligent, and very Catholic, priest I know prefers the Old Jerusalem Bible. He said that whenever you read "scholars believe" that more than likely that is the author just writing that to support his opinion.[/quote] But why does the Church endorse it? Shouldn't the official bible of the Church be one with footnotes that correspond to her teachings? Besides that, my friend complains that the NAB just sounds bad, not the beautiful language that the Church deserves to be using. Though I don't know enough about different translations to say much there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) [quote name='MStar' post='1668470' date='Oct 2 2008, 01:26 PM']But why does the Church endorse it? Shouldn't the official bible of the Church be one with footnotes that correspond to her teachings? Besides that, my friend complains that the NAB just sounds bad, not the beautiful language that the Church deserves to be using. Though I don't know enough about different translations to say much there. [/quote] I like the translation in the NAB -- I think it's fairly literal. The New Jerusalem is more poetic, if that's important. Looking at the front material, the NAB was issued in 1970, and had been worked on for 25 years at that point. As far as I know, the only part the Vatican oversaw was the translation itself, not the footnotes. Why are the footnotes so wacky and unCatholic? I don't know. From what I have read, as long as someone's interpretation or historical reading does not actually contradict Catholic teaching (which is not all that detailed on a lot of nitpicky biblical matters) it's considered okay. So, for example, there's no specific doctrine about what the thorns of Jesus' crown were actually like. The footnotes in the NAB say there were just pointy to look like a crown, and the Romans intended only to mock Jesus, not hurt him with it. Of course, this contradicts every tradition, artist, saint, and visionary the Church has. I think it's safe to say the footnotes reflect one scholar's opinion, and aren't in outright contradiction with any Church teaching... but that doesn't mean they are right either. (This is actually all a Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur gets you -- the material isn't opposed to Church doctrine or immoral. It doesn't mean the material is [i]correct[/i], or even that the Bishop and censor agree with it.) Edited October 2, 2008 by philothea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I would say some of the footnotes and introductions to certain books are heretical. Not much we can do about it, just try to make the best of it and use it for our benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilac_angel Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 [quote name='Majella' post='1668245' date='Oct 2 2008, 02:53 AM']Stick to the Vulgate or the Douey Rheims Bible! All the new translations are doubtful!!![/quote] I just love that BibleGateway.com has so many Bible translations, but not the Douhey Rheims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MStar Posted October 3, 2008 Author Share Posted October 3, 2008 Thanks Philothea, that's the kind of info I was really curious about. [quote name='mortify' post='1668618' date='Oct 2 2008, 04:56 PM']I would say some of the footnotes and introductions to certain books are heretical. Not much we can do about it, just try to make the best of it and use it for our benefit.[/quote] But why would the Church recommend an official bible which contains incorrect viewpoints (even if it's not explicitly against the Church). I'm just frustrated and confused by what appears to be lack of care on behalf of the bishops and/or priests. If their official bible has bad footnotes, they should hire someone to create good ones, or something along those lines, to guide Catholics in studying the bible. Catholics should feel comfortable reading the bibles their bishops recommend, and I wouldn't feel comfortable recomending someone with no biblical knowledge to the NAB. I don't even like to read it, esp. the more these things are pointed out to me. :s Does anyone know about the bible study Scott Hahn is writting? I have the Gospel of Luke, I think he's done the whole New Testament and is now working on the Old. They publish the separate books as he finishes them so we can use them! He's using the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition. I'm very excited to read it How cool would it be if the bishops took something like that and pared it down to some delightful Church-appropriate footnotes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 First of all, the NAB isn't the "official" English translation in the whole world - it might be in the USA/North America though, I'm not sure. Secondly...in 1995 a new version of the Willibrordvertaling was brought out (St. Willibrord was one of if not the earliest missionary to the Netherlands, and vertaling means translation) here, carrying approval of the Dutch bishops' conference (together with the Belgian, I think). I'm not an expert but I've heard that WV95, as a [i]translation[/i] (we're not even onto the footnotes here) is on the wrong side of the decent fence. Yet it was approved by the bishops...and yes, some of us have wondered [i]why[/i] it received their approval. The general answer we found was that if the bishops hadn't have done so it would have led to an even worse situation than the Dutch Church at that time was already in. We don't have all the information, and whilst a decision might not be the best, it may [i]have been[/i] the best at that time given the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilesJesu Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I think what is approved is the English translation of the text. It is translated for a target reading level around the 6th grade reading level. The footnotes are not very good and the translation is marginal. If doing Bible study, consult more than one translation and compare. I like the RSV-CE as my primary. For bibles with good footnotes, the ones from Ignatius (individual books) are very good and hopefully they will have a complete volume in the next couple of years. Some of the best commentary comes from the Navarre Bible. (both use RSV-CE). Peace, MilesJesu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggamafu Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) The footnotes themselves are indeed both "approved" and carry imprimaturs and nihil obstats (at least according to the revised edition contained in the Catholic Study Bible, 2nd Edition). I have not been troubled by any footnotes and have indeed found them quite informative on several occasions. I will say that the footnotes are not lay-friendly in that they all seem to assume grad-student level knowledge of biblical criticism and ancient literature. For instance, when a note refers to something in the Bible as a "myth", it is not using the word myth in the more popularized understanding of the word, but rather it is referring to a specific literary technique; an ancient method of conveying a true event or doctrinal / moral teaching (or envisioned / prophetic events) in poetic expressions. The confusion here is similar to that caused by reference to the cults within Catholicism, such as the cult of the Blessed Virgin (and indeed the cultus of Catholicism as a whole). The use of the word "cult" is entirely appropriate yet triggers a gag-reflex from theological novices. Moreover, although there are theories put forth in the notes that contradict traditional viewpoints (for instance, that Jonah is a work of fiction), nothing contradicts a dogma of the faith, much less any part of the creed. We should keep in mind that "traditional" interpretations of the faith - although they should be respected and even enjoyed, regardless of how proven they are - have been on some occasions proven wrong before (geocentrism, among other issues, comes to mind). This is of course the very reason for Sacred Tradition and the dogmatic authority of the Magisterium. I am great fan of the New American Bible as a study resource, even though the NRSV has its own benefits in comparison. The New Jerusalem Bible is more poetic. The Douey Rheims sounds like Shakespeare and can be very eloquent, yet at times reads embarrassingly due to changes in the English language (e.g., "her bowels moved on the child"). JMO. Do not fear inquiries of Truth (who is God), where the inquiries do not attempt to refute dogma. Such inquiries and criticisms are how theology grows and progresses. As beautiful as the mustard seed may be, it would be a shame to inhibit its growth into a flourishing tree that, far from contradicting the nature of the seed, is the seed's fulfillment. Edited October 3, 2008 by Ziggamafu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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