Friday, February 11, 2011

The NAB(RE) Notes and Commentary

Yes, I think it is probably time to bring up this issue. I often think that discussions here or at places like the Catholic Answers Forums regarding the NAB(RE) usually descend into debates about the commentary, more so than the translation itself. Of course that is a generalization, but one that I think has some merit to it. Recent discussion on this blog over the release of Genesis 1 in the NABRE has brought this issue to the forefront again. From my perspective, I have become so accustom to the tone and content of the NAB commentary that nothing really "bothers" me anymore. I am not one who thinks that the majority of the NAB(RE) commentary are problematic, since I tend to appreciate the more historical-critical notes. That being said, there certainly are some stinkers, most notably Matthew 16:21-23, which in the end tend to overshadow the majority of notes which are simply informative, neutral in content, or at times tradition affirming in tone. Do I wish some of the notes weren't written in a tone that assumes certain scholarly theories are fact when they are not? Yes! Would I like a few more citations to the Fathers or the CCC? Yes! Do I think the notes are heretical? No!

So, then, the issue is what should be the tone and content of the NAB(RE) commentary? Should those who have worked on the commentary assume that the typical Catholic reader would have some basic knowledge of the various theories in current Biblical scholarship?

75 comments:

Diakonos said...

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

TEN POINTS AGAINST the New American Bible’s BOGUS EXEGESIS of the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew

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.

1. The word “Catholic” is not mentioned once. Only the “Matthean church, Matthew’s church, Matthew’s community.”

2. Not one Church Father, Doctor, Saint, Pope or Council is named or quoted. (Excepting one inconsequential remark from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History & Nostra Aetate)

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

6. A fanatical obsession for pointing out the most minute Discrepancies.

7. The mysterious and oft’ mentioned but never cited “Some scholars… Many scholars… Most scholars… Majority of scholars.”

8. The seldom cited “Many important Textual witnesses.”

9. St. Matthew the Evangelist is accused of :

“editing, deliberately introducing, modifying, linking, changing, portraying, adding, showing, composing, inserting, expanding, retrojecting, following, accommodating, arranging, assuming, taking, touching, omitting, intending, extending, heightening, setting, claiming, wishing, meaning to, inverting, substituting, attributing, introducing, combining, softening, supporting, retaining, picking up, leaving aside, reducing, weakening, silencing, specifying, summarizing, presenting, ascribing, eliminating, designating, shortening, concentrating, eliminating ambiguities, serving to justify, intending to justify, basing on, removing, recasting, reformulating, abbreviating, doubling, placing, making it so, interrupting, asserting, drawing from, drawing upon, drawing out, formulating, interpreting, turning, giving, depending, incorporating, pointing, deleting, establishing, distinguishing, repeating, associating, commanding, using, utilizing, avoiding, putting, emphasizing, inexactly alluding, curiously omitting, qualifying, altering, rewording.”

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.

“a greater or lesser degree of probability, many answers, far from certain, may have been due, probably from, probably at least, a plausible suggestion, may have, seems likely, probably is meant, probably expresses, probably has to do, probably applies, probably reflects, probably closer, probably due to, probably not due only to, but it is probably, is much disputed, seems to have, there is the same confusion, a plausible view, meaning is obscure, the view held by many, others, however, hold…, is doubtful, is perhaps, some think, may be the reason, very uncertain, there are several possibilities, several meanings given, there is a problem in knowing, could have, it is difficult to know, a different view, it seems plausible to maintain, there is some evidence, understood by some, suggests that, may be because, possibly because, some propose, there is much confusion, although some accept, there are others who believe, this view is now supported, probably made because of, may indicate that, can mean that, for some this is, probably composed, although there is no clear evidence, is vague, reasons against considering this, it is uncertain whether, may reflect, possibly this refers, as many think, may refer to, a fact that may be explained, there is reason to think, has been understood as, while it is questionable that, the difficulty raised by this, perhaps it means, some see, some indicate, probably because, it is disputable, probably based, seems to be due, probably an inexact allusion, etc.”

Timothy said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Tim, I will answer your second question: NO!

Sharon in Waxahachie!

Anonymous said...

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!

Whodoggie.

BC

Theophrastus said...

The NAB's notes:

(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?

Hieronymopolis said...

So says Shakespeare :

Now remains
That we find out the cause of this effect,
Or rather say, the cause of this defect,
For this effect defective comes by cause.

Javier said...

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.

Regards,

Javier

Diakonos said...

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.

Javier said...

Diakonos,

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.

Regards,

Javier

Colleague said...

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.

R. E. Aguirre. said...

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.
_______________

R. E. Aguirre
Regula Fide Blog

Anonymous said...

[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.

To follow your comparison, even the ESV and the NASB do not completely fall to the same Protestant extremism. In fact, the ESV exists as an effort to correct some of the more gross errors of that Liberal school of thought and in that way I believe the ESV is a happy improvement to some of the grosser errors of the NAB. (Though the RSV-2CE is even better.)

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.

Colleague said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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!

BC

Timothy said...

BC,

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.

Diakonos said...

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).

Timothy said...

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.

Theophrastus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theophrastus said...

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.

Timothy said...

Theophrastus,

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!

Anonymous said...

Timothy,

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.

BC

Anonymous said...

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?

Carl Hernz said...

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.

Timothy said...

BC,

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.

Javier said...

Timothy,

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.

Biblia de Navarra (en cuero)

Biblia de Navarra (tapa dura)

Regards,

Javier

Timothy said...

Carl,

Thank you for your comment. I think it provides a helpful perspective on this issue.

Hieronymopolis said...

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.

Carl Hernz said...

Hieronymopolis,

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.

As I wrote there:

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.

Hieornymopolis said...

Points taken. Except this isn't necessarily a modern phenomenon.

King James 1611

Mt. 27:39
And they that passed by reviled him...
Mk. 15:29
And they that passed by railed on him...
Lk. 22:65
And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.
Lk. 23:39
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him...

I also recommend a perusal of a previous study I have done called :

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"?

Theophrastus said...

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.

What a wasted opportunity!

Hieronymopolis said...

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.

King James 1611

Mt. 27:39 - And they that passed by reviled him...

Mk. 15:29 - And they that passed by railed on him...

Lk. 22:65 - And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

Lk. 23:39 - And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him...

I have also done another piece about partiality.

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

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

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.

King James 1611

Mt. 27:39 - And they that passed by reviled him...

Mk. 15:29 - And they that passed by railed on him...

Lk. 22:65 - And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

Lk. 23:39 - And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him...

I have also done another piece about partiality.

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

http://hieronymopolis.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/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/

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.

Timothy said...

Hieronymopolis,

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.

Matt said...

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.

The Church used to refuse imprimaturs to ambiguous texts. Perhaps it should do so again. At any rate I believe the NAB translation should be allowed to be divorced from its commentary for different publication reasons. (Children's Bibles, Study Bibles, Reference Editions, RCIA Bibles, etc.)

Anonymous said...

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.

BC

Diakonos said...

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.

Carl Hernz said...

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.

Diakonos said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Carl,

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?

Matt said...

Hi Carl,

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.

-Matt

Timothy said...

Hieronymopolis,

I would appreciate, once again, that you provide your data without the vitriol.

Hieronymopolis said...

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.

1 Corinthians 9:5

Vulgate : Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierum, sororem circumducendi?
Rhemes 1582 : Have not we power to lead about a “woman,” a sister?
NAB 1986 : Do we not have the right to take along a Christian “wife?”

1 Corinthians 7:2

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.

Philippians 4:3

Vulgate : Etiam rogo et te germane compar.
Rhemes 1582 : Yea, and I beseech thee, my sincere “companion.”
NAB 1986 : Yes, and I ask you also, my true “yokemate,”

Hebrews 13:4

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.

Matthew 19:11

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.

Matt said...

Hieronymopolis -

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

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.

4. Mariage honorable. ...
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.

Theophrastus said...

Hieronymopolis:

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.

Below I give the quotes with the exact annotations and original spelling. You will note that the annotations add a distinct color to the translation. (My quotes are from images of the edition printed by Iohn Fogny [etc.] 1582 and now residing in Eton Library):

1 Corinthians 9:5

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.

(Continued in next comment)

Theophrastus said...

(continued from previous comment)

1 Corinthians 7:2

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.

Philippians 4:3

Yea and I beseeche thee my sincere companion, helpe those vvomen that haue laboured vvith me in the Gospel vvith Clement, and the rest my coadiutors, vvhose names are in the booke of life. +

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.

(Continued in next comment.)

Theophrastus said...

(continued from previous comment)

Hebrews 13:4

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.

Matthew 19:11

Who said to them, Not al take this vvord, but they to vvhom it is giuen.

Note: Not al take. Whosoeuer haue not this gift geuen them, it is either for that they wil not haue it, or for that they fulfil not that which they wil: and they that haue this gift or attayne to this word, haue it of God and their owne free wil. Aug. li. de grat. & lib. arbit. 6. 4. So that it is euident no man is excluded from this gift, but (as Origen here faith) it is geuen to al that aske for it: contrarie to our Aduersaries that say it is impossible, and that for excuse of breaking their vowes, wickedly say, they haue not the gift. [Subnote: Orig. tract. 7. in Mat.]

Sidenote: xorousi capiunt

Carl Hernz said...

Dear Anonymous.

I’m a comic writer, film producer, and devote a lot of my time raising
awareness of young-onset
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.

Oh, and P.S.: I know 11 languages, not three. (And yes, I'm just showing off, but I'm a comedian. As long as my tongue stays in cheek I get to do that.)

Diakonos said...

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.

Anonymous said...

"We as Catholics don’t realize how good we have it with this translation." - Carl Hernz

Was this a joke?

Timothy said...

Anon and all,

Let's stick to discussing particular points of the translation as oppose to making comments that could be misunderstood as personal attacks.

Vince A said...

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.

How did we manage to do that?

rolf said...

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.

Timothy said...

Rolf,

Let's go for 60!

Timothy said...

Vince,

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

Translations Against the Trinity

Genesis 1:2

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.

Deut. 6:4

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.

Mark 12:29

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!

Cant. 6:8

Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Una est columba mea.
Rhemes 1582 - My doue is one
NAB 1986 : One alone is my dove.

I John 5:7

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 : {Omitted}

Acts 2:17

Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Et erit in novissimis diebus (dicit Dominus) effundum de Spiritu meo super omnem carnem,
Rhemes 1582 - And it shal be, in the last daies (saith our Lord) of my Spirit I vvil povvre out vpon al flesh:
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.

Phil. 2:6

Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo
Rhemes 1582 - vvho vvhen he vvas in the forme of God, thought it no robberie, him self to be equal to God,
NAB 1986 :Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God some-thing to be grasped.

John 1:15

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.

Zech. 3:2

Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Et dixit Dominus ad Satan : Increpet Dominus in te, Satan...
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?
NAB 1986 :And the angel of the Lord said to Satan, May the Lord rebuke you, Satan...

rolf said...

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

NAB Translations Against Messianic Prophecies of Christ

Isaie 11:10

Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : ...Erit sepulcrum ejus gloriosum.
Rhemes 1582 - ...his sepulchre shal be glorious. *
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.


Isaie 16:1
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Emitte agnum Domine dominatorem terrae, de Petra deserti ad montem filiae Sion.
Rhemes 1582 - Send forth O Lord the lambe the dominatour of the earth, from the Rocke of the desert, to the mount of the daughter of 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.


Jer. 11:19
Sixto-Clementine Vulgate : Mittamus lignum in panem ejus
Rhemes 1582 - Let vs cast wood on his bread
NAB 1986 : Let us destroy the tree in its vigor


Micah 5:2

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.
Rhemes 1582 - And thov Bethlehem,Ephrata, art a litle one in the thousands of Iuda: out of thee shal come forth vnto me he that shal be the dominatour in Israel: and his coming forth from the begynning, from the dayes of eternitie. *
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.

Ecclesiaticus 24:34
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.
NAB 1986 :{Omitted without notation}

(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.

Hieronymopolis said...

WAR AGAINST THE SOUL

In the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate there are hundreds of verses which contain the word Anima or Soul as it is translated in the Douay-Rhemes but in the great majority of cases Soul cannot be found in the modern translations and in its stead one finds Being, Creature, Life, Person, People, Heart, Members, Breath, Self, and numerous personal pronouns. In answer to this question we must give the floor on this subject to the brilliant Thomist James Larsen (Keep in mind that Mr. Larsen is using both the 1970 and 1986 NAB in his study) :

" ...The orthodox layman has always taken it completely for granted that his soul will be separated from his body at death, and that it will persist in this state until the Final Judgment, when it will be reunited with the self-same, but glorified (if he died in the state of grace) body. However, Joseph Ratzinger informs us in his book, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, that for several decades before Vatican II there had emerged an increasingly widely accepted view among Catholic (and Protestant) theologians that at the moment of death man perishes in both body and soul, and that “the proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being [at the Final Judgment] and of that alone.” (p. 105). Bishop Ratzinger continues:

"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).

What an extraordinary admission! – the Church, in its official liturgy, suppressed the concept of the human soul! It should also be mentioned that this “war against the soul” extends far beyond the liturgy. It is also, at least in the United States, firmly enshrined in the Vatican-approved translation of the Bible which is used for the readings of the Mass. For instance, the traditional, Douay translation of Genesis 2:7 reads as follows :

"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. "

The same passage in the New American Bible (official translation for the liturgy in the U.S. since Vatican II) reads thus :

"The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being."

Our Blessed Mother, sharing our humanity, must of course also share in this suppression of the concept of the human soul. Thus, in the New American Bible, the first line of Mary’s Magnificat runs as follows :

"My being [rather than the traditional “My soul”] proclaims the greatness of the Lord…"

Finally, we do well to compare the NAB rendition of Matthew 16:26 to the Douay-Rheims version... :

" 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?"

(continued in next post)

Hieronymopolis said...

(Mr. Larsen continued from previous post)

" This indeed constitutes a war against the very concept of the human soul. The real problem is that it is being conducted within the Church, and its officers are the very ones who are appointed by God for the defense of our souls. It should also be noted here that this suppression of the concept of the human soul as the substantial form of the human body is part of a larger effort to rid philosophical thinking of the whole concept of substance in regard to both God and created natures. As Joseph Ratzinger says in his book Faith and the Future, “the medieval concept of substance has long since become inaccessible to us.” Joseph Ratzinger does not accept this suppression of the concept of the human soul...however, in accord with his “modified” acceptance of Modernist theology, he profoundly alters its meaning so as to destroy its traditional content. It is extremely important for us to realize what is at stake here. If we suppress the idea of a substantial soul, then the Catholic concept of Sanctifying Grace, and everything that is associated with it, is lost. The very essence of the whole Catholic spiritual and moral system of belief demands that there be a substantial human soul which may either be in possession of this Grace, or not. If there is no human soul with a substantial nature, then this nature cannot be “Fallen” after the committing of something called “original sin.” If there is no substantial soul, dependent upon sanctifying grace added to its nature, then there is no loss of that state of grace through something called mortal sin, and the consequent need to restore this state of the soul through confession. It should now be eminently clear to us why Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, describes the traditional concept of original sin as a “certainly misleading and imprecise term” ; and also why, in his 2002 work God and the World (p.401-402), he characterizes the teaching of “earlier ages” that baptism “endows us by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God” as “unenlightened.” In my reading of over a dozen books by Joseph Ratzinger, I have never encountered his taking seriously the concept of Sanctifying Grace. " (end Mr. Larsen)

¶ After a more conclusive defense of his position than could be included here, Mr. Larsen then suggests we take instruction from Our Lord “to watch and interpret the signs of the times” and “to keep our lamps lit.” For when the Pope’s philosophy and theology in “myriad ways...undermines the substantive nature of the being of both God and man”....“a sufficiently pervasive spiritual vacuum” might be created “into which the Antichrist will be able to gain entrance and ascend to power.”

Timothy said...

Hieronymopolis,

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.

Stephen said...

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

The word "Hell", one of the few words left in our language able to strike a salutary fear into a man's soul, is also censored in the NAB. In it's stead we find any word but hell :

Nether world
Grave
Silent Grave
Silence
Shades
The Dead
Death
Gehenna
Hades

One perfect example of this point is Ecclesiasticus 21:11:

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.

Timothy said...

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

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."

Timothy said...

Hieronymopolis,

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.

Hieronymopolis said...

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.

You see, Modernism is an organized and methodic skepticism of thought in matter of Scripture, Theology, and Church History which Pope St. Pius X called "the synthesis and poison of all heresies which tend to undermine the fundamentals of the Faith and to annihilate Christianity." What is the NAB commentary but organized and methodic skepticism of thought in matter of Scripture. The secular-liberal uncleanliness, the dirtiest thing ever to rise against the Church, like a sick parasite devouring entrails in the holy places, pervades the entirety of the book. Belloc once wrote : ‘Our anger against fools is a natural faculty of conservation, like the sensitiveness of the nerves of the skin.’ At this point, if you do not wish to see the NAB (notes, text and all) anathematized and utterly abolished than you have been hoodwinked and numbed by the subversive spirit of “Modern Textual Criticism.”

Anonymous said...

Sorry for this Tim.

To Mr. Hieronymopolis; Hogwash!

Sharon in Texas!

Anonymous said...

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!

Timothy said...

FYI: Some comments have appeared today that previously, and mysteriously, were placed in a spam folder.

Chrysostom said...

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.

(Heading off any other comments, yes, I do know the two-source hypothesis.)

David Garcia said...

Hieronymopolis,
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?
Dave

David Garcia said...

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?
Dave