Is the New American Bible the worst thing ever created, ever?
#11
I'm quite fond of the Douay-Rheims, both versions. I have meant to eventually pick up Monsignor Knox's but  haven't yet read it. Somewhere, I have a paperback edition of the NAB. IIRC, it's high in a closet, because I won't allow my children access to it.
Eternal Father, I offer Thee the most precious blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the Masses said Throughout the world today, for all the holy souls in Purgatory. Amen.
[-] The following 1 user Likes dahveed's post:
  • CarmeliteKnight
Reply
#12
I do not like the footnotes in the nabre. I also don't like reading “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

I prefer the Douay-Rheims (with haydock notes) and the RSV-CE2 (New testament with notes from Scott Hahn).
"The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Love; it signifies love, It produces love. The Eucharist is the consummation of the whole spiritual life." -St. Thomas Aquinas

“To be tempted is a sign that the soul is very pleasing to the Lord.” St. Padre Pio
[-] The following 1 user Likes SeeTheLight's post:
  • AnBotharGoEmmaus
Reply
#13
(11-16-2019, 11:19 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(11-16-2019, 09:53 PM)LionHippo Wrote: My biggest problem with the NAB is the terrible, heretical, skeptical footnotes.  In case you haven't seen this before, here are just *a few* examples (59 pages worth) of problems with the notes.  The introductions are awful as well, rarely affirming traditional authorship or dating of Sacred Scripture.

https://www.saveourchurch.org/thenewamer...risies.pdf

You know, the thing is that the dating and general scriptural history that they give is deeply outdated scholarship anyway.  I question whether it was ever "good" scholarship, but it was prevalent and in vogue during the 60s-80s.  The best, current scholarship elevates traditional dating.  The fact that I learned about the 60s scholarship in Catholic school was one of the things that fostered some truly intense hatred in my heart.  

A few years back I studied all of this very in depth.  I wish I had some good resources for learning more about John's Gospel and Johannine Christianity.  Some of the academic sources I read said that it is arguably one of the earliest gospels, contrary to the crap taught in the 60s.

I share the hatred of the NAB and its promotion with you.  The fact that this terrible book (NAB = Not Actually the Bible) is endorsed by the USCCB and is on their website is a sin crying for vengeance, in my opinion.  

Along with you, I was subject to this awful scholarship in Catholic school as well.  Sadly, none of us realized it at the time, and only God knows how many souls were confused, scandalized, or lost because of using the evil footnotes.

Case in point:  a few months ago, my mom found an old paper I wrote in high school, in 1995.  The title of my paper, for theology class, was "How do the Gospels Translate Jesus's Last Days?"  I used a Fr. Raymond Brown book called "The Death of the Messiah" for my resource.  How tragic.  Here's an excerpt from my paper:

"...Father Raymond E. Brown, whose work "The Death of the Messiah," a massive two-volume, 1,608 page commentary, tries not to completely deconstruct the passions of the Gospel, but to find what is and what is not credible accounts of Jesus's last days.  Fr. Brown examines the passions scene by scene and compared them to his and more than 2,000 other New Testament scholars'  ideas and cites similarities, differences, and interpretations between the Gospel passions and the fresh, new ideas Fr. Brown writes about in his book.  Fr. Brown, a Roman Catholic priest who is an emeritus professor at the Union Theological Center in New York City, looks at the passion stories as what he calls 'magnificent dramas.' Fr. Brown argues that if they were strictly factual, then 'they would not have inspired so many people, including artists and simple folk alike for so many centuries.' Also, Fr. Brown says to keep in mind that the passions were written roughly 35 to 70 years after the crucifixion, and many errors might have come along as the stories were passed by word of mouth."

I mean, where to start?  How many errors and heresies exist in just those few lines?  I want to weep for my 16-year-old self, using that wretched book to write my paper, the fact that such rubbish of a book was in a Catholic school library for students to use, that I thought I was discovering groundbreaking scholarship on the Bible, all the while watering down my faith without me realizing it.  

But who was there to provide correction?  All the priests and lay teachers there at the time were molded in this type of scholarship which was all the rage while they were in seminary or college.  The Brown-type "scholarship" is so smug and prideful as to be a great sin, all borne of the false premise that the Bible has to be "deconstructed" to be understood by modern man, as if it is some great virtue to admit that what we had believed for centuries was, well, man-made myth on par with pagan religions. Sadly, the majority of American priests today were raised on that same modernist, skeptical scholarship, which constantly puts the Word of God in doubt, and always under review of updating and revision since it is seen as just a man-made work, written by people in an outdated, superstitious, culturally barbaric, toxically masculine society.

Even a few years ago, while resuming my passion for the faith and the Bible with great focus, I started reading the only bible I had - a NAB.  Wanting to learn more and enrich my faith and understanding, I was reading all of the introduction and footnotes.  Needless to say, it didn't take long for me to fall into a crisis of doubt about the entire Christian faith and the historicity of Jesus that took months to recover from.  I was consumed with such constant doubt about the faith that it affected my work and home life - I was in frequent worry and doubt, short of temper, joyless in the faith, angry at God and the Church.

Thankfully - and I think all of us owe thanks to them, to be quite honest - where English-speaking Catholic scholars, fell into scholarly heresy for decades, many of our Protestant brethren continued solid and orthodox Biblical scholarship, at least as far as affirming the historicity and authorship of the bible.  It was only by reading through many of their works that I regained my faith in the Gospels and in the Church.

Fortunately, we do have a resurgence of some good, solid, orthodox Catholic Biblical scholars working today, who uphold the traditional authorship, dating, and historical accuracy of Scripture.  One can only pray and hope that our next generations of shepherds are raised on their scholarship rather than the heretical, satanic blathering of those like "Fr." Brown.
[-] The following 3 users Like LionHippo's post:
  • AnBotharGoEmmaus, Fionnchu, Imperator Caesar Trump
Reply
#14
We only really had the NAB in our house growing up, I was always curious about this kind of stuff but even as I kid I didn't like the style. It wasn't until I started reading a KJV that I started to see the value of the Scriptures.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Florus's post:
  • formerbuddhist
Reply
#15
(11-17-2019, 11:41 AM)LionHippo Wrote: I share the hatred of the NAB and its promotion with you.  The fact that this terrible book (NAB = Not Actually the Bible) is endorsed by the USCCB and is on their website is a sin crying for vengeance, in my opinion.  

Along with you, I was subject to this awful scholarship in Catholic school as well.  Sadly, none of us realized it at the time, and only God knows how many souls were confused, scandalized, or lost because of using the evil footnotes.

Case in point:  a few months ago, my mom found an old paper I wrote in high school, in 1995.  The title of my paper, for theology class, was "How do the Gospels Translate Jesus's Last Days?"  I used a Fr. Raymond Brown book called "The Death of the Messiah" for my resource.  How tragic.  Here's an excerpt from my paper:

"...Father Raymond E. Brown, whose work "The Death of the Messiah," a massive two-volume, 1,608 page commentary, tries not to completely deconstruct the passions of the Gospel, but to find what is and what is not credible accounts of Jesus's last days.  Fr. Brown examines the passions scene by scene and compared them to his and more than 2,000 other New Testament scholars'  ideas and cites similarities, differences, and interpretations between the Gospel passions and the fresh, new ideas Fr. Brown writes about in his book.  Fr. Brown, a Roman Catholic priest who is an emeritus professor at the Union Theological Center in New York City, looks at the passion stories as what he calls 'magnificent dramas.' Fr. Brown argues that if they were strictly factual, then 'they would not have inspired so many people, including artists and simple folk alike for so many centuries.' Also, Fr. Brown says to keep in mind that the passions were written roughly 35 to 70 years after the crucifixion, and many errors might have come along as the stories were passed by word of mouth."

I mean, where to start?  How many errors and heresies exist in just those few lines?  I want to weep for my 16-year-old self, using that wretched book to write my paper, the fact that such rubbish of a book was in a Catholic school library for students to use, that I thought I was discovering groundbreaking scholarship on the Bible, all the while watering down my faith without me realizing it.  

But who was there to provide correction?  All the priests and lay teachers there at the time were molded in this type of scholarship which was all the rage while they were in seminary or college.  The Brown-type "scholarship" is so smug and prideful as to be a great sin, all borne of the false premise that the Bible has to be "deconstructed" to be understood by modern man, as if it is some great virtue to admit that what we had believed for centuries was, well, man-made myth on par with pagan religions. Sadly, the majority of American priests today were raised on that same modernist, skeptical scholarship, which constantly puts the Word of God in doubt, and always under review of updating and revision since it is seen as just a man-made work, written by people in an outdated, superstitious, culturally barbaric, toxically masculine society.

Even a few years ago, while resuming my passion for the faith and the Bible with great focus, I started reading the only bible I had - a NAB.  Wanting to learn more and enrich my faith and understanding, I was reading all of the introduction and footnotes.  Needless to say, it didn't take long for me to fall into a crisis of doubt about the entire Christian faith and the historicity of Jesus that took months to recover from.  I was consumed with such constant doubt about the faith that it affected my work and home life - I was in frequent worry and doubt, short of temper, joyless in the faith, angry at God and the Church.

Thankfully - and I think all of us owe thanks to them, to be quite honest - where English-speaking Catholic scholars, fell into scholarly heresy for decades, many of our Protestant brethren continued solid and orthodox Biblical scholarship, at least as far as affirming the historicity and authorship of the bible.  It was only by reading through many of their works that I regained my faith in the Gospels and in the Church.

Fortunately, we do have a resurgence of some good, solid, orthodox Catholic Biblical scholars working today, who uphold the traditional authorship, dating, and historical accuracy of Scripture.  One can only pray and hope that our next generations of shepherds are raised on their scholarship rather than the heretical, satanic blathering of those like "Fr." Brown.

For my part, it was the theory of low to high Christology from Mark to John combined with the "theory" that they were dated in that order, thus meaning that the idea of Jesus as God was a novel development of second century Christians.  That was actually THE thing that made me an atheist for over a decade.  And I learned about it and had it affirmed in Catholic school.  I can't understand why, even if they were all raging liberals, they would even want to do that?  How can anyone even remotely faithful want to undermine the faith of Catholic school children with scholarship of dubious veracity even at the time?

Let's be honest.  The scholarship was never good.  It was always ideologically motivated.  John was written in like 120 AD?  Shut up.  Current scholarship has the completed version at 90 AD and - this is the thing that they knew even in the 1960s btw - that gives no bearing on the date that the gospel STARTED to be written.  Of course the gospel went through drafts and iterations over time, beginning with an oral tradition.  The only reason to assign the date of the completed gospel as we know it today (with the latest possible assumption of what that date might be) is to disingenuously insinuate that it is a creation of later Christians.  As if one day in 120 AD, someone sat down to write a gospel and invent the idea that Jesus is God.  But this is what that scholarship would have you believe.

Never mind that the oral tradition and entire passages date to the days immediately following Christ's life.  Never mind that the Johannine community is a well documented feature of early Christian culture and the gospel reflects that specific group and the concerns of Christians as they would have been right after Christ's death.  Never mind that this "high Christology" gospel was clearly in development right after Christ's death.
[-] The following 3 users Like Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • AnBotharGoEmmaus, CarmeliteKnight, Fionnchu
Reply
#16
(11-17-2019, 03:16 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:   How can anyone even remotely faithful want to undermine the faith of Catholic school children with scholarship of dubious veracity even at the time?
Modernism, modernism never changes.
 and what saddens me the most is the USCCB pushes this crap onto people. When we get our Pope Pius XIII there needs to be an Inquisition.
Vivat Jesu Rex!
Ave Maria!
Da pacem, Domine. In diebus nostris.

https://8kun.top/christian/index.html
[-] The following 1 user Likes CarmeliteKnight's post:
  • Jeeter
Reply
#17
(11-17-2019, 05:39 PM)CarmeliteKnight Wrote: Modernism, modernism never changes.
 and what saddens me the most is the USCCB pushes this crap onto people. When we get our Pope Pius XIII there needs to be an Inquisition.

Won't that be a blast!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • CarmeliteKnight
Reply
#18
(11-17-2019, 01:48 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I too love the Knox Bible, but mostly for the Gospels and Epistles. It's the best for those as far as I'm concerned.  For sheer readibility and flow I still prefer the KJV(I love hieratic English and have no protestant baggage that would make me hate it like some)  or NKJV to be honest, but no one makes the Gospels and Epistles come alive like Knox.

I was told that Knox is arguably better drawing on his Greek rather than his Hebrew as the latter was not his strong suit. He consulted secondary Greek and Hebrew sources but relied on the Clementine text for the Vulgate, as he disliked the Challoner revision. To me, Knox's leap aesthetically and stylistically from the Vulgate makes for a daring effect, but one that feels more "donnish" rather than any sort of English equivalent to actual speech, even that of a few centuries before among his ancestors. His dynamic translation paradigm sought the sense of the entire statement, whereas KJV and D-R aimed at a closer literal phrasing. I like the old school style of the latter in my 1962 Missal. It helps me revive my dormant Latin literacy, as it's so close to the English.

The handsome editions of the D-R, D-R+Vulgate, and Knox translations from Baronius Press are tempting. But my budget means I will have to stick to my grandmother's 1914 D-R handed down, and my shopworn secondhand Knox 1957 printing.

You can compare in parallel columns the Vulgate, Knox, and D-R here. http://catholicbible.online

A relevant aside is that a Knox (Latin but with increasing use of English only) daily missal was implemented around 1945 through perhaps V2 in Britain, with I think however only the English rendering by Knox of the scriptures included. But it didn't survive the "reform" for long.
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
Reply
#19
(11-17-2019, 12:56 PM)Florus Wrote: We only really had the NAB in our house growing up, I was always curious about this kind of stuff but even as I kid I didn't like the style. It wasn't until I started reading a KJV that I started to see the value of the Scriptures.

The KJV of course has value as a piece of literature; it is indisputably the most important work in the English language.  However, it does include a lot of really vile, mean spirited, heretical translation decisions, and it is sinful to read.  Since the RSV-2CE is based on the KJV, there is a way for Catholics to get the best of both worlds.  I think it's a wonderfully readable translation.  It also has the benefit of having the absolute most aesthetic cover of any Bible I've ever seen.
[-] The following 2 users Like Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • Fionnchu, jovan66102
Reply
#20
(11-19-2019, 02:31 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(11-17-2019, 12:56 PM)Florus Wrote: We only really had the NAB in our house growing up, I was always curious about this kind of stuff but even as I kid I didn't like the style. It wasn't until I started reading a KJV that I started to see the value of the Scriptures.

The KJV of course has value as a piece of literature; it is indisputably the most important work in the English language.  However, it does include a lot of really vile, mean spirited, heretical translation decisions, and it is sinful to read.  Since the RSV-2CE is based on the KJV, there is a way for Catholics to get the best of both worlds.  I think it's a wonderfully readable translation.  It also has the benefit of having the absolute most aesthetic cover of any Bible I've ever seen.

I am well aware that the KJV is Protestant. I was just talking about my good experience with it when I was younger. 

My go to has been the Douay-Rheims Challoner revision for years and I love it. Challoner's revision, interestingly, is based so heavily on the KJV to the point where many parts are almost identical. Trads will tell you to stay miles away from the KJV while pushing a Bible translation that uses it as a main source of inspiration!  :D
[-] The following 1 user Likes Florus's post:
  • yablabo
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)