Is the New American Bible the worst thing ever created, ever?
#31
(11-17-2019, 11:41 AM)LionHippo Wrote:
(11-16-2019, 11:19 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: 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.

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.  
Alas, I may able to go one better, or worse. In my Catholic h.s. I attended in the second half of the 1970s, we had both the NAB in its big puce colored phone book study ed. (which did have nice maps, photos, and layout) and, no idea why, the Good News for Modern Man NT Protestantized translation, with its stick figure drawings that seemed even then cheesy and tacky--one size fits all for the international publishing market. I dimly felt that these "contemporary" translations felt too vernacular, too chatty, too eager to iron out difficulties. But I'd aver that the pre-conciliar CCD version was tone-deaf compared to D-R. We did consult under the priest who taught us NT sophomore year the blue paperbacks of the "liberal evangelical" Church of Scotland scholar William Barclay, and I do not recall even hearing back then of Raymond Brown, S.S.....Then I went to a Jesuit university where I was taught often by ex-Jezzies, and learned from one course 'In Search of the Historical Jesus" all "Q" and Bultmann's legacy....
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
#32
(11-20-2019, 04:16 PM)meandmyshadow Wrote: The KJV (be careful about which edition) is a great one to use for multiple reasons.

Because it was made for Anglicans, it takes a more Catholic angle on many things than do most Catholic Bibles.

I will also shock your Prot friends when the KJV takes the Catholic side against the NIV.

And the errors in earlier editions of the KJV do not evince an argument against Catholicism as do errors in the NIV.

HUH?!?! The Anglican Church at the time of James VI&I was solidly heretical, solidly anti-Catholic and equally solidly Calvinist. His main argument with the Scots Presbyterians and the English Independents was not over Calvinist theology, on which they were all in agreement, but ecclesiology. James wanted 'bishops', as that made it easier to maintain royal control of the Church. The Presbyterians wanted the government of the church to be by elected presbyteries and the Independents were congrgationalists who wanted a democratic church.

In fact, the Anglican Church, as a whole, remained Calvinist (with the exception of a few divines like Laud) until the rise of Arminianism in the late 17th-early 18th century, and many parts of it still are thoroughly Calvinist.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#33
(11-21-2019, 12:02 PM)ServusDei Wrote:
(11-20-2019, 08:09 PM)meandmyshadow Wrote: The footnotes are also married to the whole, J P T school of the Old Testament criticism.

St. JP2 old testament criticism? I don't think anything he wrote is bad at all -- he explained lots of things profoundly.

No, I mean, Jahwist, Priestly, Deuteronomist, school.
Reply
#34
(11-22-2019, 03:00 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-20-2019, 04:16 PM)meandmyshadow Wrote: The KJV (be careful about which edition) is a great one to use for multiple reasons.

Because it was made for Anglicans, it takes a more Catholic angle on many things than do most Catholic Bibles.

I will also shock your Prot friends when the KJV takes the Catholic side against the NIV.

And the errors in earlier editions of the KJV do not evince an argument against Catholicism as do errors in the NIV.

HUH?!?! The Anglican Church at the time of James VI&I was solidly heretical, solidly anti-Catholic and equally solidly Calvinist. His main argument with the Scots Presbyterians and the English Independents was not over Calvinist theology, on which they were all in agreement, but ecclesiology. James wanted 'bishops', as that made it easier to maintain royal control of the Church. The Presbyterians wanted the government of the church to be by elected presbyteries and the Independents were congrgationalists who wanted a democratic church.

In fact, the Anglican Church, as a whole, remained Calvinist (with the exception of a few divines like Laud) until the rise of Arminianism in the late 17th-early 18th century, and many parts of it still are thoroughly Calvinist.
tl,dr: KJV is overwhelmingly accurate; where there are errors in some older editions, they seem like value-neutral mistakes. That makes it a very good translation for talking to Protestants, because any accurate translation is a Catholic translation. See below for specific examples of how it is superior to other Protestant (and in the case of 2Cor2, other Catholic) translations.


I should explain.

The nature of Anglicanism as a political reality, meant that the KJV was a translation with committee-members of various schools, because it would have to go over well with most of the literate people in the country.

And in the end, it is utterly irrelevant how anti-Catholic someone is, in ascertaining how much closer he is to Catholicism than is the modern evangelical. The modern-day happy not quite arminian or calvinist evangelical is not nearly as anti-Catholic as Calvin - yet Calvin (in his sacramental realism, his high view of the pastor, his respect for the early fathers, some of his Marian notions), while more anti-Catholic, was actually closer to the Catholic.

The KJV translates the word "tradition" as "tradition," unlike the NIV which translates it as "custom," when spoken of favorably, and "tradition," when negatively. The KJV does not shy away from translating "miter" as "miter" or "bishop" as "bishop," (I have seen an evangelical ultra-low-church pastor explain this awkwardly at a KJV-only church). It does not have a dishonest translation of Galatians 5, as some Protestant translations do. It is the only translation I know that is still used in most churches, that translates 2Cor2:10 in a way that favors a reading consistent with the sacrament of reconciliation. The original KJV (and some KJVs still) contain the deuterocanon. It contains phrases like "betrothed-husband" describing the pregnant Mary and Joseph's relationship, which is more accurate than "fiancee" or just "betrothed," and (for reasons we don't have time for now) is very useful in defending Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

The benefit of becoming familiar with the KJV, rather than dismissing its utility because of its origin, is that you have a common text to talk to Protestants about - that because of accuracy and precision - favors a Catholic understanding.
Reply
#35
(11-17-2019, 03:16 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: 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.

If you haven't read it already, Dr. Brant Pitre's book "The Case for Jesus" is a solid read.  I think he is one of the best contemporary Catholic Biblical scholars around today.  He wrote the book to refute the likes of Bart Ehrman and others who subscribe to the "telephone game" or "late dating" theories of Gospel transmission.  I have full confidence that the entire New Testament was written before 70 AD.

Another good resource is the blog "What's Wrong with the World" and the posts by Lydia McGrew.  I believe she is Anglican, but her defense of the historicity of the Gospels is great.  She also has a book called "Hidden in Plain View" which is an interesting and excellent resource.

In many ways, the late-dating, skeptical view of the Gospels is naive, quite childlike in fact.  On the one hand, many of these skeptical scholars will "give us" seven authentic letters from St. Paul (another error, but for the sake of argument), claiming that St. Paul really influenced the Gospels and some early, late-1st or early-2nd century Christians were the ones who penned them.  But if that is the case, don't these scholars find it strange that, for one thing, the common title "Son of Man" never appears in any of St. Paul's letters?  Or that the Gospels don't somehow incorporate St. Paul in some way, perhaps by a "prophecy" anticipating his conversion?

And as far as the ramping up from a low (Mark) to high (John) Christology, don't they find it a bit odd that John's Gospel has the least amount of documented miracles?  Dr. Pitre shows convincingly that Mark, when read in light of Jewish prophecies of the Messiah and Old Testament prefigurements, is by no means "low" Christology.  Or, they say that Jesus's teachings and speeches are very lengthy in John unlike the other Gospels, but this as well is false; one need only open a "red letter" Bible to read the long Jesus sayings in the synoptics. 

Unfortunately, aside from the Traditionalist priests or well-formed NO ones, the sheep are more likely to hear skeptical Gospel commentary by smug prelates during homilies.  Last year we were treated to a homily claiming Matthew was written by a "community" around 85 AD and the trials that the Church was experiencing at the time were written into the Gospel.  And the Catechist "teacher's handbook" we are using this year makes the heretical statement that Jesus did not actually predict the destruction of the Temple.  I think I'll work on my own version of "against heresies" in relation to the stupid comments in the books we were issued.
[-] The following 2 users Like LionHippo's post:
  • Daniel-AH, meandmyshadow
Reply
#36
The bad words.
Reply
#37
(11-20-2019, 04:16 PM)meandmyshadow Wrote: The KJV (be careful about which edition) is a great one to use for multiple reasons.

Because it was made for Anglicans, it takes a more Catholic angle on many things than do most Catholic Bibles.

I will also shock your Prot friends when the KJV takes the Catholic side against the NIV.

And the errors in earlier editions of the KJV do not evince an argument against Catholicism as do error 80s in the NIV.

Why the KJV and not the Douay-Rheims? They're from the same era so language is similar but the D-R is Catholic.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)