Commentary of the New American Catholic Bible


#1

I found this commentary very much trying to bring questions and doubts to ones faith.It seemed to suggest human motives from the authors rather then it being the inspiration of GOD.

Here are just some things that have really bothered me.

It states that the Gospel of John most likely wasnt written by John.

It states that a few Chapters including Chapter 21 was added sometime later then 90 ad.

In the Gospel of Luke it points out the Contradiction of the Women who saw Jesus and ran and told the apostles and Marks Gospel who says they didnt say anything.

How do we as Christians answer this contradiction , and also what are some other contradictions and how do we answer those?

Also in John 1:1 it interpets the verse like this.

Was God: lack of definite article with ‘‘God’’ in greek signifies predication rather then identification.

is not this commentary casting doubts that Jesus Was God?

There is a few other things ive noticed but being i just bought this Bible yesterday Im sure there’s a whole bunch of commentarys ill be perplexed over.

Can someone who has a true knowledge of this topic answer these questions for me, its somewhat hurt my faith .I tried to post this to one of the apologists but it wouldnt post for some reason.

God bless


#2

You’re in luck. I’ve recently started a study of the errors in the NAB which has been published on a major Catholic apologetics website. I answer its claims about the dates and authorship of the various books, and reconcile the alleged contradictions. I’ve finished Genesis and Matthew so far.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/nab.asp


#3

Thanks for you work and time and link Hananiah. Good stuff.


#4

I’m a little dismayed too. I have just bought this commentary bible too. How concerned should I be? I bought it because of the literal translation is pretty darn close yet still very readable. The integrity of the text is suppose to be kept very high. About the Commentaries, I never hold too much stock in them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is enough for me.


#5

[quote=SoulRebel777]I found this commentary very much trying to bring questions and doubts to ones faith.
[/quote]

This past spring I joined a Bible study at my parish led a member of the parish staff on the Gospel of Luke using the NAB commentary.
Major themes:

  • the Gospel was not written by an apostle or an apostolic man.
  • the Gospel’s infancy and resurrection narratives have no basis in fact but were invented by the Christian community of the early second century to beef up the “Jesus Myth” in order to make it more interesting.
  • Jesus never thought or taught that he was divine.
  • The miracles performed by Jesus were not supernatural events but have natural explanations. For instance, when Jesus raised Jarius’ twelve-year-old daughter from the dead in Luke 8:40-56, she wasn’t really dead but was ritually unclean and thus cut off from a normal social life because she had just begun her first menstrual period. Jesus’ miracle was not in literally raising her from the dead but in declaring that her menstruation was no longer a cause for excluding her (or any other woman) from a normal social life.

For Bible commentaries more in keeping with the Magistium of the Catholic Church, I suggest either the Navarre Bible series or the Ignatius Study Bible series, which are available for most of the individual books of the Bible.


#6

[quote=Todd Easton]For instance, when Jesus raised Jarius’ twelve-year-old daughter from the dead in Luke 8:40-56, she wasn’t really dead but was ritually unclean and thus cut off from a normal social life because she had just begun her first menstrual period. Jesus’ miracle was not in literally raising her from the dead but in declaring that her menstruation was no longer a cause for excluding her (or any other woman) from a normal social life.
[/quote]

To be fair, this particular instance is not explicitly part of the NAB commentary but it was mentioned by my Bible study leader.

Todd


#7

IMHO, the NAB is junk. The translation is sloppy and the commentary just confuses you. I keep it around for the deutrocanon, but if Zondervan ever published a Catholic edition of the NASB I would drop NAB like a sac o’ potatoes!


#8

[quote=go Leafs go]I’m a little dismayed too. I have just bought this commentary bible too. How concerned should I be? I bought it because of the literal translation is pretty darn close yet still very readable. The integrity of the text is suppose to be kept very high. About the Commentaries, I never hold too much stock in them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is enough for me.
[/quote]

Yeah the madness in the CCC is a shocker for me, too.

:rotfl: :rotfl:


#9

The Church has known since the third century that the last 14 verses of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery in John were not in the original writings but were added later by some unknown person. The Church accepted them as cannon anyway.

I love my New Jerusalem Bible. It also includes many excerpts from the best writings of the Church Fathers which are wonderful. I am not a scholar so I don’t know anything about it’s comparitive worth, but I love it.

Chris G


#10

So basically your saying this commentary is false.

I guess I’ll just burn this Bible , its twisted by the Devil.

I dont want to look at it to remind me of those questions and doubts its brought to my faith.


#11

Whats a Good Bible to buy with a good traditional commentary in it?


#12

As far as I know no Catholic bible is permitted to be published without the imprimatur and nihl obstat. If you have a study bible which contains errors and has the imprimatur etc then I would write to the person who gave the imprimatur with a list of the passages which trouble you and ask that the imprimatur be withdrawn. If you don’t get an answer then write to Rome. We the laith have to be the guardians of the Faith if our shepherds have been led astray. :mad: I did just his with a study bible from the Philipines; my next step is to write to Rome.


#13

I have said for years now, that the NAB has a slight liberal slant to it.

I’m glad to hear other serious Catholics feel the same way!

The New Jeruselum Bible is a great Catholic Bible but not good for apologetics work, its not a word for word translation.

I guess the best way to go is Ignatius Bible, Douey Rheims, or the Cotton Patch Bible (Just kidding about Cotton Patch)


#14

[quote=SoulRebel777]Whats a Good Bible to buy with a good traditional commentary in it?
[/quote]

Go to tanbooks.com and buy their Douay-Rheims Bible. It’s an 1899 reprint complete with the imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons (who wrote the wonderful book Faith of Our Fathers). It also has notes by Bishop Challoner, who revised the Douay bible in the 18th century. The notes are unabashedly Catholic. For instance, for Luke 1:48, where the Blessed Virgin Mary says “All generations shall call me blessed,” Bishop Challoner writes “These words are a prediction of that honor which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are in any way concerned in this prophecy.”:yup:


#15

[quote=SoulRebel777]So basically your saying this commentary is false.

I guess I’ll just burn this Bible , its twisted by the Devil.

I dont want to look at it to remind me of those questions and doubts its brought to my faith.
[/quote]

I believe the NAB was created with help from Protestants. Maybe that’s why it’s so screwed up?:confused:


#16

[quote=SoulRebel777]So basically your saying this commentary is false.

I guess I’ll just burn this Bible , its twisted by the Devil.

I dont want to look at it to remind me of those questions and doubts its brought to my faith.
[/quote]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It’s still the Bible no matter how false the footnotes are. Well, at least the NT is still the Bible. Parts of the OT are so jumbled that it is no longer Scripture. But in any case, DON’T BURN THE BIBLE! Stick it in a box and put it in the rafters of your garage, if you don’t want to see it. For Christ’s sake, Indian Catholics will yell at their kids if they drop the Bible on the floor.


#17

[quote=yinekka]As far as I know no Catholic bible is permitted to be published without the imprimatur and nihl obstat.
[/quote]

That’s what makes it so discouraging that the NAB is filled with errors.

If you have a study bible which contains errors and has the imprimatur etc then I would write to the person who gave the imprimatur with a list of the passages which trouble you and ask that the imprimatur be withdrawn.

Good idea. When my study for Catholic Apologetics International is completed I will probably send a copy to the bishops responsible for the Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats.


#18

too late I just burned it.

I dont want it hindering anyone else’s faith.

Its made by a bunch of liberals ************ and Im seriously angr at these ******** bishops…WHO COVER UP CHILD MOLESTATION , AND WRITE TWISTED COMMENTARYS.

They are ********** ** ******* …im sure of this , look at there fruits

Im out


Did Islam force conversions at the point of the sword?
#19

Notice:

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.