What’s up with the NABRE?

You already know about the New American Bible Revised Edition – the new Bible translation officially commissioned by the U.S. bishops’ conference. The first copies appeared, hot of the press, this past Ash Wednesday.

The New Testament of the NABRE is still the (high quality, in my view) translation issued back in 1986. It was successfully argued, with the support of Bishop Serratelli, that Liturgiam authenticam does not apply to translations of the Bible, and so no revision of 1986 was necessary. It is the Old Testament which is completely revised from the 1970 version, based of course on the many advances in Scripture studies in the past 40 years.

I wanted to see a NABRE asap and went right to Amazon. Oddly, only Saint Benedict Press had a copy for sale. Mine came in the mail last week. And I kept it for exactly one day before mailing it right back. No scholarly essays such as in my 1986 paperback bible from Catholic Bible Press / Thomas Nelson. Only a two-page ultramontanist defense of the papacy – never mind Vatican II or ecumenism – followed by a list of all the popes, which is fine. And then the biblical text itself, including the brief official introductions to each section and each book by the translation team. Here’s the deal breaker: Saint Benedict Press prints the words of Our Lord are in red! Just like the Protestant fundamentalists. Just what you need if you think everything attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels was said by him – as the Catholic Church does not quite teach.

I’ve registered my complaint with the USCCB. I vote for a policy prohibiting publishers from putting Jesus’ words in red. (When I’m pope…)

The other publishers are on the way. Oxford will be out within a month or two. Catholic Book Publishing is coming – but they seem to be hiding any info quite well at their impenetrable website. Thomas Nelson is no longer publishing Catholic bibles – a casualty of downsizing there. Liturgical Press will be using NABRE in their forthcoming Little Rock Catholic Study Bible – paperback or hardcover. Highly recommended. (I get no commission…)

From the USCCB website:

Releasing in March 2011:
Catholic Book Publishing: gift editions
Saint Benedict’s Press: ultra-soft and paperback
Fireside: Fireside Catholic Youth Bible NEXT
OSV: Prove It! Catholic Bible and New Catholic Answer Bible
Oxford University Press: Compact editions and Large Print editionsLater releases:
Soul-Centered enterprises: flash-drive computer version
American Bible Society: soft cover (July 2011)
Liturgical Press: Little Rock Study Bible (June 2011)
Autom: soft cover (June 2011)
Royal: handheld electronic Bible (May 2011)
Saint Mary’s Press (2012)
Our Sunday Visitor: My Daily Catholic Bible (date TBA)
DeVore: Kindle and e-book editions and family editions (date TBA)
Catholic Book Publishing: additional editions (throughout 2011)
JustWord: iApp (May 2011)

awr

Posted

April 8, 2011

Recently Published Books

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

NABRE, Scripture, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

Comments

65 responses to “What’s up with the NABRE?”

Robert B. Ramirez

April 8, 2011

Just like the Protestant fundamentalists.

Catholics and Protestants are so cute when they try to act like each other.

You did just right, Father.

Reply
John Kelleher

April 8, 2011

You mean Christ was…

Doing the Black and Saying the Red?

Oh the humanity…

Reply
Phillip Hadley

April 8, 2011

Saint Benedict Press, states in its blurb that this is the Official Catholic Scripture (presumably in English). Maybe The USCCB should inform other English speaking Bishops Conferences, who have taken up translations such as the NRSV, or perhaps have kept dated translations like the (New) Jerusalem.

Reply
Chase Becker

April 8, 2011

St. Benedict Press does not produce a quality product. Every single edition they produce has the words of Jesus in red. I cannot believe how frustrating that is! I also find that their binding is generally pretty poor. I guess that’s what happens when you’re affiliated with TAN…

Reply
Samuel J. Howard

April 8, 2011

Saint Benedict Press prints the words of Our Lord are in red! Just like the Protestant fundamentalists.

The red letter New Testament was invented by Louis Klopsch and published in 1899, 11 years before the publishing of The Fundamentals, which would name “fundamentalism” and the adoption by the Presbyterian Church in the USA of the Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910, which would define its five points (the history in “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” which puts the drafting of the five point statement at the 1895 Niagra Conference appears to be an error.)

Klopsch was dead–he died in 1910–by the time “Fundamentalism” became a name for a set of theological positions later in the decade.

Most of the beliefs that constitute “fundamentalism” are ones Catholics are either permitted or required to believe, minus their justification in the supreme authority of the Bible.

There’s nothing about the writing of the words of Christ in red that carries forth the erroneous part of the doctrine of inspiration of the Fundamentalist movement, since they believe all of the words of the Bible are inspired, innerant, and to be read as the final authority of faith, not just the words of Christ. So it seems to be a red herring to link all this to fundamentalism.

Reply
1. Samuel J. Howard
  
  April 8, 2011
  
  And here’s a 1915 ad for a red letter Doauy Bible.
  
  Reply
  1. George Andrews
    
    April 8, 2011
    
    Father R—Just what you need if you think everything attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels was said by him —
    
    Samuel—And here’s a 1915 ad for a red letter Doauy Bible.
    
    Samuel,
    don’t you get it? Your Catholic Ad comes from before Vatican II, which apparently was convened to break the news to Catholics that maybe the ‘canonical’ Gospel writers put a lot of their own words in Jesus’ mouth.
    
    btw, if you can figure which of those sayings Jesus didn’t really say, then you can ignore them.
  2. Anthony Ruff, OSB
    
    April 8, 2011
    
    George Andrews – you’re completely misstating what others think in a way which is highly disrespectful of them. Keep it up and you’re outta here.
    awr
  3. Anthony Ruff, OSB
    
    April 8, 2011
    
    Samuel,
    
    I’m using “fundamentalist” in a broader sense than to refer to the specific “fundamentals” listed in 1910 or whenever. You are correct that it can have that more specific meaning. But oftentimes “fundamentalism” is used to indicate a general attitude of religious narrow-mindedness, especially in the sense of hanging on to beliefs for religious reasons in the face of all rational evidence to the contrary. Two examples: “God created the earth in six 24-hour days,” and “Jesus taught the disciples what the seven sacraments are.”
    
    In this broader sense of “fundamentalism,” red letter editions of the New Testament are very much in the spirit of Protestant fundamentalism. These editions are highly amenable to the fundamentalist belief that Jesus said everything attributed to him in the Gospels, and the evangelists accurately recorded his exact words.
    
    It doesn’t surprise me that there was a Catholic red-letter edition in 1915, though I didn’t know of it until your comment. (Thanks for the info!) There is great overlap between Protestant fundamentalism and Catholic anti-Modernism when it comes to the interpretation of Scriptures in the early decades of the 20th century. The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued any number of statements – thankfully now we’re free to ignore them – claiming things like Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, or Noah was a historical figure, or the early chapters of Genesis or all historical, etc.etc. With Divino afflante spiritu under Pius XII in 1943, obviously, a new chapter opened.
    
    That’s a little historical context (as I understand it) for my belief that red-letter editions are, for Roman Catholics today, a very bad idea. As I said, I wish the Church authorities would prohibit them. I hope they do someday soon.
    
    awr
  4. George Andrews
    
    April 9, 2011
    
    –Father R—Just what you need if you think everything attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels was said by him –
    —
    
    George’s paraphrase of Father R–…Vatican II, which apparently was convened to break the news to Catholics that maybe the ‘canonical’ Gospel writers put a lot of their own words in Jesus’ mouth.–
    
    Father R–George Andrews – you’re completely misstating what others think in a way which is highly disrespectful of them.–
    
    Father,
    
    I’m clueless!! You state something, then I parrot it back what I hear you saying, then you threaten to banish me.
    
    Forgive me for ‘mis-stating’, but I honestly understood you to say that not everything the Gospels recorded as Jesus’ words, were really Jesus’ words. So now I am very confused! You do accept the Gospels as faithfully transmitting Jesus’ words?
  5. Anthony Ruff, OSB
    
    April 9, 2011
    
    GA,
    
    I follow mainline Catholic Scripture scholarship on the issue of whether Jesus said everything attributed to him. It’s not 100%. As stated in a document of the magisterium, the sayings of Jesus in our Gospels reflect not just the era of his earthly life, but also the era of the church in which the Gospels were composed. Catholic Bibles and Scripture commentaries with imprimaturs have footnotes freely discussing whether this or that statement of Jesus is likely historical.
    
    I just noted yesterday that my 1986 NAB bible says in a footnote that the Transfiguration might be a post-Resurrection image projected back into Jesus’ life (i.e., not historical), but this is not probable for various reasons. The interesting point is that this footnote – in a Catholic Bible with imprimatur – tends toward the Transfiguration having happened, but do so within a field of Scripture scholarship which says maybe it did or maybe it didn’t. The footnote does not dismiss the other viewpoint; rather, it argues for its position that the Transfiguration probably did happen by using the methods of modern Scripture scholarship. Its conclusion: It’s possible, but not probable, that the Transfiguration didn’t happen. The Church approves of this edition, and it is now being reprinted (with same New Testament and footnotes, but new translation and footnotes of the Old Testament).
    
    The problem with your comment – and the reason why I would banish anyone in the future including you – was your insinuation that some people have bad faith and throw out sayings of Jesus for the lowly motive of wanting to ignore Jesus’ sayings if they don’t like them. This is slander. What is going on, rather, is that Catholic scholarship is continuing to advance since the great opening in 1943 under Pius XII. There is good faith and good scholarship. If you cannot respect that, or if you dismiss the whole enterprise as being in bad faith, your comments will likely get deleted.
    
    I hope that clarification helps.
    
    awr
  6. Samuel J. Howard
    
    April 10, 2011
    
    But oftentimes “fundamentalism” is used to indicate a general attitude of religious narrow-mindedness, especially in the sense of hanging on to beliefs for religious reasons in the face of all rational evidence to the contrary.
    
    And among my points is that Catholics should resist this usage. This usage largely rejected by scholars of religion and by journalists who write about religion. Furthermore, Catholics are decidedly closer to the Fundamentalist side than the Modernist side in the Protestant Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the 20th century. Those religious beliefs that they would cling to “in the face of all rational evidence to the contrary” and which the (Protestant) modernists mocked included the Virgin Birth, which Catholics maintain as a truth of the faith.
    
    This kind of invective (as your use of “fundamentalist” is if you don’t mean it in the specific historical context), is something that Pray Tell rejects when applied to Anglicans, liberal Catholics, etc. Just because people have “right-wing” views doesn’t make them fair game. (Or shouldn’t.)
2. James Kabala
  
  April 11, 2011
  
  I am very surprised that red-letter Bibles only go back to 1899. I thought they were a centuries-old tradition.
  
  Reply
Paul Inwood

April 8, 2011

When the rest of the world is espousing NRSV, what’s the attraction of NABRE? (Apart from the royalties to USCCB, of course.) Enquiring minds…..

Reply
Donna Eschenauer

April 8, 2011

I always thought, but not quite sure, but is it that it is the same translation we use for the Lectionary? I am curious as well……………

Reply
1. Jeffrey Pinyan
  
  April 8, 2011
  
  Well, the NAB is practically the same translation used in the Lectionary, but not completely. For example, the NAB/NABRE of Luke 1:28 has “Hail, favored one” whereas the Lectionary has “Hail, full of grace.”
  
  The Lectionary has several amendments to the NAB translation.
  
  Reply
Jeffrey Pinyan

April 8, 2011

The basic Catholic understanding is as follows, right?

The apostles faithfully explained Christ’s words, passing on to their listeners what was really said and done by Him (although with a fuller understanding, thanks to the Holy Spirit). The evangelists at times relate Christ’s words and deeds in a different order, and express His sayings not literally but differently, while keeping their sense. (paraphrasing Sancta Mater Ecclesia)

Reply
Karl Liam Saur

April 8, 2011

For personal use, I stick with the RSV. The NAB renderings leave me cold.

Reply
1. Anthony Ruff, OSB
  
  April 8, 2011
  
  I like the English of RSV over NRSV in any number of verses. But a collection of essays I once read about the scholarship behind the NRSV (can’t remember the title, not in our library, had to do inter-library loan) convinced me that a LOT of progress has been made on difficult words and passages in the Old Testament, and it would be a shame to have a version like RSV which couldn’t take all that into account. So I have mixed feelings.
  
  When I compare the 1986 NAB New Testamen to either RSV or NRSV, I think it holds up quite well in quality of English. I never understood the rage of people like Richard John Neuhaus and George Rutter at the English of the NAB. (Especially when the latter is defending the forthcoming English missal as “better than we deserve”!)
  
  awr
  
  Reply
  1. Karl Liam Saur
    
    April 8, 2011
    
    The English of the RSV is just more musical to my ear than the others, though it’s not without its flaws. The NAB seems to have diminished musicality as a more general matter. I can sustain reading longer in the RSV than the others without getting quite as ticked off (all translations “betray,” of course, so there’s always something to get ticked off about if you think hard enough). I am utterly uninfluenced by Rev Rutter, Neuhaus et al. in this regard.
  2. Anthony Ruff, OSB
    
    April 8, 2011
    
    KLS,
    
    When it comes to English style, I’ve learned to trust others more than myself. Thanks for your take – it will cause me to go back to RSV and NRSV and NAB with more critical eyes.
    
    BTW, everyone – The Catholic Comparative New Testament is very helpful. It compares 8 translations (D-R, RSV, NAB-1986, NRSV, JB1, JB2, Good News, and Christian Community Bible).
    http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Comparative-New-Testament-Douay-Rheims/dp/019528299X
    It’s still up-to-date since NABRE doesn’t change the 1986 NAB New Testament.
    
    awr
  3. Jordan Zarembo
    
    April 8, 2011
    
    Fr. Ruff: But a collection of essays I once read about the scholarship behind the NRSV […] convinced me that a LOT of progress has been made on difficult words and passages in the Old Testament
    
    The NRSV is an academic standard for historical-criticial and “scientific” study of Hebrew Scripture and New Testament. I always begin with the NRSV in exegetical studies, and compare predecessor and contemporary English translations against the NRSV. I agree with Paul Inwood that the American Bishops’ insistence on an in-house translation, however rigorous, prevents the benefits of a uniform lectionary shared among bishops’ conference. Is the spectre of inclusive language so divisive that one bishop’s conference must create its own translation and lectionary?
    
    Perhaps an even graver concern is the insistence on the use of the Douay-Rheims at the EF. Yes, the D-R closely corresponds with the Vulgate. Still, both OF and EF attendants deserve modern exegetical scholarship in modern English. The trad obsession with the D-R suggests a misguided liturgical fundamentalism that is at odds with exegetically rigorous instruction of the laity through scripture.
  4. Jack Wayne
    
    April 8, 2011
    
    Maybe the trad obsession with the D-R just shows an intense fondness for Thee/Thou style language in liturgy.
    
    When reading this thread I was thinking how much I enjoy hearing the D-R at the EF Masses I attend – though I’ve sometimes heard contemporary English readings at them as well. It’s nice to get a break from the bland and less musical NAB sometimes, plus it’s fun to compare the priest’s translation to the one in my missal or spot the iconic sayings that have made it into popular English usage. IMO, the D-R definitely still has a place in Catholic worship and reading, even if it’s a small niche.
    
    I like to read the NRSV too.
  5. Samuel J. Howard
    
    April 10, 2011
    
    I never understood the rage of people like Richard John Neuhaus and George Rutter at the English of the NAB.
    
    Presumably, because you’re not a convert and thus haven’t experienced the let down of switching from other versions for your entire public liturgical life to the NAB.
    
    NB: It’s “Rutler”.
  6. Julissa
    
    May 25, 2011
    
    With the bases loaded you stucrk us out with that answer!
Shannon O’Donnell

April 8, 2011

Working at a prison, I once had a man return his bible “because it’s defective.” I asked what he found wrong and he said, “The words of Jesus are in red in the New Testament, but not in the Old.”

I was not quite speechless…

Reply
1. Lynn Thomas
  
  April 8, 2011
  
  Oh, dear. But, on the bright side, it was a glorious opportunity for more catechesis! [Did I spell that correctly? It’s quite late at night here and I think my brain is half off by now.]
  
  Reply
Jack Rakosky

April 8, 2011

I will wait until the NABRE is included in BibleWorks.

The Douay-Rheims which is included in BibleWorks is one of my favorites since it is in the public domain. Having an electronic version of it is very handy if one wants to print out visually extensive excerpts to illustrate some literary analyses without having to be concerned about copyright.

Reply
Paul Inwood

April 8, 2011

To the eyes and ears of a Brit, NAB seems more terse. I’m also interested how often the language/imagery seems militaristic — not too often, but often enough to make an impact in the course of a year. Perhaps the two characteristics go together.

Reply
Charles Culbreth

April 8, 2011

Oh hoist me by my pitards, Fr. Anthony!
Everyone knows Fr. Rutler’s famous complaint sometime after his scull landed from the Thames to the farther shore of the Tiber, “I miss the Mass in English.” (Or words to that effect.)
God bless Neuhaus (RIP) and Rutler, they’re sentimental.
Things could be worse.

Reply
1. Anthony Ruff, OSB
  
  April 8, 2011
  
  Well put, Charles.
  awr
  
  Reply
Terri Miyamoto

April 8, 2011

Loved my NAB when I was doing my theology degree. Most any question my Old Testament professor asked us during lectures was answered in my footnotes. I won the Bible prize that year, over all my Protestant classmates.

For my work at the parish, I stick with the NAB because of its closeness to the lectionary. Less confusing for the RCIA candidates and such if I keep the language as close as I can to what they hear on Sunday.

Reply
Tom Poelker

April 8, 2011

“The Catholic Comparative New Testament features eight complete Catholic New Testaments, … The Jerusalem Bible, the Good News Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the Christian Community Bible” per Amazon review
1.
I am not under the impression that the Good News Bible is in any way “Catholic” and I have never heard of the Christian Community Bible. Can anyone help clear this up for me?
2.
“St. Benedict Press … affiliated with TAN…”
What is TAN?

Reply
1. Bill Logan
  
  April 9, 2011
  
  The Good News Bible (Today’s English Version/Good News Translation), although not translated by Catholics, is as “Catholic” as the RSV/NRSV, which are also contained in the Catholic Comparative New Testament. You can get it in Catholic editions that have the complete Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church; these Catholic editions also have an Imprimatur. Word of warning: some editions of the Good News Bible are text-only and lack the utterly delightful illustrations by Annie Vallotton.
  
  The Christian Community Bible is an interesting translation; I’m told it’s quite popular in the Philippines. The Wikipedia page is a good introduction to it; it’s published by the Claretians. The notes tend to focus on the poor; I suppose some might see aspects of liberation theology in that (which was sort of how it got started in Chile). I don’t own a copy for typographical reasons: parts of the text that the editors deem more important are printed in a larger type size than parts they deem less important. (This may have changed; it’s been a while since I’ve seen a copy.)
  
  TAN Books in its “good old days” was a publisher of mostly reprints of older Catholic spiritual, devotional, catechetical, and theological works. The closest equivalent today would probably be Baronius Press, except that TAN had a much more extensive backlist. TAN was a traditionalist press, and it would be fair to say they were SSPX-sympathetic. I believe that the company got into tax trouble leading to their bankruptcy, which is how their assets were ultimately bought out by St. Benedict Press who run it today.
  
  Reply
  1. Tom Poelker
    
    April 9, 2011
    
    Thanks for this info.
    I suspect that my focus has been on bibles approved for liturgical use as I think the other six have been at some time or place.
Chase Becker

April 8, 2011

Perhaps this the book on the NRSV you were thinking of: http://amzn.com/0802806201

Reply
Anthony Ruff, OSB

April 8, 2011

Yup. Thanks, Chase.
awr

Reply
Lee Bacchi

April 9, 2011

I want to use this as a text for my university courses in the fall, I hope a better edition is available by then. Catholic Book gave me a run-around when I called, “We are not sure when they are arriving.” Oxfod may be the best bet.

Reply
Lee Bacchi

April 9, 2011

Fr. Ruff, what about the actual OT translation — good, decent, whatever???

Reply
1. Anthony Ruff, OSB
  
  April 9, 2011
  
  Sorry – I honestly didn’t look at it before mailing my copy back. I wanted to be able to send it back in perfect condition.
  I’m sure Oxford and Catholic Book and the others will soon be out.
  I’m very hopeful the OT will be good.
  awr
  
  Reply
  1. Gerard Flynn
    
    April 11, 2011
    
    Printing the words of Jesus in the Gospels in red is about as daft as printing in red the words of Mistress Quickly in The Merry Wives of Windsor or Hamlet in Hamlet.
Simon Ho

April 9, 2011

Yes, I didn’t buy the St Benedict’s Press edition of the RSV Bible solely because they have the words of our Lord in red.

But Fr Ruff, wouldn’t you have known of that before you placed your order? Just a quick search on the internet would have revealed this feature. It would have saved you some trouble.

Reply
Fr. Jim Blue

April 9, 2011

It is very sad but I am so demoralized over our force feeding with the VC2010 that I don’t really care about scriptural translations any more. The damage has already been done with the current lectionary. “Time will prove where wisdom lies” (very clear) is now “Wisdom will be vindicated by her children.” Dreck! I think I was a fool to care about any of this.

Reply
Louie Verrecchio

April 11, 2011

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). (Dei Verbum 19)

Reply
Adam Wood

April 11, 2011

I’m clearly late to this party, but….
I simply do not understand the common insistence that the NAB is unmusical or unpoetic. I love “chariots and charioteers” and it drives me nuts to hear “chariots and chariot drivers.”
“Every boot that tramped in battle, every cloak rolled in blood” is much richer than any other rendering I have found, and while “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,” is certainly wonderful, I am always amazed at the words “Wonder Counselor, God-Hero.”

Which I guess brings up a point…
While I very much sympathize with traditionalists in their call to “restore beauty” and so forth (I have seen a good number of ugly church buildings, and tacky vestments and cheesy music), I’m really quite (I don’t know the word I’m looking for…) sick and tired of their insistence that such a and such a particular thing is objectively more or less beautiful. I find a lot of what the Pope wears these days to be downright unattractive. Not overly-gaudy. Not like I have thing against lace or old things. I just find some of the stuff ugly. You like it? Great. No problem.

Of course…. I’m sort of also tired of progressives (or whatever the PrayTell editors think of themselves as) telling me that that such and such a prayer from the new translation is terrible prose. With the exception of one collect which I had to read a second time, I have found the proper prayers of the new translation to be quite attractive and lucid, and lightyears beyond the current ones. (On the other hand, don’t get me started on “under my roof…”).

I know that when the stakes are “the only allowed official version” it’s easy to get overly concerned, but frankly I’m tired of everyone on every side acting as if their personal tastes are universal standards.

Reply
Tom Poelker

April 11, 2011

Louie Verrecchio :

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). (Dei Verbum 19)

Yes, and your point is?

Reply
Louie Verrecchio

April 11, 2011

The point, it would seem, is obvious, Tom, but thanks for asking.

One cannot simultaneously allow for the possibility that the Transfiguration didn’t happen (to use Fr. Ruff’s chosen example) while also claiming fidelity to that which Holy Mother Church unhesitatingly asserts; namely, the historical character of the gospel narratives that tell of the event.

Reply
1. Anthony Ruff, OSB
  
  April 11, 2011
  
  Why the imprimatur in Catholic Bibles and Bible commentaries that allow for less than 100% historicity?
  awr
  
  Reply
  1. Samuel J. Howard
    
    April 11, 2011
    
    Good question. Probably a difference in definition between “historical character” and “historicity”, I’d guess.
2. Gerard Flynn
  
  April 11, 2011
  
  The people of God, or ‘holy mother church’, as you choose to call the people of God, nowhere say that every narrative in the four gospels is an account of something which actually happened.
  
  To tackle that issue, it is necessary to take each pericope on its own merits.
  
  No amount of prescribing on behalf of the administrative wing of the people of God gives it an advantage in the quest for the historical Jesus.
  
  Reply
  1. Samuel J. Howard
    
    April 11, 2011
    
    No amount of prescribing on behalf of the administrative wing of the people of God gives it an advantage in the quest for the historical Jesus.
    
    True, but non sequitur. The doctrinal teaching of an ecumenical council is an act of the Church, not just a “wing” of it and it is not merely “administrative”.
  2. Jeffrey Pinyan
    
    April 11, 2011
    
    “Holy Mother Church” is a pretty ancient expression with a pretty good pedigree; good enough, at least, for the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council to use it. The Church is both the People of God and their Holy Mother.
  3. Gerard Flynn
    
    April 11, 2011
    
    Even an ecumenical council, in all its wisdom, cannot bypass the hard graft of research and science in the quest for the historical Jesus and the historical gospel.
  4. Samuel J. Howard
    
    April 11, 2011
    
    An ecumenical council, teaching in union with the Pope, is preserved from error in doctrinal matters. It can’t bypass historical truth, because there can’t be a conflict between historical truth and the teaching of an ecumenical council. Those engaged in the “quest for the historical Jesus” are not similarly endowed by the Holy Spirit.
  5. Gerard Flynn
    
    April 11, 2011
    
    The quest for the historical Jesus is a scientific quest. The gift of the Holy Spirit does not endow the administrative wing of the church, even in a general council, with any extra advantage in such a scientific undertaking.
Louie Verrecchio

April 11, 2011

“The people of God, or ‘holy mother church’, as you choose to call the people of God…”

Uh… yes, I am guilty of invoking the Church as Holy Mother, but I’m afraid you’re picking a bone not with me in the present case but with the Council Fathers who are quoted in my initial post.

Reply
Louie Verrecchio

April 11, 2011

“Why the imprimatur in Catholic Bibles and Bible commentaries that allow for less than 100% historicity?”

Yes, a good question indeed, Fr. Ruff, but one best posed to the bishop who issued it. In any event, I am sure we can agree that the Dogmatic Constitution carries considerably more weight.

Reply
1. Jim McKay
  
  April 11, 2011
  
  Why would a general principle, that may be applied in different manners, carry more weight than a specific judgment about a particular work offered by a bishop?
  
  The underlying assumption, that the general principle contradicts the bishop, is by no means obvious. I think it is rather a sign that you are misinterpreting the general principle, since it is your interpretation that is contradicted by the bishop’s judgment.
  
  In this particular case, does the historical character of the gospels mean that the Transfiguration took place as described? If we adopt your understanding of Dei Verbum, the answer is yes. But an authentic interpreter of both Scripture and Council implies no. This particular judgment does not contradict the general principle, but exemplifies it to the detriment of your personal interpretation of that principle.
  
  Reply
  1. Samuel J. Howard
    
    April 11, 2011
    
    Why would a general principle, that may be applied in different manners, carry more weight than a specific judgment about a particular work offered by a bishop?
    
    Assuming that the general principle contradicts the particular judgment of a work, it would be because the doctrinal declarations of an ecumenical council are preserved from error by the Holy Spirit, while the granting of an imprimatur is not. Indeed, they are sometimes withdrawn after being granted as happened with the ICEL psalter in 1995, and in the 90’s with a book by Clare Richards. The circumstances of that withdrawal are interesting for the present conversation:
    
    In her own statement, Richards said she thought the Vatican’s repudiation of her book stemmed from her methodology. Rather than give single, absolute answers to such teachings as the Resurrection, she presents official church teaching (that it was a miraculous physical, historical event) as well as metaphorical interpretations offered by some contemporary biblical scholars. For example, she says scholars say the resurrection could not have been filmed because it was a different kind of reality, manifested in New Testament times by the burgeoning Christian community and also, then and now, by acts of courage in living out Jesus’ message. The text invites discussion of all of these understandings.
Tom Poelker

April 11, 2011

Gerard Flynn :

The quest for the historical Jesus is a scientific quest. The gift of the Holy Spirit does not endow the administrative wing of the church, even in a general council, with any extra advantage in such a scientific undertaking.

There is a great difficulty, to be solved only by humbly seeking objectivity and closely examining one’s premises, a great difficulty in distinguishing what in magisterial statements is culturally conditioned and what is specifically faithful to Jesus. This even exists in Scripture and is at the basis of the Creationist error. It is the basis of the Church having anything to do with Galileo in the first place. This difficulty is multiplied when statements are made by individuals who participate in the magisterium or by organizations working with the magisterium.

Some logic and ability to make distinctions and recognize context need to be applied.

Reply
Tom Poelker

April 11, 2011

“Assuming that the general principle contradicts the particular judgment of a work, ”

Assuming also

-that one is applying the correct general principle and

-interpreting it correctly or

-that there even exists a single correct interpretation and

-that the makers of the statement of the general principle were not trying to bridge a gap among disagreements rather than specify that one correct version existed.

It is an interesting phenomenon that so many people seek certainty and completeness in religious statements which the basic religion itself does not promise. Intellectual honesty requires that there is much in every religion about which believers can respectfully disagree. I find that those most insistent on finding certainty are likely to be least respectful to others. It is a distinguishing mark of a scholar that one can hold an opinion firmly and still recognize it as an opinion rather than a fact. It is in the nature of an opinion that one seeks to convince others to it by logic rather than by force.

Reply
Samuel J. Howard

April 12, 2011

I find that those most insistent on finding certainty are likely to be least respectful to others.

Tom, if you think I’m being disrespectful, you should simply say that, rather than insinuating it. If you’re not willing to say it, than you shouldn’t insinuate it.

Reply
1. Tom Poelker
  
  April 12, 2011
  
  If you think the shoe fits, wear it.
  I thought that what I did was more generally true than calling names.
  
  Reply
Gerard Flynn

April 12, 2011

S.J. Howard, to allow the hearer to make an inference is the basis for much humour and much good teaching. And in matters of style, a less didactic tone is attractive to many people.

If Tom wishes his readers to infer something from what he says, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

As shown in previous posts, you have a predeliction for using prescriptive terms, especially ‘should’ and ‘should not’. You are similarly quite entitled to do so. But to expect that other people will comply with your dictats is something else altogether.

Reply
Michelle Marie Romani

April 13, 2011

Actually, I find the Ignatius RSV 2CE quite suprerior to the new USCCB version (and any other of its versions, for that matter). Even though some may support Bishop Serratelli’s assertion that LA did not need to be used, at least the folks at Ignatius Press saw fit to use it.

For those of you who downgrade the late Fr. Neuhaus, he did have some very solid points. Perhaps a re-reading of his article “Bible Babel” that appeared in Adoremus, might be in order.

Too bad that we can’t have a revised translation of the Lectionary so that the proclamation of the Scriptures can be just as noble was what we will hear within the Mass come November.

Reply