Without further a due, I present to you the work which I just finished composing. Enjoy, and please pray for me to the Lord our God. Please offer comments and input as well, any of it will be much appreciated. God bless.
Part
two of suggestions to the USCCB on ways to improve the American Catholic
English Translation of the Sacred Scriptures, the New American Bible – Revised Edition
(NABRE)
My first blog about this topic dealt with
ways the CBA and USCCB could improve the translation text of the NABRE
itself. The fifth and presumably final
edition of the NAB is currently in the works.
The goal of the project is to make a single translation to be used in
the Liturgy, for personal study, and for catechesis all in one volume. This is a massive undertaking, but they have
a solid base to work with. The NAB, as
modified for use in the US Lectionary, is a wonderful translation. It simply needs to be updated and tweaked in
some spots, the gender neutral language needs to be slightly toned down to keep
the text poetic and rhythmic, and some innovations in the text need to be
rolled back to previous renditions. So,
the translation text itself, in my opinion, is 95% there as it stands. It’s solid.
It’s faithful to the underlying texts.
It uses solid manuscripts as its base.
It uses a lofty English cadence, while simultaneously being easily
understood by all with a 6th grade reading level. All in all, it’s a decent translation, in
need of slight modification to become great.
That being said, the same pros and
acceptance cannot be stated about the introductions and footnotes. The American Bishops need to take a look at
the New African Bible, which uses the NABRE but completely rewritten intros and
notes to bring them into conformity with the Sacred Tradition and teachings of
the Magisterium, instead of conforming to the whimsical hypotheses of modern “higher/historical
criticism”. The introductions are
usually pretty good, until you get to the last paragraph or two, then they
start talking about the who and where’s of authorship. They rush willy nilly into accepting modern
theories such as the documentary hypothesis (J, E, D, P, and R for redactor,
supposedly different ‘schools’ called the Jahvist School, Elohist School, etc.)
and two-source Gospel hypothesis (Marcan priority, Q source, M source
etc.). These theories are not blatantly
heretical in and of themselves, but they are simply one of many modern
theories. The problem lies in the fact
that they sometimes seem to be presented in a way that the novice reader could
possibly conceive of them being Gospel Truth.
They are not Gospel Truth; they are not even accepted by all scholars in
the field. And there are other theories
which, in my opinion, make more sense and also align much better with Tradition
and ancient Church testimony.
If you google “NAB catholic bible problems”
or “NAB notes heresy?” you will find many forum posts, social network posts,
blogs, etc., all basically saying the same thing – the translation is decent or
even good, in need of slight updates and tweaking, but the notes and intros are
horrendous. And I agree fully with that
sentiment. These are not just complaints
by confused or uneducated laity either.
These are complaints raised by all levels of the Church, from laity, to
scholars, to religious, Priests, Bishops and even some Cardinals. Even the Holy Father, Pope Emeritus Benedict
XVI, has told scholars they need to tone down the use historical critical
method and tamper it with Traditional theories and exegesis.
I will now give several of the problematic
writings in the introductions to the Books, and footnotes, and suggestions for
ways to fix these problems, in the hopes that maybe a few people who will have
a hand in the revision of the New American Bible over the next decade or so may
see and take to heart the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of American
Catholics.
I will skip the Old Testament portion for
now, because the footnotes of the Old Testament are not as legion as they are
in the New. There are several scattered
throughout that need to be removed or revised, and also some of the
introductions need to be updated to give not only the Critical interpretation
(such as three authors of Isaiah and late dating of Daniel, as opposed to
traditional belief of a single author of Isaiah, and possibly a later disciple
compiling his prophecies by 600 B.C., and the possibility that Daniel has a
core that dates back to the Prophet himself, but was later compiled by Scribes
into its current form. See my previous
blog posts dealing with the dates and names of authors of the Scriptures for
the Traditional understanding of this topic).
The New Testament of 1986 has some serious
deficiencies in the notes especially, and somewhat also in the
introductions. I will introduce some
now.
The introduction to the Gospel of Matthew
is pretty good, until you get to the last 5 paragraphs. When you hit these last 5 paragraphs, all
hell breaks loose. They completely abandon
tradition in favor of modern historical critical theories, and they don’t give
any credit whatsoever to Tradition. It’s
as if they are reaching back through time and slapping St. Jerome in the face,
and farther back and buffeting Jesus and saying “Prophesy for us, Christ!” These modern theories make a mockery of the
Church, and its stomach turning to see them presented as Gospel Truth in a
Catholic Bible.
The fifth paragraph of the Introduction to
Matthew states “The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of
composition of the gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim
more than a greater or lesser degree of probability The one now favored by the majority of
scholars is the following.”
I already have to disagree with this
statement. The ancient Traditions can
certainly claim a greater degree of probability. The reason for this is because these ancient
traditions date back to the beginnings of the Church, and have been unanimously
held by all Orthodox Church Fathers, Doctors, and Saints. Not ONE Doctor of the Church has EVER held to
the JEDP theory. Not ONE has ever
doubted Matthew the Apostle wrote his gospel.
Not ONE. It wasn’t until the 19th
century, when liberal German Protestant scholars formulated these theories that
anybody even knew of them. So this
statement is proven wrong instantly. The
Tradition of the Church, the teachings of the Magisterium and the decrees of
the Councils, the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, most
CERTAINLY give a greater degree of probability to ancient theories than do the
modern theories which arose out of liberal Protestant groups.
Moving to the next paragraph we find
written “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of
Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the Gospel is based, in large part, on
the Gospel according to Mark”.
Here we go again. This is simply modern conjecture. The councils have made it abundantly clear,
the Gospels have their origin in Apostolic preaching, and they really tell what
Jesus did and said while on Earth. This
sentence alone should raise serious concerns as to the Orthodoxy of the notes
and intros written in this Bible.
The next paragraph begins “The unknown
author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience…” Do I really have to explain or go on as to
why this is absolutely wrong, in complete contradiction to the Catholic Faith,
and also 100% incorrect?
The next two paragraphs go on about
Matthew using Mark as a source (Marcan priority), a so called, oft spoken of,
but never found or proven of spoken of before the 18th century, “Q
Document” or Quelle meaning source in German.
In my previous blog I explained why this is wrong. There are two perfectly good theories that
align perfectly with Tradition, the Independence Theory and the Augustinian
Hypothesis. These should be explained and
given as alternatives. I’m not saying the
modern theories of historical criticism cannot be expounded upon, but they
should give traditional theories and the stance of the Magisterium instead of
simply presenting Historical critical theories as Gospel Truth. It’s dishonest at best, bordering on
heterodox at worst, to do so.
This introduction is the only one I’m
going to speak of for now, for the sake of brevity, seeing as how I’m writing a
blog post and not a book. If anybody
wants me to write on other introductions, simply ask me to and I’d be more than
happy to research it and put together a piece for anything you’d like. Moving right along to the footnotes.
In the second to last paragraph of the
intro to Matthew, they state “The post-A.D. 70 date [of composition] is
confirmed within the text by 22:7, which refers to the destruction of
Jerusalem.”
Here’s another problem with the NAB. This is simply untrue. Mt 22:7 reads “The king was enraged and sent
his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city”. This verse is taken from the middle of the
Parable of the Wedding Feast. Even if
this sentence, which came from Jesus Holy Mouth, implicitly suggests the destruction
of Jerusalem, the parable most certainly does NOT “confirm” a post-A.D. 70
date. This is wishful thinking. This is reading into the text liberal modern
bias which is not there. This is scandalous. I’m as certain as I
can possibly be that the Gospel of Matthew was written before 70 A.D., probably
between 35 A.D. at the earliest, no later than 65 A.D. at the latest.
Another problem with the NAB notes is the
use of phrases such as “Matthews’s community, Luke’s community, Lucan Jesus,
Matthean Jesus etc.” There is no
community of Matthew or Luke; there is only the Catholic Church. There is no Lucan or Marcan or Johannine
Jesus, there is only Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God. Get rid of these notes of higher academia
which are dangerous to the faith of anybody who is not familiar with University
level modern critical theories on ancient texts. Maybe make two editions of the NAB – a “University
edition” with these notes and intros based on higher criticism, and a “Laity”
or “Spiritual edition” with notes drawn from the Traditions of the Church and
the Catechism. I’m just brainstorming
here, but these are all possible solutions to a very serious problem.
The final note I will explain real quick
is found in Matthew 16:21-23. This is
the “first Prediction of the Passion”.
This is a well-known note that casts doubt on Jesus Divinity. The note reads “Neither this nor the two
later passion predictions can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back
to Jesus himself” This is incorrect. The
only conclusion you could draw from such a statement is that the Gospels do
NOT, in fact, “truly record what Jesus said and did”. You can’t have it both ways. Truth can’t contradict Truth. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand
(supposedly Jesus said this, but then again, who knows?)
I think I’ve covered enough to give
whoever reads this the gist of what the problem is. I beg of any Scholars, Bishops, Priests,
Deacons, Religious, or laity who read this – please pray to the Lord our God
for our Church. Please pray that they
will fix these notes and intros in the final NAB. Please pray they will give us a solid
Translation to be used for the next century, at least. The final NAB has the potential to be a
tremendous blessing. If the Bishops and
scholars will only pay attention to the people of God, they can produce a tremendous
work that will stand the test of time.
All that needs to be done is to touch up the translation and fix the
notes and intros. It’s not hard. If the Bishops would entrust the work to a
group of 10 lay theologians, I could imagine the work would be done within a
year. The Bishops have an ample amount
of time to fix the issues and to give the People of God a solid Bible. Please, Your Excellency’s, Your Eminences,
Fathers, please. Hear the pleas of the
people of God. Fix our American Bible
and give us a blessing, not a burden.
To all my faithful brethren, may God bless
you abundantly. Please forgive me for anything
I have done or said that was wrong or done in malice and not charity. Forgive me, and pray for me, dear brothers
and sisters.
+Yours with much Love in Christ,
Jason Michael Prewara
IC XC NIKA+
No comments:
Post a Comment