If St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, was merely condemning exploitative sexual relationships, why wouldn't he include the exploitation of women and girls as well? He wasn't talking about slavery. He was talking about unnatural behavior.
Paul also condemns both the active and inactive partner. If he was talking about the abuse of young boys then why would he include the young boys as guilty parties? The Liberal interpretation is significantly worse.
The note about demonic possession has, I think, another problematic aspect to it. I feel like there is an undertone of, "oh, those silly ancients and their superstition". Insanity was known at the time, and as a concept even appears in the Old Testament.
I have come to realize that the ancients were much smarter and more wise than the modern man. We are more prone today to be mentally ill because we are so detached from reality.
I am of the opposite opinion; it was true that the ancients conceived of mental illness as demonic possession, but we can take that statement by itself and it's fine. We're inferring, knowing what we know about the authors of these notes, that they _might_ be implying some bad theology by this statement; but sometimes it's not too good to be so primed to find problems wherever they could possibly be, and interpret the note more charitably.
It's embarrassing that just about every Protestant translated Bible has better notes than the Bible that's commanded to be used by the American bishops
The American Bishops decided to hire skeptic scholars and protestants who wrote these heretical footnotes. I just ordered the Pre-Vatican II Confraternity Bible (1941 English translation based on the Latin Vulgate for NT and some books in the OT) which was a forerunner for the NAB.
Some of the footnotes and commentary in the NABRE are very problematic. To make matters worse, the publisher of the NABRE requires that the footnotes and commentary be published together with the text, no exceptions. So, you can't get an NABRE without these notes. Every NABRE is required to have them, and, as baffling as it may be, in many places, the footnotes and commentary do not seem to align with the Catholic faith and teaching. Here's another verse that is problematic, look at the footnote for Matthew 21:7, " [21:7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy." Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy?? He was there! He was an Apostle. He lived with Jesus. He was a Jew, an educated Jew, and certainly knew prophecy. There are many examples such as this throughout the footnotes and commentary. As someone wrote, "There seems to be a clear bias against, and sometimes rejection of, the magisterial teaching of Deu Verbum within these footnotes and commentary." The Church teaches that Matthew wrote the Gospel bearing his name, which the footnotes in the NABRE also call into question. That the Holy Scriptures are inerrant is also Catholic teaching. It's for reasons such as these that many Catholic teachers, RUclipsrs, podcasters, apologists, etc., use the RSVCE, NRSVCE, Douay-Rheims, etc. I recommend other translations or commentary such as Cornelius a'Lapide's Commentary on the Four Gospels. They're a little pricey, but you can buy them individually also. Here is a small section of the commentary on Matthew 21:7 from this:
"But it was chiefly because of the mystery implied that He willed to make use of both the beasts, that he might signify that He should reign not over those only to whom He had been promised, i.e., the Jews, but over the two sorts of people of which the world is made up; the Jews, accustomed to the yoke of the Mosaic law, who were represented by the ass; and the Gentiles, living up to this time without the Law of God, and who were denoted by the colt. "For, as sinners," says Auctor Imperfecti, "are the horses of the devil, so are the saints said to be the horses of Christ, although Christ loves mild asses, rather than fierce and proud horses." You can also get the Navarre Bible books. You can buy them as a set, both for NT and OT, or individually. Here is the part of the commentary from The Navarre Bible: Matthew for the verse I mentioned above, Matthew 21:7. It says the same things:
"St. Matthew sees in the fact that the colt is with the ass a further detail of the prophecy...the ass symbolizing Judaism, for long subject to the yoke of the Law, and the foal, on which no one has ridden, as symbolizing the Gentiles. Jesus leads both Jews and Gentiles into the Church" I don't understand why the Church/USCCB pushes/approves the NABRE considering the commentary/notes contradict so much of our faith.
Not just the Catholic faith. The notes are pretty clearly written by people who overwhelmingly reject the truth Christianity in general, and even of theism. They were and are a big part of the reason that I, a serious Christian raised evangelical, decided against making the move to the Catholic Church, at least for now, after being persuaded by many Catholic claims and strongly looking into it a few years back.
You don’t understand why the USCCB approves? Google Wilton Gregory, Joseph Tobin, Blaise Cupich and 100s of others. Are you kidding? They used to be Navy SEALS but now they’re not.
@@peterbrennan1085 I don't understand what you're trying to say. I googled them but couldn't find anything that says they used to be Navy SEALS or why that would be significant.
I've heard similar stuff from a Catholic bible scholar: Loaves and Fishes miracle didn't happen really about sharing; Luke put the Magnificat in Mary's mouth; John's disciples joining Jesus was really propaganda, etc. Personally I think if a priest doesn't believe the miracle of feeding the 5000 didn't happen, does he believe that the Eucharist is Jesus?
The notes in the NABRE Catholic Study Bible by Oxford press was the #1 challenge to me becoming a Catholic. Mariology was challenging, but this was far worse. The deacon in my RCIA class wasn’t much better.
@YAJUN YUAN The Catholic Church is NOT liberal about Scripture. What is wrong is that scholars who dissent from Church teaching were permitted to have input in these commentaries. Liberal scholars who are liberal about Sacred Scripture are usually also liberal about Sacred Tradition. It is one thing for a secular, or Protestant scholar to have views of Scripture and Sacred Tradition that are contrary to Catholic teaching, but if it is a "Catholic" scholar that has views contrary to Church teaching then those should not be considered Catholic Scholars. They should be considered Catholic DISSENTING scholars.
@YAJUN YUAN I agree with you that what ends up in the footnotes of Catholic Bibles and Catholic Biblical Commentaries should not contradict Church teaching. Thankfully, the footnotes and commentaries are not definitive teaching. But it is pretty upsetting that one needs to double check the Catechism while reading "Catholic" Biblical commentaries or footnotes in "Catholic" Bibles. It is good that the Church wants to hear non-Catholic perspectives in scholarly endeavors. Our understanding can be refined by challenges. Just look for example how heresies in Church history helped refine the Christian understanding of things like Jesus' Human and Divine nature and the Trinity. But, when dissenting views are published without properly stating that it is a dissenting view, that is just very irritating and dangerous. I would not mind the non-Catholic comments if it was worded such as: "Some secular exegetes believe....," or "some exegetes dissent from the Official Catholic view on the meaning of this verse", etc. I think that MOST officials in the Magisterium do know that some of the scholars are dissenting even if they are also excellent exegetes. What is disturbing is that there are some officials who either agree with the dissenters or don't care. Jesus had Judas, and His Church still has "Judases". For that reason, I thank God for His promised protection of the Holy Spirit.
@YAJUN YUAN The Catholic Church isnt Liberal with scripture this is why we refer to magisterial and traditional way of understanding scripture rather than the "protestant" scripture alone (but I am confident I have the correct interpretation) method.
Such a huge problem with modern biblical scholarship is the lack of holy zeal, so different than when we read homilies or commentaries from the Fathers. Liberal scholars are more concerned with revisionist nuances than with teaching and preserving the traditional Christian faith.
try opening the NAB before you decry it’s lack of zeal. it explains its creation, first and foremost. it was hardly written by liberals. it was made by a team of theologians from many denominations, to create a Bible in the English Lexicon, with study notes that provide historical context. and guess what? the simple fact of the matter is this: valuable historical context often conflicts with the catechism. they do not compromise my faith. and it does not demonstrate a lack of zeal or faith to acknowledge reality. it requires honesty and academic integrity to include it. the NAB is just a study Bible to us, it is not the Vulgate, but it is a damn good study Bible that stands above its peers. the NAB is such a quality work that it is something that would be just as useful to an atheist or a historian, as it would be to a Christian. there is nothing wrong with that.
@@tictacterminator My comment wasn't directed at the NAB. It was directed at a large chunk of biblical scholarship, including much of what is being taught at seminaries.
I checked these in my New Jerusalem Bible (1985 edition). The first few had no notes or gave an unobjectionable theological point. In John, it translates the crowd as saying "You are mad!" (no footnote). In the verse about the fire, the note also says it doesn't "envisage" purgatory, and in the one about the altar, it also says it means the cross, not the Eucharist. In the list of sins it translates malakai as "self-indulgent" (???) and the other word as "sodomites" (no footnote).
also, people didn't just think crazy people had demons. people would *invite* demons into themselves to get supoernatural power. it wasn't just that it made you weird, it made you _more than human_. what this meant varied from culture to culture, but there's a reason the pagans wanted him gone after he started casting out demons in their area
I am so excited to listen to this. After converting to Catholicism, my wife and kids got me the NAB a year ago. I was so excited, especially since the NAB is close to what I read at Mass as a lector. But the footnotes drove me to stop reading it. It was really hard trying to make it through when page after page seemed to take either the Protestant or even the modern atheist historical-critical lens on what's being said; there's heavy doubt cast on the traditional authorship of the Gospels and even notes that seemed to suggest Mary wasn't a virgin. Even the angel's hail to Mary seems...off. And that's not even mentioning the fact that McCarrick's name is in huge letters throughout, bringing to mind a lot of negativity that had scared me away from converting in my college years. I've got the Great Adventure Bible now and it's been a great experience and translation.
@YAJUN YUAN Another video I have to watch!! Man, we're blessed to live in times like these with such great accessibilities to quality videos on theology.
What is sad is that there are more than 10 different CATHOLIC translations in spanish made by catholic translators on the other hand the reality of the U.S and U.K catholics is really sad to watch when it comes to this issue.
These matters about translations seem unusually common in English speaking countries. The only adjustment I ever made was moving on to a Jerusalem Bible translation upon learning that's what they use at seminaries
What you said there hits the nail on the head. It is primarily and English problem. English is just, well it’s not really a great language today. We no longer have singular 2nd person possessives. We only have 1 word for love. We don’t even have words to describe half of the principal points being made in 2000 year old Greek.
@counseloftrent please look up the news article regarding the Spanish edition Jerusalem Bible changing Matthew 4:19 “fishers of men” to “fishers of persons.” I’d love your feedback on this.
i always enjoy your videos for their intellectual honesty as well as the peaceful explanation you make. No mokery, no shouting. Just explanation. wonderful
Thankfully the NAB Revised dropped that Matthew 26:29 note. But it still has some head scratchers. I think its wild that the Vatican doesn't enpanel a commission to make a new official study bible for Catholics. After I saw who compiles the NAB, I found it odd that the majority were non-Catholic. Weird. I stick with the Douay-Rheims
As a Bible believing non-catholic, I think this is a pretty good translation for the modern era; seems to be fairly accurate in conveying accuracy and meaning of the texts. It doesn't go too far with the gender inclusive language and does not shy away from using words like "slaves" and "slavery" using gender accurate terms or pronouns when appropriate i.e. using the word "brothers" instead of always using an alternate, inclusive translation. As a Bible believing non-catholic, I discovered that I actually like the NABRE! :o but yes, the notes reflect an obvious liberal and/or anti-supernatural, skeptical attitude /bias!
Thank you for doing this observations Trent, because for many of us not knowing and staring reading the Bible will confuse big time for sure of what the Catholic Church teaches 🤨
Trent and viewers, I am looking for a Catholic friendly New Testament Greek study guide. I just want a book that can speak to information like… “The Greek word, trogo, which is translated as “eat” is actually more accurately translated as “gnaw” or “chew”; this word is never used figuratively in the Greek.” Thank you for the help!
The issue about insanity and demons reminded me of the George Lamsa bible, supposedly based on the Aramaic Peshitta, but with really odd takes here and there. It feels new age and agnostic half the time.
I fully agree with Trent in this video. My question is if these notes have an Imprimatur? If so, how could such strange comments get one, especially in direct relation to Holy Scripture?
@@cactoidjim1477 Eh. That is a vague statement as you never specified how you think I view it. My interpretation is that having an Imprimatur says the statement is free of any doctrinal errors that could lead someone astray. Look at Trent’s intro and then he goes on to cite a study note saying .
Imprimatur means that permission is granted to print the work. Nihil obstat means that the Bishop who reviewed the document finds nothing objectionable to the faith in the work. It does not mean that everything in the book is DEFINITIVE Church teaching. A particular Bishop, or comity he approves to do the review, could still mistakenly not notice something objectionable or could wrongly think something is correct when it is not correct. When I was in grammar school our local parish was using a book in the catechism program that had a Nihil obstat that, as a fourth grader, I knew it should not have.
@YAJUN YUAN You are mixing up nihil obstat and imprimatur. Imprimatur means permission to print. Granted, usually both are present, but neither suggests that the contents of a work are DEFINITIVE teaching. A local Bishop, or comity he appoints, can still errantly, or lazily, grant a Nihil obstat. The nihil obstat just means HE the Bishop (or his authorized comity) finds nothing objectionable.
@@paularnold3745 why did you make that comment about it not meaning the book is definitive Church teaching. I never thought it did. Just saying. With that distinction, then why bother getting an Imprimatur? Imagine commentary notes that have a nihil obstat and yet a not an Imprimatur.
I’m joining a Bible study Bible group at my parish. It’s a bit unsettling that this is the translation we read at Mass and reading at study group. Translation seems good so far from what I’ve read. But knowing that these study notes are done by a largely secular and non catholic perspectives just doesn’t make sense to me. I hate that I have to largely depend on Protestant translations missing the deuterocanonical books.
One of the biggest undermining of our Catholic faith and traditions, are the footnotes in Revelations. Particularly Rev. 12: 1-5. When I first read those, I was certain a protestant had to have been responsible.
So I have been doing some investigation about the nature of the historical critical method and how the commentators arrive at some of their conclusions. It seems at face value that they are undermining the text of the bible by interpolating corrections in the text to arrive at a version which is closer to a historical original. So they seem in many places to cast doubt as to whether Jesus Himself said certain things or that certain passages are added by the evangelists, and that this is done in a way that undermines the legitimacy of the text. But this is not really what they are trying to communicate at all. Rather, they are trying to find the literal meaning of the text as it would have been understood by the historical audience it was written for, that is to say within historical context as an ancient text. It assumes that the text went through several revisions in which the evangelists and other authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which was only given to them after Pentecost, later added additional meaning and interpretations to the historical account. So they are not denying the historical account, and neither are they challenging the inerrancy of the Bible, but on the contrary, they are confirming the historical reliability of the bible and confirming the inspiration of the text in its final form which we have preserved and handed down to us through the tradition of the Church today. In other words, the commentary is not designed to challenge the text, but only our skewed interpretation of the text which is centuries removed from the original audience. So far from being Modernists which I originally suspected, they effectively refute Modernist interpretation, by defending the bible as an inspired historical document. That being said, I certainly agree with your point that these nuances will not be appreciated by someone who is new to the faith, and there is a danger of potentially misleading someone who is not familiar with the scientific study of historical criticism.
I have two NABRE Bibles, ones the regular St Joseph edition and the other is the Oxford Catholic Study Bible. After following along with you, I determined the “study” Bible has the exact same notes as the base NABRE text. I’m pretty upset about that honestly, because I assumed the study notes were new notes from the base text. Now I know both are completely useless
It might also be because some of them don't know? Not everyone has the ability to research the word of God which is probably why I guess. But I could be wrong coz if they know but they wanna make money so they're not really bothered, then that probably explains what's going on with bibles like the NAB. I have a NAB: Catholic Answer Bible & if you look at the intro notes, they claim the NAB:CAB Bible to be free of errors. But if you can pick up a copy, then you'll find spelling errors & wrong meanings like the Mathew 7 verse which this guy was talking about.
NABRE translation is actually a very good translation far superior to its protestant equivalent the NIV unfortunately the study notes are something you would expect an Episcopalian or Unitarian Bible commentary not a Catholic Bible study notes.
You focused on the New Testament, but the Old Testament is just as bad... In the book of Daniel, for example, the notes seem to point the reader to the conclusion that any prophecy was either written after the fact (if true) OR was just flat wrong. Comparing the notes from the NAB to the notes from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible for the book of Daniel is like comparing night and day.
I would say this. The NAB doesn’t have Gabriel saying to Mary, “Hail, full of grace.” Gen 1:2 changes the Spirit of God to a mighty wind. In Baruch 5, they change Gods words about the sons of Israel and make it gender inclusive. I’ve been reading and studying scripture more these past weeks and I’m now shopping for a new Bible because I cannot trust something with this many mistakes.
It's really not a very good translation. I find it flat, wooden, clunky, and quite often tin-earned and graceless. Just look at how it starts: "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth -- and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters -- then God said: Let there be light, and there was light." The very first sentence is long and stringy, with a subordinate clause, then a long parenthetical phrase, before ever getting to the subject, God. And even then, the adverb "then" before the subject is completely unnecessary, because the opening adverb phrase, "in the beginning," already establishes when this is happening. Take out the interceding phrases, and the basic sentence reads: "In the beginning, then God said: Let there be light, and there was light." That's a horrible construction. If that's how the Bible starts, I know I don't need to read any further.
I’ve never ride any of the notes come with my Bible so I am really shocked but there’s so many strange things like this. I primarily just read the text of the actual Bible. I hope it’s not an error also. I would’ve assumed you wouldn’t have so many errors or loose ways of defining with the scripture saying for people. I was in the assumption that priest of the highest quality would be making sure this didn’t happen. Guess we need to pray for so much more than I ever imagined.
The NABRE has Gender neutral language in many verses for example in Mat 4:4: , "It is written: 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God." This should be "Man does not live by bread alone ....."
I see your point on Like 4:1, but let me flip the question. Should we Catholics think that the Baptism of Jesus was just a display for the public, having nothing to do with Jesus' self-awareness? I know it's tricky and we will never know truly what was in His mind, but if I suppose if is written there must be a reason. This goes along with the debate about Jesus' omniscience. As C. S. Lewis once said (I am translating back from my language so the phrasing can vary a bit ): "It would be puzzling, and to me repulsive, to think that Jesus never asked a honest question, that is, a question of which he didn't know the answer"
That's right actually. Jesus said it was to "fulfill all righteousness". He knew He didn't need baptism, or His answer to St. John would make no sense. He was baptized as a sign that His mission would bring reconciliation for our sins, and to give an example that we follow with His own baptism in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which actually does what St. John's baptism represented.
@YAJUN YUAN You mean that adults who haven't been baptized yet need baptism, right? Nothing about any of the accounts of this event imply anything about only adults needing baptism.
They present themselves as being impeccably rigorous and realist in their historical exegesis and then they go on to insert their own 'theology' into the text when it comes to passages addressing homosexuality and their other pet issues. The new Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century contains similarly smug commentary by people who are clearly flaming liberals. Granted, it's not all bad. But the writer of the Gospel of Mark commentary, for example, provides a clear case of unabashed 'progressive' scholarship. Even the title of the work as a whole barely conceals a modernist agenda. It's the current century, after all.
Sorry to be off-topic Trent, but do you have a list of accurate representations of Jesus in modern media? You mentioned "The Chosen," and I'd say "The Passion of the Christ" probably makes that list, but nothing else springs to mind immediately -- certainly not Scorsese's movie.
as someone seriously considering Catholicism, which translation should I be reading? It's quite confusing to try and find a straight answer which I find odd
there are a few different translations. the Douay-Rheims family, which is mainly the Bishop Challoner revision but also includes the Confraternity revision, are both very excellent pre-V2 translations. you can get a Douay-Rheims-Challoner version with the extensive biblical commentary by Rev. George Leo Haydock. the New American Bible is what is officially approved and used for readings, but as shown in the video the commentary/notes aren't that good. there is another modern translation called the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition that is excellent however; you can get a version of it called the Didache Bible (which has commentary from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) or just a plain version called the Ignatius Bible. there is also the Knox Bible, it's a pre-V2 translation that uses modern 20th century english. it is a pretty interesting translation which is good as well. you can look up online these different versions and compare their text to see which is best for you (or just do what i did and order them all)
I highly recommend the Didache Bible, which uses the far superior RSV-2CE translation. It includes study notes that draw from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, plus a lot of apologetical articles spread throughout the book. It's a great resource for someone trying to learn about Catholicism and how Catholics view and relate to scripture. I wouldn't recommend starting with the Douay-Rheims. The antiquated language can be an impediment to understanding.
Some "scholars" and traditional beliefs that we follow sometimes lack of sense. For example, Peter's letter was written in or about 65 AD. In this letter he calls Mark his son. This means John Mark was at least 15-20 years younger than Peter. But the Church tradition has Mark dying martyr in Alexandria in 68 AD at the age of 68 LOL this is almost the same age of Peter. How can Peter call Mark his son if he is just the same old age of him? LMAO..then there is Mary's age at the time of the Archangel Gabriel annunciation. "Scholars" have Mary as a 12 years old girl when Gabriel said "Blessed art thou among all WOMEN" Then Mary goes BY HERSELF quickly travels some 70 miles BY HERSELF to take care of her older relative who is pregnant. Where exactly these "scholars" find that Jewish girls were usually given in marriage at such young age? Are they mixing India and North Africa traditions with Jewish??? LOL
In Ancient Greek times, the "passive recipient" of homosexual practices was barred from the vote, and personhood status. I believe this is why St. Paul refers to both members of the homosexual relationship. Even though those men/boys were sometimes victims, the greek law kept them outside of society. It is also worth noting that their concept of "homosexuality" greatly differs from the modern, as theirs was a sort of worship of the form as beauty (see the Kouros statues), which was generally accepted at the time. The greek law only punished those who would commit sodomy or other more deviant practices. St. Paul's warning to these men applies then to both "kinds", whether they be homosexual in the modern sense, or as they were in Greece in his time.
More ridiculous footnotes are found in for Psalms 58 and 82. In these footnotes it is stated there are multiple gods in existence. These footnotes are found only in the 1991 and post-1991 versions of the NAB. Before 1991 the footnotes were more orthodox.
I have the NAB not revised but New American Bible:The Catholic Answer Bible that I purchased last year & there are spelling errors & what this guy is talking about, Mathew 7, the demonic part where ppl thought insane ppl were possessed by demons & much more in the sense of errors & wrong meanings. It even has messages like it's free of error, etc but If you can get your hands on the NAB:CAB version, you'll see what I'm talking about.
I have two Bibles I have a new American Bible that is the St. Joseph edition but for some reason the translation of the greeting from the angel to Mary is the Protestant version of hail favored one!!! My other Bible is the douhy Reims (Yes I know I misspelled that) it has the proper translation
Jesus understand his mission, He knew that he will die on the cross but my be the the little details like how would he end up in the cross is revealed to him by the Father as he grew up as a man. Just my be.!
I know this wasn't the focus of the video, but I really wish the whole "Jesus grew in wisdom and understanding" bit wasn't glossed over. How does God grow in wisdom and understanding?
That would be because that is not a note, but the inspired text itself. many theologians have commented on this passage, and a treatment given by St. Thomas Aquinas can be summarized as follows: Christ possessed both full humanity and full Divinity, that is, He possessed a human nature and a divine nature forever united to the Person of the Word but without confusion of natures. Hence, while Christ is omnipotent by virtue of His Divinity, He is able to learn according to His human nature. In His human nature He knows in three ways, according to St Thomas, the first way is His perpetual access to the Beatific Vision by which He knew all humanly. the second is infused knowledge. Tge third is experiential knowledge. it is by that last form that Christ is said to learn amd grow in wisdom and such. while we might know fire burns, it actually burning us gives us a new manner or mode of knowing the proposition "fire burns" is true.
@@Silvia_Arienti The translators change or "update" certain words which they see as "offensive" to "modern sensibilities", a.k.a. political correctness over the truths from God.
I had to go get the New American Bible that my Dad gave to his dad as a Christmas gift shortly after Dad's mom died, maybe a year or two later. The copyright is 1970 or 1971 for most of it, 1969 for some Books. The study notes are copyrighted 1969 by the Catholic Biblical Association. If you're interested in what I found, here it is First, I must say that when I finally got around to reading this Bible, I was outside the Church as an agnostic. I had inherited the Bible when my Grandpa died, but left it in a box. Yet when I decided to read it for myself, even my sensibilities were offended by some of the study notes, mainly in the OT. I expected that when I compared the 1969 study notes to the current ones you cite, I would find equally troublesome ones, if not identical. Yet to my surprise, these ones are not eyebrow-raising. The note on John 7:20 reads: "Mad: literally, 'You have a demon.' The insane were thought to possess or be possessed by a demoniacal spirit. One has to determine from the context whether the charge in our terms is one of insanity or of possession." I'm not sure if "charge" is a typo, or exactly what it means, but it certainly doesn't deny the reality of demonic possession. The note on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 isn't anything like your example. It focuses on building the community of Christ. I apologize for losing count, and addressing the notes in a different order. But to be clear, there's nothing questionable in the notes for the Hebrews verses you cite, nor for the verses from Matthew. All in all, it seems my edition of the NAB emphasizes the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, and affirms Catholic doctrine and Sacraments.
The Douay-Rheims is good if you are willing to read more antiquated English. The Knox translation is more 'modern' and easier to read while still maintaining some of the beauty of the Rheims.
Trent, it seems that your interpretation of Jesus’ dual nature favors his divinity. This is why you disdain the NAB note to Matthew 16: 21-23. But if he was also fully human, then that would include human doubts and uncertainty regarding the future. Why then would the NAB note be so disturbing? I feel your certainty here is unwarranted.
Someone, please tell me why Pope Paul VI abolished the Index of Forbidden Books and why he told Catholic countries not to mention Catholicism in their constitutions. Mr. Horn probably will disagree. But I think Vatican II produced some awful results. For example, it had religious indifferentism, secularized some Catholic countries, and gave us the Novus Ordo Missae. I'm a traditionalist Catholic and an integralist who hopes and prays the United States will acknowledge Christ's social kingship. That's partly why I Pope Paul VI had explained why that council didn't affirm that kingship. After all, that Pope knew that Pope Leo XIII wrote this in Libertas Praestantissimum: "Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded." God bless Mr. Horn. But he's too theologically moderate for me.
@@MB-zn9vg I agree with you, friend. My hero, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, felt scandalized when Pope Paul VI to Catholic countries to secularize their constitution. That scandalizes me, too, because it suggests that Paul VI would have said, "Your citizens may practice Catholicism. But don't acknowledge it in your constitutions because that may offend non-Catholics."
If it does.. it doesn't matter to me.. I'll never read it... a bible set on Lies? No thank you. I will keep God's Bible of Truth... thank you. I swear the claims against God, Jesus, and Mother Mary are just starting to get more idiotic. That or I'm getting smarter. lol God Bless the Truth 💙💝
Wow Trent Horn just said that "The Chosen" gives a great representation of Jesus. The Chosen is wickedly heretical... where Jesus engages in sin, and says there's things he cannot do, and that's only a few of the problems in the series. But then Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin love hollywood and pleasing the world.
I really really find the overuse of the word "problematic" problematic.... People just keep saying something is problematic but don't want to make a decision to correct the problem, because they don't want to sound "judgemental" or take responsibility for offering a solution to others.
The Bible I got from my Catholic school is the NAB. After getting more interested in the faith and apologetics, I've definitely noticed some weird stuff in the notes and commentaries.
Please people! Stay Away from the New American Bible, and the New American Standard Bible! These newer versions of the Bible, are withholding and suppressing the true knowledge of the Power of Christ. For example: Jesus has power over satan. This version omits the fact. See Luke chapter 4, vs. 8: this is how it truly reads. ' And Jesus answered and said to him, " GET BEHIND ME, SATAN! For it is written. 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.' What happened to get behind me, satan? See also verse 4, of Luke 4: 'But Jesus answered him, saying, " It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." ' Why leave out, but by every word of God? This is Christ’s (God’s) direct speech, it is very dangerous to tamper with it. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it was on purpose. I am not sure why this version didn't include them.
I use the Douay-Rheims. Recently I have been reading Proverbs and comparing the Douay-Rheims translation with the New American Bible. My focus was on the virtue of Prudence. It is interesting that whenever the DR references Prudence, the NAB uses words like intelligence or understanding. I know intelligence and understanding are part of achieving Prudence but not totally prudence. I will continue to use the Douay-Rheims. Also, I never use the study notes.
Actually, you should read the study notes. Not all of them are revisionist, and for the ones that are, you can do your own further study and learn how to defend the faith against revisionist thinking. Know thy enemies' mind even when the enemy comes from within. We have to be able to defend the faith not just from outside adversaries, but from internal enemies as well. Jesus had Judas and the Church still has "Judases". Throughout Church history Satan has tried to defeat Christ's Church, including through infiltration. Thankfully, we have Christ's promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail. But, Jesus calls us to be among His soldiers in the fight. Do not fear false teachings. Learn how to counter them. Teach your children and loved ones how to counter them. Our children will be the future scholars, priests, nuns, bishops and even popes who, through the Holy Spirit, will undo some the bad stuff that has crept into Jesus' Holy Church. We also must pray for current leaders, including Pope Francis, that they repent of falling sway to a false kind of ecumenism.
Catholics usually imply that Protestant bibles are risky because they have no notes, but bad notes can be just as risky or even more. I'm a Spanish speaker and there must be only 3 or 4 Bibles in Spanish with fully orthodox commentaries, many of them decades old and no longer in print.
As a kid I got the Edición Pastoral, which got revised because the notes supported liberation theology. As a kid I had no clue but in retrospect I can kind of see it, particularly a passage in the Apocalypse with a note that reads like a lecture on class warfare and a note chastising St Paul for sexism I don't know what were the corrections
I am surprised you did not mention the note on Matthew 18:17. That one insists that when Jesus said "take it to the Church", He was only referring to the local church and it has no bearing on the universal Church. It goes on to say that the harshness of Jesus' words come from Matthew.
@YAJUN YUAN Good point, but at the same time Jesus founded one Church, so even if the dispute was settled in your local parish, or local diocese, that local parish would be in accord with the Universal Church. Imagine a dispute between people from different denominations. What if a Lutheran has a dispute with a Methodist? Should the dispute be settled in the local Lutheran parish, or the local Methodist parish?
@YAJUN YUAN I might not agree with you, but dude that was funny. I now wanna hear a debate where the protestant turns to the Catholic and asks exactly what you just wrote, “if a Lutheran and a Methodist had a dispute would they bring it to the local Catholic Church to resolve it?”
@@alpha4IV ofcourse the protestant wont take it to the catholic church since they dont recognise its authority. It applies to people who already are part of the catholic church. And if they dont listen to the church, they r out of the church. The protestants have no mechanism to get this done, sincd they believe in sola scripture, so they dont have to be binded by the church
Thank you for covering this! I was given one of these by a family member during my RCIA, and while the translation of the text itself made it pretty easy to read those studynotes definitely did more harm than good to my burgeoning Catholic identity
The Ignatius Bible (RSV) 2nd Edition, Douay-Rheims Challoner, and Knox-Bible are my favourite translations. I don't put much stock into many of these editions like the NABRE; as they place too much emphasis on the critical scholarship and fail to treat it with the dignity due to the Revealed Word of God.
Bibles in Brazil aren't far off. The most common Catholic bibles are either filled with straight up Marxist interpretations on the footnotes, like it's coming straight from a Liberation theology catechetic manual. Here we have the Bible Ave-Maria, which has a great and easy to read translation (from a French version of the Bible, by the Belgian monks of Maredsous), a delight to read, but the study version has footnotes linking stories from the Old Testament to other "ancient people's legends", basically implying those were basically myths. Sometimes it says that what St. Peter says about women is because he's "a fruit of his age, and had a patriarchal view of the world". Even the Maginificat isn't spared, here are the footnotes from (Luke 1:36-56) (poorly translated by me, mind you): - "The canticle of Mary is revolutionary because, while reflecting the convictions of a free soul, it invites us to a authentic liberation, liberation of the unfair structures which by God and in the name of God keep the people swamped into discrimination, famine and abandonment." - "[the Magnificat] is an invitation not to continue "swallowing” the idea that a society as unfair as the one of Mary - and like ours - is a reflex of some plan or will of God." - "It's clear that God will intervene in favor of the humiliated and the marginalized, but only when we, with our own efforts, with our own fight, begin to "prepare" this intervention" The footnotes from another translation, the "Pastoral Bible", are even worse. Pray for us, our clergy and the publishers conversion.
If St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, was merely condemning exploitative sexual relationships, why wouldn't he include the exploitation of women and girls as well? He wasn't talking about slavery. He was talking about unnatural behavior.
Paul also condemns both the active and inactive partner. If he was talking about the abuse of young boys then why would he include the young boys as guilty parties? The Liberal interpretation is significantly worse.
The note about demonic possession has, I think, another problematic aspect to it. I feel like there is an undertone of, "oh, those silly ancients and their superstition". Insanity was known at the time, and as a concept even appears in the Old Testament.
I have come to realize that the ancients were much smarter and more wise than the modern man. We are more prone today to be mentally ill because we are so detached from reality.
I am of the opposite opinion; it was true that the ancients conceived of mental illness as demonic possession, but we can take that statement by itself and it's fine. We're inferring, knowing what we know about the authors of these notes, that they _might_ be implying some bad theology by this statement; but sometimes it's not too good to be so primed to find problems wherever they could possibly be, and interpret the note more charitably.
Where does that appears in the Old Testament.
Was schizophrenia known at the time, or if you suddenly became a different person would the ancients believe you possessed?
@@EdgardoSilva-od3td David acting like a madman comes to mind.
It's embarrassing that just about every Protestant translated Bible has better notes than the Bible that's commanded to be used by the American bishops
New king James has good notes but have to be careful with the Protestant slant
Read your Cathecism
@@robertajaycart3491 I do..
@@denisemaslowski7052 Do you know of any verses that would show a Protestant slant in the NKJV?
@@justinharnett Matt 16:18, Protestants deny that Peter is a rock
Only one I can think of
The American Bishops decided to hire skeptic scholars and protestants who wrote these heretical footnotes. I just ordered the Pre-Vatican II Confraternity Bible (1941 English translation based on the Latin Vulgate for NT and some books in the OT) which was a forerunner for the NAB.
I cannot see how the sacrifice of Christ cannot be connected to the Eucharistic meal, which foreshadowed that same sacrifice.
Some of the footnotes and commentary in the NABRE are very problematic. To make matters worse, the publisher of the NABRE requires that the footnotes and commentary be published together with the text, no exceptions. So, you can't get an NABRE without these notes. Every NABRE is required to have them, and, as baffling as it may be, in many places, the footnotes and commentary do not seem to align with the Catholic faith and teaching.
Here's another verse that is problematic, look at the footnote for Matthew 21:7,
" [21:7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy."
Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy?? He was there! He was an Apostle. He lived with Jesus. He was a Jew, an educated Jew, and certainly knew prophecy. There are many examples such as this throughout the footnotes and commentary. As someone wrote, "There seems to be a clear bias against, and sometimes rejection of, the magisterial teaching of Deu Verbum within these footnotes and commentary." The Church teaches that Matthew wrote the Gospel bearing his name, which the footnotes in the NABRE also call into question. That the Holy Scriptures are inerrant is also Catholic teaching. It's for reasons such as these that many Catholic teachers, RUclipsrs, podcasters, apologists, etc., use the RSVCE, NRSVCE, Douay-Rheims, etc.
I recommend other translations or commentary such as Cornelius a'Lapide's Commentary on the Four Gospels. They're a little pricey, but you can buy them individually also. Here is a small section of the commentary on Matthew 21:7 from this:
"But it was chiefly because of the mystery implied that He willed to make use of both the beasts, that he might signify that He should reign not over those only to whom He had been promised, i.e., the Jews, but over the two sorts of people of which the world is made up; the Jews, accustomed to the yoke of the Mosaic law, who were represented by the ass; and the Gentiles, living up to this time without the Law of God, and who were denoted by the colt. "For, as sinners," says Auctor Imperfecti, "are the horses of the devil, so are the saints said to be the horses of Christ, although Christ loves mild asses, rather than fierce and proud horses."
You can also get the Navarre Bible books. You can buy them as a set, both for NT and OT, or individually. Here is the part of the commentary from The Navarre Bible: Matthew for the verse I mentioned above, Matthew 21:7. It says the same things:
"St. Matthew sees in the fact that the colt is with the ass a further detail of the prophecy...the ass symbolizing Judaism, for long subject to the yoke of the Law, and the foal, on which no one has ridden, as symbolizing the Gentiles. Jesus leads both Jews and Gentiles into the Church"
I don't understand why the Church/USCCB pushes/approves the NABRE considering the commentary/notes contradict so much of our faith.
Not just the Catholic faith. The notes are pretty clearly written by people who overwhelmingly reject the truth Christianity in general, and even of theism. They were and are a big part of the reason that I, a serious Christian raised evangelical, decided against making the move to the Catholic Church, at least for now, after being persuaded by many Catholic claims and strongly looking into it a few years back.
You don’t understand why the USCCB approves? Google Wilton Gregory, Joseph Tobin, Blaise Cupich and 100s of others. Are you kidding? They used to be Navy SEALS but now they’re not.
@@peterbrennan1085 I don't understand what you're trying to say. I googled them but couldn't find anything that says they used to be Navy SEALS or why that would be significant.
@@adamaj74 they’re not exactly exuding manly courage as a Navy SEAL would. In other words they’re weak sisters
I've heard similar stuff from a Catholic bible scholar: Loaves and Fishes miracle didn't happen really about sharing; Luke put the Magnificat in Mary's mouth; John's disciples joining Jesus was really propaganda, etc. Personally I think if a priest doesn't believe the miracle of feeding the 5000 didn't happen, does he believe that the Eucharist is Jesus?
You said it
Do not change the word
Never ever heard those things from any catholic leader I knew.
and still people criticize the church why she did not approve any translation for centuries…
@YAJUN YUAN
That means the translation is fine, the study notes aren't doctrine, that's ridiculous.
@YAJUN YUAN
Is it adjusted to retrofit into what Ellen Gould White wrote in her columns?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj yes of course lol
The notes stress me out. The only reason I still have my NAB is because I wrote in it as a teenager. Thus, I keep my notes, and I can add more.
That's a great way to describe them - stressful. It's like you don't know what you're about to read - so a nervous anxiety can be felt
Has the USCCB spoken to this issue yet? Since it is the translation they recommend why don’t they require the bad footnotes be rooted out?
These notes teach the exact opposite of Dei Verbum. Shameful that they came out only a few years after the end of the Second Vatican Council.
Second Vatican Council is responsible for this travesty, if not the Council Fathers themselves
The notes in the NABRE Catholic Study Bible by Oxford press was the #1 challenge to me becoming a Catholic. Mariology was challenging, but this was far worse. The deacon in my RCIA class wasn’t much better.
@YAJUN YUAN Explain
@YAJUN YUAN The Catholic Church is NOT liberal about Scripture. What is wrong is that scholars who dissent from Church teaching were permitted to have input in these commentaries. Liberal scholars who are liberal about Sacred Scripture are usually also liberal about Sacred Tradition. It is one thing for a secular, or Protestant scholar to have views of Scripture and Sacred Tradition that are contrary to Catholic teaching, but if it is a "Catholic" scholar that has views contrary to Church teaching then those should not be considered Catholic Scholars. They should be considered Catholic DISSENTING scholars.
@@paularnold3745 some proots are obsessed with our internal issues in the Church just like the Pharisees
@YAJUN YUAN I agree with you that what ends up in the footnotes of Catholic Bibles and Catholic Biblical Commentaries should not contradict Church teaching. Thankfully, the footnotes and commentaries are not definitive teaching. But it is pretty upsetting that one needs to double check the Catechism while reading "Catholic" Biblical commentaries or footnotes in "Catholic" Bibles.
It is good that the Church wants to hear non-Catholic perspectives in scholarly endeavors. Our understanding can be refined by challenges. Just look for example how heresies in Church history helped refine the Christian understanding of things like Jesus' Human and Divine nature and the Trinity. But, when dissenting views are published without properly stating that it is a dissenting view, that is just very irritating and dangerous. I would not mind the non-Catholic comments if it was worded such as: "Some secular exegetes believe....," or "some exegetes dissent from the Official Catholic view on the meaning of this verse", etc.
I think that MOST officials in the Magisterium do know that some of the scholars are dissenting even if they are also excellent exegetes. What is disturbing is that there are some officials who either agree with the dissenters or don't care. Jesus had Judas, and His Church still has "Judases". For that reason, I thank God for His promised protection of the Holy Spirit.
@YAJUN YUAN The Catholic Church isnt Liberal with scripture this is why we refer to magisterial and traditional way of understanding scripture rather than the "protestant" scripture alone (but I am confident I have the correct interpretation) method.
Such a huge problem with modern biblical scholarship is the lack of holy zeal, so different than when we read homilies or commentaries from the Fathers. Liberal scholars are more concerned with revisionist nuances than with teaching and preserving the traditional Christian faith.
try opening the NAB before you decry it’s lack of zeal. it explains its creation, first and foremost. it was hardly written by liberals.
it was made by a team of theologians from many denominations, to create a Bible in the English Lexicon, with study notes that provide historical context.
and guess what? the simple fact of the matter is this: valuable historical context often conflicts with the catechism. they do not compromise my faith. and it does not demonstrate a lack of zeal or faith to acknowledge reality. it requires honesty and academic integrity to include it.
the NAB is just a study Bible to us, it is not the Vulgate, but it is a damn good study Bible that stands above its peers. the NAB is such a quality work that it is something that would be just as useful to an atheist or a historian, as it would be to a Christian. there is nothing wrong with that.
@@tictacterminator My comment wasn't directed at the NAB. It was directed at a large chunk of biblical scholarship, including much of what is being taught at seminaries.
I checked these in my New Jerusalem Bible (1985 edition). The first few had no notes or gave an unobjectionable theological point. In John, it translates the crowd as saying "You are mad!" (no footnote). In the verse about the fire, the note also says it doesn't "envisage" purgatory, and in the one about the altar, it also says it means the cross, not the Eucharist. In the list of sins it translates malakai as "self-indulgent" (???) and the other word as "sodomites" (no footnote).
Really good episode Trent. This needed to be said. I thank you for bringing up the Leviticus Septuagint arsenokoi connection.
also, people didn't just think crazy people had demons. people would *invite* demons into themselves to get supoernatural power. it wasn't just that it made you weird, it made you _more than human_. what this meant varied from culture to culture, but there's a reason the pagans wanted him gone after he started casting out demons in their area
I am so excited to listen to this. After converting to Catholicism, my wife and kids got me the NAB a year ago. I was so excited, especially since the NAB is close to what I read at Mass as a lector.
But the footnotes drove me to stop reading it. It was really hard trying to make it through when page after page seemed to take either the Protestant or even the modern atheist historical-critical lens on what's being said; there's heavy doubt cast on the traditional authorship of the Gospels and even notes that seemed to suggest Mary wasn't a virgin. Even the angel's hail to Mary seems...off.
And that's not even mentioning the fact that McCarrick's name is in huge letters throughout, bringing to mind a lot of negativity that had scared me away from converting in my college years.
I've got the Great Adventure Bible now and it's been a great experience and translation.
@YAJUN YUAN Another video I have to watch!! Man, we're blessed to live in times like these with such great accessibilities to quality videos on theology.
What is sad is that there are more than 10 different CATHOLIC translations in spanish made by catholic translators on the other hand the reality of the U.S and U.K catholics is really sad to watch when it comes to this issue.
I agree about the notes. The real question becomes "Why did the Church approve them knowing this"? I still wonder about that.
Money
@@danarzechula3769 - that doesn't make any sense. They'd earn the same amount of money from sale of the NAB regardless of the tone of the notes.
The Jerusalem Bible is a very nice translation.
@YAJUN YUAN
This explains a lot.
I wish it didnt have the whole Yahweh thing though. I really prefer the Lord.
@@alexanderbadillo704Why? Yahweh makes it clear where the Tetragrammaton is precisely.
Yet this is what the Church is giving people to read. -_- I like my Great Adventure Bible!
These matters about translations seem unusually common in English speaking countries. The only adjustment I ever made was moving on to a Jerusalem Bible translation upon learning that's what they use at seminaries
What you said there hits the nail on the head. It is primarily and English problem. English is just, well it’s not really a great language today. We no longer have singular 2nd person possessives. We only have 1 word for love. We don’t even have words to describe half of the principal points being made in 2000 year old Greek.
We just need to adopt more loan words from other languages when English alone falls short imo
@counseloftrent please look up the news article regarding the Spanish edition Jerusalem Bible changing Matthew 4:19 “fishers of men” to “fishers of persons.” I’d love your feedback on this.
Ever since I was introduced to the translation as a convert, I've always joked with people that NAB stands for Need Another Bible.
i always enjoy your videos for their intellectual honesty as well as the peaceful explanation you make. No mokery, no shouting. Just explanation. wonderful
Thankfully the NAB Revised dropped that Matthew 26:29 note. But it still has some head scratchers.
I think its wild that the Vatican doesn't enpanel a commission to make a new official study bible for Catholics. After I saw who compiles the NAB, I found it odd that the majority were non-Catholic.
Weird.
I stick with the Douay-Rheims
As a Bible believing non-catholic, I think this is a pretty good translation for the modern era; seems to be fairly accurate in conveying accuracy and meaning of the texts. It doesn't go too far with the gender inclusive language and does not shy away from using words like "slaves" and "slavery" using gender accurate terms or pronouns when appropriate i.e. using the word "brothers" instead of always using an alternate, inclusive translation. As a Bible believing non-catholic, I discovered that I actually like the NABRE! :o but yes, the notes reflect an obvious liberal and/or anti-supernatural, skeptical attitude /bias!
Well great... Our modern Bishops are more protestants than the protestants... Yippiie. Congratulations to the wolves in sheep`s clothing
Arianism 2.0, antibishops
Thank you for doing this observations Trent, because for many of us not knowing and staring reading the Bible will confuse big time for sure of what the Catholic Church teaches 🤨
I’ve always reviled the NABRE commentary. Glad I have this cathartic outlet now. Thanks Trent
Trent and viewers, I am looking for a Catholic friendly New Testament Greek study guide. I just want a book that can speak to information like…
“The Greek word, trogo, which is translated as “eat” is actually more accurately translated as “gnaw” or “chew”; this word is never used figuratively in the Greek.”
Thank you for the help!
The issue about insanity and demons reminded me of the George Lamsa bible, supposedly based on the Aramaic Peshitta, but with really odd takes here and there. It feels new age and agnostic half the time.
I fully agree with Trent in this video. My question is if these notes have an Imprimatur? If so, how could such strange comments get one, especially in direct relation to Holy Scripture?
Because an Imprimatur doesn't mean as much as you think it does.
@@cactoidjim1477 Eh. That is a vague statement as you never specified how you think I view it.
My interpretation is that having an Imprimatur says the statement is free of any doctrinal errors that could lead someone astray.
Look at Trent’s intro and then he goes on to cite a study note saying .
Imprimatur means that permission is granted to print the work. Nihil obstat means that the Bishop who reviewed the document finds nothing objectionable to the faith in the work. It does not mean that everything in the book is DEFINITIVE Church teaching. A particular Bishop, or comity he approves to do the review, could still mistakenly not notice something objectionable or could wrongly think something is correct when it is not correct. When I was in grammar school our local parish was using a book in the catechism program that had a Nihil obstat that, as a fourth grader, I knew it should not have.
@YAJUN YUAN You are mixing up nihil obstat and imprimatur. Imprimatur means permission to print. Granted, usually both are present, but neither suggests that the contents of a work are DEFINITIVE teaching. A local Bishop, or comity he appoints, can still errantly, or lazily, grant a Nihil obstat. The nihil obstat just means HE the Bishop (or his authorized comity) finds nothing objectionable.
@@paularnold3745 why did you make that comment about it not meaning the book is definitive Church teaching. I never thought it did. Just saying.
With that distinction, then why bother getting an Imprimatur? Imagine commentary notes that have a nihil obstat and yet a not an Imprimatur.
I’m joining a Bible study Bible group at my parish. It’s a bit unsettling that this is the translation we read at Mass and reading at study group. Translation seems good so far from what I’ve read. But knowing that these study notes are done by a largely secular and non catholic perspectives just doesn’t make sense to me. I hate that I have to largely depend on Protestant translations missing the deuterocanonical books.
One of the biggest undermining of our Catholic faith and traditions, are the footnotes in Revelations. Particularly Rev. 12: 1-5. When I first read those, I was certain a protestant had to have been responsible.
So I have been doing some investigation about the nature of the historical critical method and how the commentators arrive at some of their conclusions. It seems at face value that they are undermining the text of the bible by interpolating corrections in the text to arrive at a version which is closer to a historical original. So they seem in many places to cast doubt as to whether Jesus Himself said certain things or that certain passages are added by the evangelists, and that this is done in a way that undermines the legitimacy of the text. But this is not really what they are trying to communicate at all.
Rather, they are trying to find the literal meaning of the text as it would have been understood by the historical audience it was written for, that is to say within historical context as an ancient text. It assumes that the text went through several revisions in which the evangelists and other authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which was only given to them after Pentecost, later added additional meaning and interpretations to the historical account. So they are not denying the historical account, and neither are they challenging the inerrancy of the Bible, but on the contrary, they are confirming the historical reliability of the bible and confirming the inspiration of the text in its final form which we have preserved and handed down to us through the tradition of the Church today. In other words, the commentary is not designed to challenge the text, but only our skewed interpretation of the text which is centuries removed from the original audience. So far from being Modernists which I originally suspected, they effectively refute Modernist interpretation, by defending the bible as an inspired historical document.
That being said, I certainly agree with your point that these nuances will not be appreciated by someone who is new to the faith, and there is a danger of potentially misleading someone who is not familiar with the scientific study of historical criticism.
I have two NABRE Bibles, ones the regular St Joseph edition and the other is the Oxford Catholic Study Bible. After following along with you, I determined the “study” Bible has the exact same notes as the base NABRE text. I’m pretty upset about that honestly, because I assumed the study notes were new notes from the base text. Now I know both are completely useless
Gifting it would be a good idea but the notes probably would weaken someone if they aren’t well read about their faith
I bet the ESV study Bible would contradict these “catholic “ study notes ?
Trent which translation would you recommend??
I think Trent said in a previous video that he uses the RSV-2CE for personal study.
Good vid, Trent. Don’t know why the bishops don’t do something about these notes.
Because they’re antibishops like during arianism
It might also be because some of them don't know? Not everyone has the ability to research the word of God which is probably why I guess. But I could be wrong coz if they know but they wanna make money so they're not really bothered, then that probably explains what's going on with bibles like the NAB. I have a NAB: Catholic Answer Bible & if you look at the intro notes, they claim the NAB:CAB Bible to be free of errors. But if you can pick up a copy, then you'll find spelling errors & wrong meanings like the Mathew 7 verse which this guy was talking about.
NABRE translation is actually a very good translation far superior to its protestant equivalent the NIV unfortunately the study notes are something you would expect an Episcopalian or Unitarian Bible commentary not a Catholic Bible study notes.
You focused on the New Testament, but the Old Testament is just as bad...
In the book of Daniel, for example, the notes seem to point the reader to the conclusion that any prophecy was either written after the fact (if true) OR was just flat wrong. Comparing the notes from the NAB to the notes from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible for the book of Daniel is like comparing night and day.
Choose the day
In your opinion is the text other than the study notes reliable? I don't bother with the study notes.
I would say this. The NAB doesn’t have Gabriel saying to Mary, “Hail, full of grace.” Gen 1:2 changes the Spirit of God to a mighty wind. In Baruch 5, they change Gods words about the sons of Israel and make it gender inclusive. I’ve been reading and studying scripture more these past weeks and I’m now shopping for a new Bible because I cannot trust something with this many mistakes.
It's really not a very good translation. I find it flat, wooden, clunky, and quite often tin-earned and graceless.
Just look at how it starts: "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth -- and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters -- then God said: Let there be light, and there was light." The very first sentence is long and stringy, with a subordinate clause, then a long parenthetical phrase, before ever getting to the subject, God. And even then, the adverb "then" before the subject is completely unnecessary, because the opening adverb phrase, "in the beginning," already establishes when this is happening. Take out the interceding phrases, and the basic sentence reads: "In the beginning, then God said: Let there be light, and there was light." That's a horrible construction.
If that's how the Bible starts, I know I don't need to read any further.
I’ve never ride any of the notes come with my Bible so I am really shocked but there’s so many strange things like this. I primarily just read the text of the actual Bible. I hope it’s not an error also. I would’ve assumed you wouldn’t have so many errors or loose ways of defining with the scripture saying for people. I was in the assumption that priest of the highest quality would be making sure this didn’t happen. Guess we need to pray for so much more than I ever imagined.
The NABRE has Gender neutral language in many verses for example in Mat 4:4: , "It is written: 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God."
This should be "Man does not live by bread alone ....."
I think what is going on here is that they can't discredit the bible as a whole, so they are diminishing pieces of it
@YAJUN YUAN you’re slandering left and right, go dream of ellen g white, prootie
I see your point on Like 4:1, but let me flip the question. Should we Catholics think that the Baptism of Jesus was just a display for the public, having nothing to do with Jesus' self-awareness? I know it's tricky and we will never know truly what was in His mind, but if I suppose if is written there must be a reason. This goes along with the debate about Jesus' omniscience. As C. S. Lewis once said (I am translating back from my language so the phrasing can vary a bit ): "It would be puzzling, and to me repulsive, to think that Jesus never asked a honest question, that is, a question of which he didn't know the answer"
That's right actually. Jesus said it was to "fulfill all righteousness". He knew He didn't need baptism, or His answer to St. John would make no sense.
He was baptized as a sign that His mission would bring reconciliation for our sins, and to give an example that we follow with His own baptism in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which actually does what St. John's baptism represented.
@YAJUN YUAN You mean that adults who haven't been baptized yet need baptism, right?
Nothing about any of the accounts of this event imply anything about only adults needing baptism.
@@Jared-cm2wv you’re responding to a follower of ellen g white
Blurred lines are as effective as a lie 🤥
They present themselves as being impeccably rigorous and realist in their historical exegesis and then they go on to insert their own 'theology' into the text when it comes to passages addressing homosexuality and their other pet issues.
The new Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century contains similarly smug commentary by people who are clearly flaming liberals. Granted, it's not all bad. But the writer of the Gospel of Mark commentary, for example, provides a clear case of unabashed 'progressive' scholarship. Even the title of the work as a whole barely conceals a modernist agenda. It's the current century, after all.
Sorry to be off-topic Trent, but do you have a list of accurate representations of Jesus in modern media? You mentioned "The Chosen," and I'd say "The Passion of the Christ" probably makes that list, but nothing else springs to mind immediately -- certainly not Scorsese's movie.
Cringey is not a legitimate criticism
as someone seriously considering Catholicism, which translation should I be reading? It's quite confusing to try and find a straight answer which I find odd
Didache study bible
Douay-Rheims!
there are a few different translations.
the Douay-Rheims family, which is mainly the Bishop Challoner revision but also includes the Confraternity revision, are both very excellent pre-V2 translations. you can get a Douay-Rheims-Challoner version with the extensive biblical commentary by Rev. George Leo Haydock.
the New American Bible is what is officially approved and used for readings, but as shown in the video the commentary/notes aren't that good. there is another modern translation called the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition that is excellent however; you can get a version of it called the Didache Bible (which has commentary from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) or just a plain version called the Ignatius Bible.
there is also the Knox Bible, it's a pre-V2 translation that uses modern 20th century english. it is a pretty interesting translation which is good as well.
you can look up online these different versions and compare their text to see which is best for you (or just do what i did and order them all)
I highly recommend the Didache Bible, which uses the far superior RSV-2CE translation. It includes study notes that draw from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, plus a lot of apologetical articles spread throughout the book. It's a great resource for someone trying to learn about Catholicism and how Catholics view and relate to scripture.
I wouldn't recommend starting with the Douay-Rheims. The antiquated language can be an impediment to understanding.
Ignatius study Bible.
KING JAMES is still the best Bible!! And you just proved it!!
What is your opinion of the Living Word Bible, from Tyndale; Catholic Edition.
I was recommended the NAB by a Catholic website, but what do I do with it now?
@YAJUN YUAN 🤡
Does a committee or individual write these study notes?
Some "scholars" and traditional beliefs that we follow sometimes lack of sense. For example, Peter's letter was written in or about 65 AD. In this letter he calls Mark his son. This means John Mark was at least 15-20 years younger than Peter. But the Church tradition has Mark dying martyr in Alexandria in 68 AD at the age of 68 LOL this is almost the same age of Peter. How can Peter call Mark his son if he is just the same old age of him? LMAO..then there is Mary's age at the time of the Archangel Gabriel annunciation. "Scholars" have Mary as a 12 years old girl when Gabriel said "Blessed art thou among all WOMEN" Then Mary goes BY HERSELF quickly travels some 70 miles BY HERSELF to take care of her older relative who is pregnant. Where exactly these "scholars" find that Jewish girls were usually given in marriage at such young age? Are they mixing India and North Africa traditions with Jewish??? LOL
In Ancient Greek times, the "passive recipient" of homosexual practices was barred from the vote, and personhood status. I believe this is why St. Paul refers to both members of the homosexual relationship. Even though those men/boys were sometimes victims, the greek law kept them outside of society. It is also worth noting that their concept of "homosexuality" greatly differs from the modern, as theirs was a sort of worship of the form as beauty (see the Kouros statues), which was generally accepted at the time. The greek law only punished those who would commit sodomy or other more deviant practices. St. Paul's warning to these men applies then to both "kinds", whether they be homosexual in the modern sense, or as they were in Greece in his time.
More ridiculous footnotes are found in for Psalms 58 and 82. In these footnotes it is stated there are multiple gods in existence. These footnotes are found only in the 1991 and post-1991 versions of the NAB. Before 1991 the footnotes were more orthodox.
God himself acknowledges the existence of other gods. That's the whole point of the First Commandment.
let the atheist scholars go and sell hotdogs. I won't buy those. there are alternatives.
I knew I wasn’t crazy about NAB being undesirable!
And this is the approved text for the USCCB. so one has to question why?
Is it referring to just the NAB or both NAB and New American Bible Revised Edition
These are NABRE notes. I have an original NAB, and most of these notes are either different or not there at all.
I have the NAB not revised but New American Bible:The Catholic Answer Bible that I purchased last year & there are spelling errors & what this guy is talking about, Mathew 7, the demonic part where ppl thought insane ppl were possessed by demons & much more in the sense of errors & wrong meanings. It even has messages like it's free of error, etc but If you can get your hands on the NAB:CAB version, you'll see what I'm talking about.
they really just be pulling out all the ancient heresies, huh?
Did you just say “do-da-do” 🤣
I prefer Bibles that don't have notes. NAB without notes would be great,
Touché
Is there a Protestant version of this translation? Scary stuff.
I have two Bibles I have a new American Bible that is the St. Joseph edition but for some reason the translation of the greeting from the angel to Mary is the Protestant version of hail favored one!!! My other Bible is the douhy Reims (Yes I know I misspelled that) it has the proper translation
So the poorly catechized are now making they way into biblical interpreters. What next, I dread to imagine!
Click bait thumbnail
Jesus understand his mission, He knew that he will die on the cross but my be the the little details like how would he end up in the cross is revealed to him by the Father as he grew up as a man. Just my be.!
And always will be for all eternity.
Absolutely true what you state, Jesus was always capable of overcoming the devil due to His Divinity and being the Son of God.
I know this wasn't the focus of the video, but I really wish the whole "Jesus grew in wisdom and understanding" bit wasn't glossed over. How does God grow in wisdom and understanding?
That would be because that is not a note, but the inspired text itself. many theologians have commented on this passage, and a treatment given by St. Thomas Aquinas can be summarized as follows: Christ possessed both full humanity and full Divinity, that is, He possessed a human nature and a divine nature forever united to the Person of the Word but without confusion of natures. Hence, while Christ is omnipotent by virtue of His Divinity, He is able to learn according to His human nature. In His human nature He knows in three ways, according to St Thomas, the first way is His perpetual access to the Beatific Vision by which He knew all humanly. the second is infused knowledge. Tge third is experiential knowledge. it is by that last form that Christ is said to learn amd grow in wisdom and such. while we might know fire burns, it actually burning us gives us a new manner or mode of knowing the proposition "fire burns" is true.
My favorite translation is the NRSVUE
The Woke Bible Edition?
@@JohnR.T.B. How is it "woke" exactly?
@@Silvia_Arienti The translators change or "update" certain words which they see as "offensive" to "modern sensibilities", a.k.a. political correctness over the truths from God.
@@Silvia_Arienti they say it because of the more gender neutral translation
I had to go get the New American Bible that my Dad gave to his dad as a Christmas gift shortly after Dad's mom died, maybe a year or two later. The copyright is 1970 or 1971 for most of it, 1969 for some Books. The study notes are copyrighted 1969 by the Catholic Biblical Association. If you're interested in what I found, here it is
First, I must say that when I finally got around to reading this Bible, I was outside the Church as an agnostic. I had inherited the Bible when my Grandpa died, but left it in a box. Yet when I decided to read it for myself, even my sensibilities were offended by some of the study notes, mainly in the OT.
I expected that when I compared the 1969 study notes to the current ones you cite, I would find equally troublesome ones, if not identical.
Yet to my surprise, these ones are not eyebrow-raising.
The note on John 7:20 reads: "Mad: literally, 'You have a demon.' The insane were thought to possess or be possessed by a demoniacal spirit. One has to determine from the context whether the charge in our terms is one of insanity or of possession."
I'm not sure if "charge" is a typo, or exactly what it means, but it certainly doesn't deny the reality of demonic possession.
The note on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 isn't anything like your example. It focuses on building the community of Christ.
I apologize for losing count, and addressing the notes in a different order. But to be clear, there's nothing questionable in the notes for the Hebrews verses you cite, nor for the verses from Matthew.
All in all, it seems my edition of the NAB emphasizes the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, and affirms Catholic doctrine and Sacraments.
Our pastor, to my great appreciation, delivered as part of his homily the heresies of NAB commentary. We’re FSSP though.
Thank you
Unbelievable!
Thanks dawg♥️
So what translation?
The Douay-Rheims is good if you are willing to read more antiquated English. The Knox translation is more 'modern' and easier to read while still maintaining some of the beauty of the Rheims.
Trent has done a video on the different Bible translations and their strengths and weaknesses before. check it out.
Trent, it seems that your interpretation of Jesus’ dual nature favors his divinity. This is why you disdain the NAB note to Matthew 16: 21-23. But if he was also fully human, then that would include human doubts and uncertainty regarding the future. Why then would the NAB note be so disturbing? I feel your certainty here is unwarranted.
Someone, please tell me why Pope Paul VI abolished the Index of Forbidden Books and why he told Catholic countries not to mention Catholicism in their constitutions. Mr. Horn probably will disagree. But I think Vatican II produced some awful results. For example, it had religious indifferentism, secularized some Catholic countries, and gave us the Novus Ordo Missae.
I'm a traditionalist Catholic and an integralist who hopes and prays the United States will acknowledge Christ's social kingship. That's partly why I Pope Paul VI had explained why that council didn't affirm that kingship. After all, that Pope knew that Pope Leo XIII wrote this in Libertas Praestantissimum:
"Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded."
God bless Mr. Horn. But he's too theologically moderate for me.
The smoke of satan, my brother.
@@MB-zn9vg I agree with you, friend. My hero, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, felt scandalized when Pope Paul VI to Catholic countries to secularize their constitution. That scandalizes me, too, because it suggests that Paul VI would have said, "Your citizens may practice Catholicism. But don't acknowledge it in your constitutions because that may offend non-Catholics."
*FINALLY*
If it does.. it doesn't matter to me.. I'll never read it... a bible set on Lies? No thank you. I will keep God's Bible of Truth... thank you.
I swear the claims against God, Jesus, and Mother Mary are just starting to get more idiotic. That or I'm getting smarter. lol
God Bless the Truth 💙💝
good
Wow Trent Horn just said that "The Chosen" gives a great representation of Jesus. The Chosen is wickedly heretical... where Jesus engages in sin, and says there's things he cannot do, and that's only a few of the problems in the series.
But then Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin love hollywood and pleasing the world.
The buzzword "cringey" in itself makes me cringe.
cringe comment
@CJ P. Aww you're clearly offended because you're a Horn fanboi and your first initial stands for "cringey" 😅
😳
I really really find the overuse of the word "problematic" problematic.... People just keep saying something is problematic but don't want to make a decision to correct the problem, because they don't want to sound "judgemental" or take responsibility for offering a solution to others.
Where did the NAB/NABRE "Bible" come from? From the pit of Hell is where.
The Bible I got from my Catholic school is the NAB. After getting more interested in the faith and apologetics, I've definitely noticed some weird stuff in the notes and commentaries.
In my Catholic school, we were given the Gideon KJV New Testament.
And they're are serious problems with the translation itself
Please people! Stay Away from the New American Bible, and the New American Standard Bible!
These newer versions of the Bible, are withholding and suppressing the true knowledge of the Power of Christ.
For example: Jesus has power over satan. This version omits the fact. See Luke chapter 4, vs. 8: this is how it truly reads. ' And Jesus answered and said to him, " GET BEHIND ME, SATAN! For it is written. 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.' What happened to get behind me, satan?
See also verse 4, of Luke 4: 'But Jesus answered him, saying, " It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." '
Why leave out, but by every word of God?
This is Christ’s (God’s) direct speech, it is very dangerous to tamper with it. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it was on purpose. I am not sure why this version didn't include them.
I use the Douay-Rheims. Recently I have been reading Proverbs and comparing the Douay-Rheims translation with the New American Bible. My focus was on the virtue of Prudence. It is interesting that whenever the DR references Prudence, the NAB uses words like intelligence or understanding. I know intelligence and understanding are part of achieving Prudence but not totally prudence. I will continue to use the Douay-Rheims. Also, I never use the study notes.
Why not use study notes?
@YAJUN YUAN The original
@YAJUN YUAN Yes.
Actually, you should read the study notes. Not all of them are revisionist, and for the ones that are, you can do your own further study and learn how to defend the faith against revisionist thinking. Know thy enemies' mind even when the enemy comes from within. We have to be able to defend the faith not just from outside adversaries, but from internal enemies as well. Jesus had Judas and the Church still has "Judases". Throughout Church history Satan has tried to defeat Christ's Church, including through infiltration. Thankfully, we have Christ's promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail. But, Jesus calls us to be among His soldiers in the fight. Do not fear false teachings. Learn how to counter them. Teach your children and loved ones how to counter them. Our children will be the future scholars, priests, nuns, bishops and even popes who, through the Holy Spirit, will undo some the bad stuff that has crept into Jesus' Holy Church. We also must pray for current leaders, including Pope Francis, that they repent of falling sway to a false kind of ecumenism.
@YAJUN YUAN It's the KJV that is closer to the DR as it based off translations of the Vulgate in many parts
Catholics usually imply that Protestant bibles are risky because they have no notes, but bad notes can be just as risky or even more.
I'm a Spanish speaker and there must be only 3 or 4 Bibles in Spanish with fully orthodox commentaries, many of them decades old and no longer in print.
As a kid I got the Edición Pastoral, which got revised because the notes supported liberation theology. As a kid I had no clue but in retrospect I can kind of see it, particularly a passage in the Apocalypse with a note that reads like a lecture on class warfare and a note chastising St Paul for sexism
I don't know what were the corrections
We appreciate your hard work Trent
Amen to this comment
I am surprised you did not mention the note on Matthew 18:17. That one insists that when Jesus said "take it to the Church", He was only referring to the local church and it has no bearing on the universal Church. It goes on to say that the harshness of Jesus' words come from Matthew.
A good addition to a part 2!
@YAJUN YUAN Good point, but at the same time Jesus founded one Church, so even if the dispute was settled in your local parish, or local diocese, that local parish would be in accord with the Universal Church. Imagine a dispute between people from different denominations. What if a Lutheran has a dispute with a Methodist? Should the dispute be settled in the local Lutheran parish, or the local Methodist parish?
@YAJUN YUAN I might not agree with you, but dude that was funny. I now wanna hear a debate where the protestant turns to the Catholic and asks exactly what you just wrote, “if a Lutheran and a Methodist had a dispute would they bring it to the local Catholic Church to resolve it?”
@@alpha4IV ofcourse the protestant wont take it to the catholic church since they dont recognise its authority. It applies to people who already are part of the catholic church. And if they dont listen to the church, they r out of the church. The protestants have no mechanism to get this done, sincd they believe in sola scripture, so they dont have to be binded by the church
@@a.d1287 it was just a cleaver snarky comment by Yuan. Give him credit where credit is due.
Thank you for covering this! I was given one of these by a family member during my RCIA, and while the translation of the text itself made it pretty easy to read those studynotes definitely did more harm than good to my burgeoning Catholic identity
This is the first time i've been first to comment, Deo gratias for the quality video as always, Trent!
The Ignatius Bible (RSV) 2nd Edition, Douay-Rheims Challoner, and Knox-Bible are my favourite translations. I don't put much stock into many of these editions like the NABRE; as they place too much emphasis on the critical scholarship and fail to treat it with the dignity due to the Revealed Word of God.
i kind of prefer "stock" because it helps me understand passages more
@@squirrels24seven Could I ask what you mean by stock?
@@xXXDeadlyHavocXXx would that be a reference to Ignatius Loyala - founder of the abhorrent Jesuit society?
Douay-Rheims and RSV are also my favorites
@@mugsofmirth8101 Saint Ignatius of Loyola, yes.
Bibles in Brazil aren't far off. The most common Catholic bibles are either filled with straight up Marxist interpretations on the footnotes, like it's coming straight from a Liberation theology catechetic manual.
Here we have the Bible Ave-Maria, which has a great and easy to read translation (from a French version of the Bible, by the Belgian monks of Maredsous), a delight to read, but the study version has footnotes linking stories from the Old Testament to other "ancient people's legends", basically implying those were basically myths. Sometimes it says that what St. Peter says about women is because he's "a fruit of his age, and had a patriarchal view of the world". Even the Maginificat isn't spared, here are the footnotes from (Luke 1:36-56) (poorly translated by me, mind you):
- "The canticle of Mary is revolutionary because, while reflecting the convictions of a free soul, it invites us to a authentic liberation, liberation of the unfair structures which by God and in the name of God keep the people swamped into discrimination, famine and abandonment."
- "[the Magnificat] is an invitation not to continue "swallowing” the idea that a society as unfair as the one of Mary - and like ours - is a reflex of some plan or will of God."
- "It's clear that God will intervene in favor of the humiliated and the marginalized, but only when we, with our own efforts, with our own fight, begin to "prepare" this intervention"
The footnotes from another translation, the "Pastoral Bible", are even worse. Pray for us, our clergy and the publishers conversion.
It’s funny that people act like the KJV is from the devil, but the bishops approve the NAB
No logic at all