So many Protestants think devout RCs are mind-numbed robots. But all they'd have to do to know otherwise is watch our faces when that fabulously comic translation is read.
The boss-lady watches me percolate weekly as some new and totally bizarre translator's delerium is foisted upon us.
I'd have a lot less to laugh at in Church if we didn't have the NAB. What a joke!
Actually, it’s not the translations that bother me nearly as much as the footnotes, which are still steeped in 19th-century German-school skeptical analysis. Even as a purely secular document, you’d think that a century and a half of archaeological validation never happened.
From the introduction to the gospel of John: “[John] is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition [than the synoptic gospels].”
Here the authors don’t explicitly state anything horrifically heretical, such as that the gospel wasn’t actually written by John, and that it substitutes later theological constructs for the teachings of Christ. But if you’ve previously heard such abominations, as were formerly prevalent in the 70s AmChurch, does this not seem closer to supporting such notions than it is to refuting them by insisting on the actual articles of Christian faith that the gospel contains actual historical events witnessed by the text’s single author who wrote them in his own hand?
And, yet, to not leave such a downer in such a positive thread: Is it not amazing the extent to which the Catholic Church has survived, and is indeed rebuilding itself, after such horrific leadership as the corrupt bishops who published the NAB? (Indeed, current editions are far better than previous ones.) Who cannot help but to see the Catholic Church shaking the dust of the 70s from its feet? Do not such errors seem confirmation of the legends of the dreams of Pope Leo XIII; do not the trials of the 21st century church seem like a purging of such evils?