Posted on 05/07/2009 4:10:34 PM PDT by Salvation
Wolf in Calfskin: The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB
I. Introduction
II. How Not to Read Your Bible
III. Prolegomena to Genesis
IV. Genesis
V. Exodus
VI. 1 Samuel
VII. Daniel
The NAB pulls its usual tricks in the First Book of Samuel. There is a bit of demythologizing, one (that I have detected) deliberate mistranslation, a claim that the book was complied by a faceless editor rather than written by the man whose name it bears, and, as always, many allegations of contradiction and error, in one case even of moral error. I will here attempt to refute them. Now, I may only be one layman, fighting against an array of polyglot doctored priests, but I will draw inspiration from the story of David and Goliath, which, incidentally, is contained in 1 Samuel, and, trusting in David's intercession, attempt an upset victory.
f. 2:1-10: "A hymn attributed to Hannah, the mother of Samuel, as her thanksgiving to God because she has borne a son despite her previous sterility..."
Notice that this hymn is only "attributed to Hannah, the mother of Samuel." God forbid that we say Hannah actually recited these words!
f. 8:1: "From this chapter on, the First Book of Samuel gives us two and sometimes three viewpoints on most of the events with which it is concerned, such as the appointment of Saul as king, the reasons for his downfall, his relationship with David, even the circumstances of Saul's death (1 Sam 31; 2 Sam 1). The choice of Saul as king is seen, in 1 Sam 8, followed by 1 Sam 10:17-27 and 1 Sam 12 as motivated by the people's defection from the proper service of God; this later editorial approach incorporates not only narratives with which it is consistent, but also early traditions (1 Sam 9:1-10, 16 and 1 Sam 11) which portray the events and their motivation quite differently."
These allegations of contradiction are entirely baseless. First, the idea that 1 and 2 Samuel contain irreconcilable reports of Saul's death is about as inane as these types of claims come. 1 Samuel records what actually happened; 2 Samuel records what an Amalekite said happened. The Amalekite was lying. He made up a story in hopes of garnering from King David some type of reward.110 However, his plan backfired, and David executed him.
Second, the alleged contradiction between 1 Samuel 16:19-23 and 1 Samuel 17:55-58, regarding whether or not Saul knew David prior to his battle with Goliath, can also be satisfactorily reconciled. David was a young boy when he served as Saul's armor bearer (vv. 16:19-23), and the Scripture does not tell us how much time elapsed between the events narrated in ch. 16 and the events narrated in ch. 17. Perhaps months or even years passed, and David's appearance changed significantly in that time. Perhaps he grew his first beard. "Furthermore," Merrill adds, "Saul's mental and emotional condition, always aberrational at best, would certainly have been aggravated in this hour of stress, perhaps to the point of his not recognizing even an old friend."111
I will deal with the claim regarding the disparate accounts of Saul's accession to power in detail below.
f. 10:5: "In a prophetic state: in an ecstatic condition due to strong feelings of religious enthusiasm induced by a communal observance, possibly accompanied by music and dancing."
Rather than attribute the "prophetic state" to a movement of God's Spirit, the NAB suggests that it is merely "an ecstatic condition due to strong feelings of religious enthusiasm induced by a communal observance." This is redolent of the Modernist principle of vital immanence, which explains every religious experience as internal "feelings of religious enthusiasm" rather than supernatural grace.112 Religious experience comes from within, in this view, and is induced by natural, psychological means: the Hebrew prophets whip themselves up into a freny like the priests of Ba'al.
f. 10:8: "By inserting this verse, with its seven days, an editor has prepared for one narrative of the rejection of Saul (1 Sam 13:8-15) in the very context of Saul's anointing."
Again, without evidence or argument, the NAB scholars simply assert that "an editor" inserted this verse. How, pray tell, do they know?
f. 11:12-14: "With these verses, an editor has harmonized the account of the acknowledgment of Saul as king at Mizpah (1 Sam 10:17-24) with the public acclamation at Gilgal (1 Sam 11:15) after the defeat of the Ammonites (1 Sam 11:1-11)..."
The ubiquitous "editor" strikes again, this time to harmonize two allegedly disparate accounts. In the one, teaches the NAB, Saul is enthroned at Mitzpah after being chosen by lot, whereas in the other he is enthroned at Gilgal after saving the Jews of Jabesh-gilead. But the text as it stands is a unified whole. There is quite simply no contradiction there. Saul is chosen for king by lot at Mitzpah (vv. 10:20f), but many of the Jews do not accept him (v. 10:27). However, after he demonstrates his leadership by winning a decisive military victory (vv. 11:1-11), he gains the people's unqualified support, so the prophet Samuel decides to renew the kingdom by repeating the coronation rites. There is no need to posit two disparate sources, and one desperate editor; the narrative is perfectly coherent as is.
What is more, the NAB has deliberately mistranslated Scripture in v. 11:14 in order to make their charge of contradiction seem more plausible. The NAB scholars, alone in the wide field of biblical translation, have chosen to render chadash in this verse as inaugurate, instead of "reaffirm" (NIV), "renew," (NAS, KJV, DRV, RSV), egkainidzo (LXX, renew, cf. 1 Mac 4:36; Ps 50:12; Sir 36:6), or the like. And given that they translate the word properly elsewhere,113 this error cannot be ascribed to incompetence. It is evident that they have purposely chosen to mistranslate chadash in order to make Scripture to be in error. As I explained above, they believe that vv. 10:24ff and 11:15 were originally two independent and contradictory accounts of Saul's one-and-only coronation, but that an editor weaved them together and attempted to harmonize them by positing that, while both events happened, the second rite of coronation was merely a renewal of the first. But the NAB scholars have seen through the editor's thin veneer; they have pierced the scrim and descried the original, contradictory sources from which the final product was made; they know that 1 Samuel 11:14f did not originally describe a "renewal" of Saul's kingship but the inauguration thereof, therefore they are perfectly justified in manhandling and mistranslating the word of God, that we might be able to see as clear as they.
f. 15:3: "...The interpretation of God's will here attributed to Samuel is in keeping with the abhorrent practices of blood revenge prevalent among pastoral, seminomadic peoples such as the Hebrews had recently been. The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God."
Here the NAB outright charges Scripture with a moral error. Samuel, speaking as God's prophet, tells Saul that God wishes him to "attack Amalek" and to kill all the "men and women, children and infants," yet the NAB scholars blatantly assert that this "has never been in conformity with the will of God." Evidently, they believe they know the mind of God better than inspired Scripture, which is God speaking.114
Ironically, the liberal Catholics of yesteryear attempted to open the Bible to charges of scientific and historical error by carving for it a limited domain of inerrancy, viz., matters of faith and morals.115 Observe how at present they wax bolder and more radical in their attenuation of the ancient faith: now Scripture contains moral errors as well. Indeed, Fr. Raymond Brown went so far as to assert that the Bible contains erroneous "time-conditioned religious beliefs."116 This progression is illustrative that the liberals must not be given an inch with respect to the doctrine of the Bible; else there will be nothing left by and by.
f. 16:14: "An evil spirit sent by the LORD: the Lord permitted Saul to be tormented with violent fits of rage."
This is more demythologizing. What the Bible narrates as supernatural, the NAB explains as natural. Saul was not actually possessed or obsessed by a fallen angel with an intellect and will, but only "tormented with violent fits of rage." The Douay, by contrast, takes this passage at face value.117
f. 17:54: "At the time supposed by this narrative, Jerusalem was still Jebusite, and David had no military tent of his own; the verse is a later gloss."
Judges 1:21 records that the Benjaminites attempted to take Jerusalem, but were unable to completely dislodge the Jebusites. This resulted in the Benjaminites and Jebusites dwelling side by side. As such, at "the time supposed by this narrative," part of Jerusalem would have been under Benjaminite control. As for David's "tent," this need not refer to a military tent; the Hebrew word ohel may refer simply to a dwelling place (cf. vv. 4:10; 13:2), in this case David's house in Bethlehem.118 These two facts being established, the NAB's argument that this verse is a later gloss collapses.
May he who harps God for us in the eagle-eye win grace for the vindication of His word.119
Daniel is the kind of book by which the martyr's ardor is fanned to flame. Its heroes are men of exemplary courage and piety, preferring to be cast into a raging furnace or a den of lions rather than bow before false gods. They endure persecution with humility and contrition, all the while thanking the Lord for sending them such just chastisements for their sins. And they triumph, and for their fidelity they receive from God their just reward.
Hence, as the great soldier-priest Mattathias died, wishing to encourage his sons to "show zeal for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of our fathers" (1 Macc 2:50), he called to their minds (after the deeds of Abraham and others) the deeds recorded in this book. "Hannaniah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. Daniel because of his innocence was delivered from the mouth of the lions. And so observe, from generation to generation, that none who put their trust in him will lack strength" (vv. 59-61).
Moreover, Daniel is the kind of book with which souls are won. Its historical prophecies are exquisite in their precision, predicting hundreds of years of history in great detail. In fact, Daniel is probably the best book in the entire Bible for proving divine inspiration to the nonbeliever, for it even identifies by name the nations to which some of its prophecies refer. Yet more extraordinarily, in places the book of Daniel even provides the time frames in which the events it describes will transpire. It is truly an awe inspiring work.
David Goldstein, the secular Jew turned Catholic evangelist, describes how the book of Daniel moved him to embrace the Christian faith:
Especially was I impressed with the prophecy of Daniel, in which he foretold the exact time when the vision and the prophecy would be fulfilled; when the Saint of Saints would be anointed; when the Messiah would be here, in accordance with God's promise, for in the fullness of that time Christ our Lord was born.120
Suffice to say, the NAB vitiates Daniel. Yet again it espouses the claims of the enemies of Christianity; it teaches that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, after the events which it "predicts" had already transpired.121 This view devastates the moral and prophetic force of this book. Suddenly the fingerprints of divine foreknowledge and inspiration which are the visions of statues, animals, and horns are no more than creative summaries of past history. Suddenly this book of amazing foresight has none at all, and even its hindsight is in question. Suddenly this motive of credibility does not seem so credible.
Thankfully, the preponderance of the internal and external evidence is not on the NAB's side. First, the author explicitly and repeatedly identifies himself as Daniel, the same Daniel who experienced the events narrated in this book (vv. 7:28; 8:1,15,27; 9:2; 12:4-5). This does not convince the NAB, which insists that this "book takes its name, not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its hero."122 But what about the author's repeated and insistent self-identification is so difficult to understand? If Daniel were not indeed the author of Daniel, this would not be pseudonymity but pseudoi, lies.
Second, Daniel is mentioned by his sixth century B.C. contemporary Ezekiel, as one renowned for wisdom and righteousness (Ezek 14:14, 20; 28:3). Ezekiel even expected the King of Tyre to know of him, which presupposes that Daniel was a well known figure among pagans as well as Jews.
The NAB, to avoid the force of this argument, must insist that Ezekiel is talking about a different Daniel. "The Daniel named here may be the traditional just judge of the ancient past, celebrated in Canaanite literature... but is not the hero of Dn 1-12."123 This objection approaches absurdity. Ezekiel mentions Daniel alongside Noah and Job as men who exemplify the righteousness by which men save themselves and others from destruction. The prophet Daniel was particularly apt for inclusion in this list, for by his righteousness he had saved himself and his friends from death at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 2:17-18), just as Noah had saved his family from the flood and Job had preserved himself and his wife from the attacks of Satan. On the other hand, the Daniel described in the Canaanite Ras Shamra tablets is a worshipper of Ba'al, and hence Ezekiel could not have considered him righteous in the same sense as Noah and Job.124 Why, for that matter, would Ezekiel include a pagan in his list of righteous men, when he could have included Joseph or Moses? Furthermore, it strikes me as too convenient for the NAB's position that the Bible should be entirely silent about this other Daniel until just the time at which, according to the traditional position, the prophet Daniel came to prominence.
Third, Our Lord taught that the prophecies contained in the book of Daniel were spoken by the prophet named Daniel (Matt 24:15). Here we see once again that the NAB scholars apparently will not allow Jesus' authority to extend to literary criticism. Finally, subsequent tradition is unanimous in attributing Daniel to its protagonist, as witnessed by Josephus125 and St. Jerome.126
Since the NAB makes no attempt in its introduction to justify its claim that Daniel was written during the Maccabean Rebellion, I will here explain and refute some of the arguments which have historically been advanced in favor of this position. The first is that the prophecies are too accurate, and hence could not possibly have been composed until after the events they describe had already occurred. This argument, obviously, rests on a false premise.
The second argument is that the Aramaic of Daniel, which contains loan words from Greek and Persian, belongs to the second and not the sixth century B.C. However, the three Greek words each name musical instruments which were played before Nebuchadnezzar's golden image (vv. 3:5,7,10,15). Given the contact which existed between the Greek and Babylonian civilizations,127 it is not at all surprising that Nebuchadnezzar should have possessed Greek musical instruments at his court. Next, Daniel's use of Persian words is sufficiently explained by his surviving several years after the Persian conquest of Babylon, during which time many Persian loan words passed into Aramaic.128 Kenneth Kitchen demonstrates conclusively that Daniel's Aramaic can be dated anywhere from the late sixth (its traditional date of composition) to the second century B.C., and probably precedes the third century B.C.129
Finally, it is alleged that Daniel contains historical mistakes which an eyewitness to these events would not have made. Yet recent discoveries have vindicated this divinely inspired work. For example, the Babylonian king Belshazzar who is mentioned throughout the book was until recently otherwise unknown to history. None of the great historians of antiquity such as Xenophon and Herodotus were aware of him; they knew only of Nabonidus and preceding kings. In the past this led many to deny the historical reliability of Daniel. However, the recently discovered Nabonidus Chronicle reports that Nabonidus entrusted the kingship to his son, the crown prince Bel-shar-usus (Belshazzar) while he spent several years absent in Arabia. Belshazzar was ruling in Babylon as de-facto king at the time that Babylon fell.130 Now, as the great historians of antiquity are completely unaware of this king, it is abundantly evident that his memory faded into obscurity soon after his kingdom was destroyed. Hence it would be highly improbable that this information would have been known to an obscure Maccabean Jew who was three hundred years yet further removed from these events than the aforementioned historians. Second century B.C. folk narrators do not typically know more of sixth century B.C. history than fifth century B.C. historians. Hence, the most natural explanation of the data is that Daniel was there. He was an eyewitness to these events, and he wrote down what he saw.
The other main charge of historical inaccuracy centers on the character of Darius the Mede, who, according to Daniel, succeeded to the kingdom of Babylon at the age of 62. It is an established fact of history that the Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylon. Moreover, Cyrus had already overthrown the Median sovereign a few years before. So it is problematic that Daniel describes a man named Darius the Mede as becoming king over Babylon upon its fall. However, the Nabonidus Chronicle records that Cyrus appointed a man named Gubaru as sub-governor of Babylon immediately after it came under his power. It is possible that Darius the Mede was simply another name for him.131 Yet another possible explanation is supplied by D. J. Wiseman, who has argued that Darius the Mede was Cyrus himself.132 Cyrus was 62 when he conquered Babylon, his mother was a Mede, and ancient Near Eastern Kings often bore more than one name. Hence Wiseman translates Dan 6:28 appositionally: "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian." This solution appears best.
f. 2:1-49: "The chronology of Daniel 2:1 is in conflict with that of Daniel 1:5, 18 and in Daniel 1:25 Daniel appears to be introduced to the king for the first time..."
Supposedly vv. 1:5 and 1:18 put the first meeting between Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel during the third year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, whereas 2:1 puts it in the second. However, according to the Babylonian reckoning, "the year in which a king was crowned was the year of accession, whereas the next full year was the first year of his reign."133 This alleged contradiction melts away as soon as one learns that historical fact. Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel to Babylon during the year of his accession, and three years later, when Daniel's training was complete, it was the second year of his reign. So we see that the two chronologies can be harmonized quite easily. Moreover, far from being evidence of historical inaccuracy, this is actually evidence that Daniel was written by a Babylonian, not a Maccabean, Jew, for a Maccabean Jew would not have used Babylonian dates. This is especially true with regards to Daniel 1:1, where the use of the Babylonian reckoning puts him in prima facie contradiction to Jeremiah (cf. Jer 25:1, 9; 46:2).
f. 2:2: "Chaldeans: here probably astrologers, who were so associated with the Chaldeans in the Hebrew mind that in the later language they are sometimes simply called by the name of that people."
This is another of the many arguments put forth in favor of the proposition that Daniel was written by a Maccabean Jew: Daniel's use of the term "Chaldean" as referring specifically to astrologers is an anachronism in the sixth century B.C. But this is essentially an argument from silence. Apart from Daniel, the first known instance of such a usage of the word is in the writings of Herodotus circa 450 B.C.134 It is not altogether improbable that "Chaldean" could have been used in this way 87 years before.
f. 2:36-45: "The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron). The last, after Alexander's death, was divided among his generals (Daniel 2:41-42)..."
The NAB's exegesis of this prophecy is quite novel; historically the four kingdoms have been understood as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.135 Moreover, by this exegesis the NAB commentators strip their Maccabean Daniel of the last vestiges of his prophetic foresight, not even allowing him to predict the events of the next few years!
There are several problems with this reading. First, the Median Empire did not succeed the Babylonian Empire; the Medes lost their sovereignty to the Persians some years before the Euphrates was ever diverted and mighty Babylon fell.136 Second, the Book of Daniel, in vv. 8:3,20, treats the Medo-Persian kingdom as a whole, depicting it as a ram with two horns, one larger than the other. One would think that Daniel would be consistent, and treat it as a whole here as well.137 Third, Daniel 2:44-45 states that within the lifetimes of the kings of the fourth empire of this prophecy God would establish His messianic kingdom on earth. Christ Himself interpreted this passage as a reference to His person and mission (Luke 20:18). Yet by His time the Greek empire had long since been conquered by Rome. Hence the fourth kingdom is Rome. The NAB's interpretation simply does not line up with the facts.
f. 7:5: "A bear: represents the Median empire, its three tusks symbolizing its destructive nature..."
The bear could much better be interpreted as Medo-Persia than Media. If it is interpreted as Media one is left floundering as to the meaning of the statement that "[the bear] was raised up on one side." However, if one interprets it as Medo-Persia then it makes perfect sense as a parallel to vv. 8:3,20; it signifies the superiority of the Persians in the kingdom. In addition, the "three tusks... in its mouth" could better be translated as three ribs between its teeth (cf. Amos 3:12; Ps 124:6; Job 29:17; Jer 51:44). Thus it would signify the three main conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire, namely Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.138
f. 7:6: "A leopard: used to symbolize the swiftness with which Cyrus the Persian established his kingdom. Four heads: corresponding to the four Persian kings of Daniel 11:2."
The leopard could also symbolize the swiftness with which Alexander the Great established his kingdom, in which case its four heads would correspond to the four smaller kingdoms which Alexander's generals carved out for themselves after his death. This is by far the more natural interpretation, as Daniel soon goes into great detail about these events (vv. 8:8-9; 8:20-21; 11). Keil further notices that "the four heads do not rise up one after another [as the four succeeding Persian kings of the NAB's interpretation], but that they all exist contemporaneously on the body of the beast, and therefore can only represent four contemporary kings, or signify that this kingdom is divided into four kingdoms."139
f. 7:7f: "...The ten horns represent the kings of the Seleucid dynasty, the only part of the Hellenistic empire that concerned the author. The little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.), the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne."
f. 7:25: "The reference is to the persecutions of Antiochus IV and his attempt to force the Jews to give up their customs and to adopt Hellenistic ways (1 Macc 1:33-34).
If one accepts this erroneous interpretation, one is forced to conclude that Daniel believed that God would establish His Messianic kingdom immediately after the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. Daniel 7:25-27). Obviously, this did not happen. Furthermore, the Seleucid Empire cannot properly be described as "devouring the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it" (Dan 7:23). Rather, we must interpret this kingdom of ten horns the same way we interpret it in the book of Revelation, as bearing dual fulfillment in the Roman Empire and the kingdom of Antichrist.
f. 9:24: "...A most holy: an expression used almost always of an object, the altar or the temple, but once (1 Chron 23:13) of Aaron the high priest. The author sees the definitive establishment of the kingdom of God, realized in the reconsecration of the temple after Antiochus' desecration, or personified in the holy community (like the Son of Man of Daniel 7). The Fathers of the Church almost unanimously understood the reference to be to Christ, the final realization of the prophecy."
f. 9:25: "From the utterance... to be rebuilt: from the time of Jeremiah's prophecy. One... anointed and a leader: either Cyrus, who was called the anointed of the Lord to end the exile (Isaiah 45:1), or the high priest Joshua who presided over the rebuilding of the altar of sacrifice after the exile (Ezra 3:2)..."
f. 9:26: "An anointed: doubtless the high priest Onias III, murdered in 171 B.C., from which the author dates the beginning of the persecution..."
Once again the NAB commentators espouse an interpretation foreign to the patrimony of the Catholic Church. By taking care to specify that the Fathers of the Church almost unanimously understood the reference to be to Christ, they studiously avoid the condemnation of the First Vatican Council.140 Yet, one suspects that, whatever exception or exceptions the NAB might be able to find, the consensus of patristic exegesis of this passage amounts to unanimity in the sense envisioned by the conciliar decree.
This prophecy is about Jesus Christ, not indirectly through its quasi-messianic themes, as the NAB teaches, but directly and exclusively, and I will prove it. First, though at first glance God's decree that at some point in the future Jerusalem would be restored (Jeremiah 30:18) seems a likely candidate for the starting point of the 70 weeks, closer examination rules it out. For this we must consult other translations, as the NAB takes liberties with the text of Daniel 9:25. It translates it, in part, as "from the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt," whereas literal translations all render this section as "from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" or some such. This is why this is important: the NAB's rendering makes this prophecy sound like a reference to a general proclamation that Jerusalem would at some point be rebuilt; the literal rendering makes it sound like a reference to a specific command i.e. "go, rebuild and restore Jerusalem." God's decree in Jeremiah 30:18 meshes with the NAB's version, but not with the literal version, as He did not command Jeremiah to build.
To what then, does Daniel 9:25 refer? It refers to Atraxerxes' decree to Nehemiah to rebuild the Holy City (Nehemiah 2:3-8), which took place on Nisan 1, 444 B.C.141 This is when the 70 weeks (i.e. 490 years) begin. And if we convert the prophetic years of 360 days into precise solar years of 365.242 days, adding the 69 weeks which Gabriel tells us will pass between the decree of Atraxerxes and the coming of Messiah (anointed one) the Prince places us exactly on the date of Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem.142 So, the anointed one of v. 25 is none other than Christ Himself. Moreover, with this hermeneutic, unlike that of the NAB, we have no need to posit that the anointed ones referred to in vv 24, 25, and 26 are three different people or things; they all refer to Christ. He was cut off and killed, and then a few years later the Romans came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary.
f. 11:5-45: "These verses describe the dynastic histories of the Ptolemies in Egypt... and the Seleucids in Syria... In Daniel 11:10-20 is described the struggle between the two kingdoms for the control of Palestine... Finally, Daniel 11:21-45 describe the career of Antiochus IV and his persecution, in details that have been seen above."
Indeed, this prophecy is incredibly precise. Yet if it were written after the events it describes had already transpired it would be nothing more than a pious fraud.
Ben Douglass
March 31, Anno Domini MMIX
[110] This solution is obvious to anyone willing to allow the Scriptures to speak with consistency. So Challoner, in HOT, p. 381; KD, Vol. 2, pp. 558-559; Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2nd ed. 2008) p. 238.
[111] Merrill, op. cit., p. 230.
[112] Cf. PDG, 7-8.
[113] The NAB translates the various forms of chadash as restore (2 Chr 15:8; 24:4; Is 61:4), restored (Lam 5:21), renew (Job 10:17; Ps 51:12; 104:30), and renewed (Ps 103:5).
[114] The proper Catholic response to violent biblical passages such as this is supplied by St. Thomas Aquinas, cited supra in "Prolegomena to Genesis." Cf. also Bishop Challoner's commentary: "The great master of life and death (who cuts off one half of mankind whilst they are children) has been pleased sometimes to ordain that children be put to the sword, in detestation of the crimes of their parents, and that they might not live to follow the same wicked ways. But without such ordinance of God, it is not allowable in any wars, how just soever, to kill children" (in HOT, p. 358).
[115] Cf. HG, 22; SP, 19.
[116] R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1973) p. 9.
[117] "An evil spirit, by divine permission, and for [Saul's] punishment, either possessed or obsessed him" (Challoner, in HOT, p. 360).
[118] KD, Vol. 2, p. 487.
[119] Cf. Dante Alighieri, Paradiso, Canto XX 37-39.
[120] David Goldstein, in Honey from the Rock, ed. Roy Schoeman (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2007) p. 70.
[121] A prolific third century opponent of Christianity named Porphyry was the first to advance this claim. Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Jerome opposed him. Secularists have since taken up Porphyry's cause. Pope Leo XIII denounced as a detestable error the contention that "the prophecies and the oracles of God are... either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature" (PD, 10).
[122] SJNAB, p. 1021.
[123] SJNAB, p. 983.
[124] Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, "Who is Ezekiel's Daniel," retrieved 3/31/09.
[125] The Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 10, Chs. 10-11.
[126] Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason Archer (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958) passim.
[127] Cf. Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Daniel and Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander," Evangelical Quarterly 53.1 (January-March 1981): 37-47; KD, Vol. 9, pp. 507-508.
[128] K. A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel," in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman (London: The Tyndale Press, 1965) pp. 35-44.
[129] Ibid., pp. 31-79.
[130] Nabonidus Chronicle, Years 7, 9-11.
[131] Ibid., Year 17.
[132] D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel," in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman (London: The Tyndale Press, 1965) pp. 9-16.
[133] Dr. Barry D. Smith, "The Book of Daniel and the Second-Temple Period," (paper for Atlantic Baptist University at http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Daniel.htm) 7/12/04.
[134] E.g., The Histories, 1:181,183.
[135] "The statue denoted the four great empires of the Chaldees, Persians, Greeks, and Romans" (HOT, p. 1090; cf. CCHS, pp. 626-627; KD, Vol. 9, p. 654).
[136] The Histories, 1:191.
[137] "[S]ince in ch 8 the Medo-Persian empire is represented as one empire symbolized by one beast, so must it be represented by one beast or by one metal in the other visions. Any attempt, therefore, to split up the Medo-Persian empire into two separate and successive kingdoms is against the writer's view of history" (CCHS, p. 627).
[138] KD, Vol. 9, p. 640.
[139] Ibid., p. 641.
[140] "[I]t is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against... the unanimous agreement of the Fathers" (DeRev, par. 9).
[141] So Challoner, in HOT, p. 1103; Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1999) p. 200.
[142] Cf. Harold Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1977) p. 138, in McDowell, op. cit., p. 200.
Makes me wonder if the author is working on more!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
A friend’s son will be making his first communion soon and the child has been asked to read one of the lessons. His mother says the lesson is very watered down and when she questioned the people in charge of the class they said it was from the children’s lectionary.
But it’s not in any lectionary my friend can find. Wrong attribution to the Book, chapter and verse and poor theology on the Eucharist. Are there multiple “children’s” lectionaries?
Could be. I know we have a little pull out class on Sunday morning, but I’ve never had a glimpse of the book.
Hmmm. But, even from the NAB there are many translation errors.
I don’t remember if it was John Paul II or (probably) Pope Benedict who said that the edition used in America was abominable.
Wolf in Calfskin: The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB, Part II, [Catholic Caucus]
Hmm. I am seriously rethinking my online use of the NAB and heading back to the D-R. Petronski just posted to me yesterday on this very subject.
The only reason I post the NAB first on the Daily Readings is because it has the best format — links for the readings, etc. Otherwise — forget it!
Now if the Bishops’ liturgy committee for the ICEL would just get going on the new traanslation and get it to the printers. We were supposed to have most of it by 2009. So far I haven’t seen hide or hair of it. Sigh..................
I’ve read that the Jerusalem translation is also quite good. Check out EWTN to see which translation Mother Engelica uses, that’s what I mean by “Jerusalem.”
Nevermind checking that out yourself, I became so curious I looked it up for you:
But yes, I like the Douay-Rheims. Cyborg and I share the Loreto version, about $45, but eventually (or as soon as children come along), we’re getting the Douay-Rheims family with Haydock commentaries baked right in (bound in padded leather, $125) as a family bible.
As for the NAB [spit], one verse proves its inadequacy: Luke 1:28.
“Mother Engelica?”
Sorry dear Sister.
Your name is, of course, Angelica.
Mea maxima culpa.
The stuff you post sounds like it were written by one of "those awful people!"
Oops! I didn’t notice the “Catholic Caucus” label. Please accept my apologies for posting.
Hey ZC, good to see you around!
I personally can’t stand the NAB. It is poor translation in many spots, the notes are often terrible or useless.
The one thing I can say in its favor is that the page format or layout is one of the best around.
There is a 5-vol. 2007 reprint of Gordon Winrod's 3-vol. 1987 reprint of the 1582 Rheims New Testament and the 1635 Douay Old Testament.
http://www.churchlatin.com/DouayRheims.aspx
The PDF CD-ROM version is only $20.00, as is the download version.
http://www.churchlatin.com/library/books/gallery/CD_ROM.jpg
It retains Winrod's preface to his reprint. (Read this to find out what's wrong with Challoner's revision.)
http://www.drbo.org/preface_winrod.htm
The Church Latin dot com version is different from Dr. William G. von Peters' recent 4-vol. version of "The Real Douay-Rheims" "transliterated ... into modern English.... [with] copious marginal notes and voluminous annotations."
http://www.realdouayrheims.com/
PDF of von Peters' Chapter One of Genesis:
http://www.realdouayrheims.com/files/gen1.pdf
?
I personally can’t stand the NAB.
!
***Wow. You’d better watch out or you’ll be excommunicated.
The stuff you post sounds like it were written by one of “those awful people!”***
You mean the heretic, the apostate or the atheist?
**Oops! I didn’t notice the “Catholic Caucus” label. Please accept my apologies for posting.**
I have no problem. Your posts are OK.
** Douay-Rheims family with Haydock commentaries baked right in (bound in padded leather, $125) as a family bible.**
That sounds fabulous, although a little spendy.
Read them if you like, but the Haydock and the Loreto and the TAN Bibles are not the TRUE Douay-Rheims. Those are all the Challoner revision. (See my Post# 14.)
Excerpt from Winrod's Introduction to his 1987 reprint:
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. states: "Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 ... The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published. ' In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version..."
Authorized Version = King James Version
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
