Bible Study - Catholic Bibles / 04_NAB

This was my first Study Bible that I purchased. The strength of the New American Bible is it is translated in contemporary English, and thus is easy to read. However, my impression after reading the footnotes of the four Gospels is that they lead readers to doubt about the Holy Scripture, of its authenticity.

I thought that these footnotes were not quite suitable in a Catholic Bible since they spread more confusions in the mind of lay readers. Judge it by yourself, take a copy of the New American Bible and read the footnotes. If you prefer not to have doubtful footnotes in your Bible, then the Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition will certainly be your best bet. If you prefer to have some footnotes or commentaries to help you in your reading, the Navarre Bible is an excellent choice in my opinion. The Douay-Rheims Bible with Rev. George Leo Haydock's notes contains a wealth of faithful and useful footnotes that you can trust, in my opinion.

These footnotes cast doubts on the whole Reading Guide featured in this Catholic Bible Study. Too bad, this one is now sitting idle on my bookshelf. I prefer the RSV-2CE and the Navarre Bible to this Study Bible.

I am going to list below some (some because my list is by no means exhaustive) of the footnotes that I found distracting.

• Matthew 9:8
  [...] Matthew's extension to human beings of the authority to forgive sins points to the belief that such authority was being claimed by Matthew's church.
  The commentator questions the authority to forgive sins extended to human beings and imply that only Matthew's church claim that extension, i.e. this extension is added by Matthew but not taught by Christ. How does that fit with Matthew 16:19 then? and Matthew 18:18 ? and John 20:22 ?
  
  
• Matthew 21:7
  [..] resulting from Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy.
  If Matthew misunderstood the prophecy, then there is a good chance that Matthew was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. So is the author of this footnote saying that some Gospels in the Bible are not inspired ?
  The author of this footnote thinks that Matthew 21:7 says that Jesus sat on both the colt and the ass at the same time which indeed could appear awkward. My checks with other Bible translations show that the word them in "he sat on them" refers to the cloaks, not the animals.
  
  
• Matthew 26:27-28
  [...] Matthew has changed this into a command to drink followed by those words. [...] For the forgiveness of sins: a Matthean addition. The same phrase occurs in Mark 1:4 [...] but Matthew avoids it there [...]. He places it here probably because he wishes to emphasize that it is the sacrificial death of Jesus that brings forgiveness of sins.
  This footnote implied that Matthew made up stories as he wished and he added to and modified the original story.
  
  
• Mark 5:21-43
  [...] This technique of intercalating or sandwiching one story within another occurs several times in [...]
  This footnote sounded like Mark was manipulating his text.
  
  
• Luke 1:20
  [...] When Mary asks a similar question in Luke 1:34, unlike Zechariah who was punished for his doubt, she, in spite of her doubt, is praised and reassured (Luke 1:35-37).
  
  I could see three problems with this footnote:
  
  1) The author of this footnote contradicts himself. Here he says that Mary had doubt. In his other footnote Luke 1:45 (see below), he says that "Mary as a believer whose faith stands in contrast to the disbelief of Zechariah".
  
  2) This footnote affirms that, like Zechariah, Mary had doubted the annunciation of the angel Gabriel. This footnote, in my opinion, misinterprets Luke 1:34. Indeed, in the New American Bible, Luke 1:34 is translated as "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?". "How can this be ..." effectively sounds as if Mary was saying "this is impossible!". I think the Douay-Rheims has a much better translation for Luke 1:34. It says "How shall this be done, because I know not man?". "How shall this be done ..." sounds as if Mary was saying "I know this can be done, would you tell me how it would be?".
  
  3) So how do we know if Mary had doubted or not? Ironically, even though this footnote wants to lead us to think that Mary had doubted, but in fact this footnote provides a hint to the answer to our question. Please read the footnote again, it says "... Zechariah who was punished for his doubt, she, in spite of her doubt, is praised and reassured (Luke 1:35-37)". Remember in this story that the angel Gabriel was the messenger of God. So when Zechariah was punished, it was God who punished him. If Mary had committed the sin of doubting like Zechariah did, and God did not punished Mary, then God was unfair to Zechariah. We know that it is impossible for God to be unfair to anyone. The only explication why Mary was not punished is that Mary had strong faith in God and did NOT doubt.
  
  In the end, I'd like to see how the author of this footnote would explain to readers his contradiction with the footnote of Luke 1:45.
  
  
  
• Luke 1:26-38
  [...] After the announcement is made (Luke 1:14-17, 31-33) the parent objects (Luke 1:18, 34) and a sign is given to confirm the announcement (Luke 1:20, 36).
  Here, again, the author of this footnote wants us to believe that Zechariah and Mary had objected the announcement. Mary did not objected, see my above explanation for footnote Luke 1:20.
  
  
• Luke 1:34
  Mary's questioning response is a denial of sexual relations and is used by Luke to lead to the angel's declaration about the Spirit's role in the conception of this child (Luke 1:35). [...]
  See my above explanation for footnote Luke 1:20.
  
  
• Luke 1:36-37
  [...] why, the angel implies, should there be doubt about Mary's pregnancy, for nothing will be impossible for God.
  No, the angel does not imply anything. Mary did NOT doubt, see my above explanation for footnote Luke 1:20. Also read Luke 1:45, Elizabeth said that Mary was blessed because Mary believed.
  
  
• Luke 1:45
  Blessed are you who believed: Luke portrays Mary as a believer whose faith stands in contrast to the disbelief of Zechariah (Luke 1:20). [...]
  The author of the footnotes of the Gospel of Luke contradicts himself in this footnote. Earlier, he said many times that Mary had doubted, here, he is praising Mary's faith.
  
  
• Luke 1:46-55
  [...] the Magnificat (with the possible exception of v 48) may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate at this point in his story. Even if not composed by Luke, it fits in well with themes found elsewhere in Luke [...]
  Again and again, the author of this footnote want us to believe that Luke makes up stories.
  
  
• Luke 1:68-79
  [...] that Luke adapted to fit the present context by inserting Luke 1:76-77 [...]
  Luke adapted, changed, avoided ... anything but be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
  
  
  
• Luke 2:1-2
  [...] there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke's dating [...] Luke may simply be combining Jesus' birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection [...]
  ... his vague recollection ... then what to think about John 14:26 ?
  "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."
  
  
• Luke 9:23
  Daily: this is a Lucan addition to a saying of Jesus [...].
  Yet another addition ...
  
  
  
• John 3:14
  [...] John here substitutes a verb implying glorification. Jesus, exalted to glory at his cross and resurrection, represents healing for all.
  This suggests that John also got into the business of twisting Scripture.
  
  
  
• John 17:3
  This verse was clearly added in the editing of the gospel [...]
  Another footnote suggesting that the Gospel was manipulated and twisted. How can the author of this footnote be so sure ? Does the affirmation "Jesus nowhere else refers to himself as Jesus Christ" allow the author of this footnote to affirm with certainty that "This verse was clearly added in the editing of the gospel" ? After all, in Matthew 16:16-17, didn't Jesus solemnly accept Peter's affirmation that He was the Messiah, the Christ ?