Audio only:
In this episode Trent reveals study notes in the New American Bible that are problematic at best and quasi-heretical at worst!
Welcome to the Council of Trent Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Hey everyone. Welcome to the Council of Trent Podcast. I’m your host Catholic answer’s apologist and speaker, Trent Horn. Today, I want to talk about the New American Bible. In particular, it’s problematic study notes. In a previous episode, I talked about different Bible translations, positive elements and negative elements and different Catholic Bible translations. The New American Bible has positive elements. In some cases, the passages are easier for a modern person to hear and understand. That’s why it is the translation that’s approved by the bishops for use in the lectionary at mass. But, there’s other parts of it, namely the study notes, most of the study notes are fine or they’re adequate, but some of them are really problematic. Some are really, really problematic. That’s why I would be hesitant to recommend it for people, especially people who are new to the faith to read. They could find it to be scandalous or misunderstand things.
Trent Horn:
So, that’s why I want to dive into those today. Let’s hop in and check that out. Before I do though, be sure to like this video, if you really enjoy this content, like the video, subscribe to our channel. And if you really enjoy what we’re doing, definitely check us out at trenthornpodcast.com. If you like studying scripture, I have an entire 18 hour study series on the New Testament, video study series, the whole New Testament. You get access to it if you become a member at trenthornpodcast.com, so definitely check that out.
Trent Horn:
All right, let’s take a look at some of these notes. I’m going to go through them in canonical order as if you were reading scripture where they would pop up. Providentially though, the first one that pops up is I think one of the most glaring problematic notes in the New American Bible. And, I’ll be screenshotting these by the way from the NAB website. Well, I think it’s from the USCCB website, but from where the NAB is, that they’re on there. Now, because there used to be… I’ve heard there used to be worse study notes in the New American Bible, but they got cleaned up in the 1970s and the 80s, but there’s still problematic ones that have remained.
Trent Horn:
The first one is in Matthew 16:21-23. In the NAB Matthew 16:21 says, “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised.” Now, here’s what it says in the NAB study note under this, “Neither this, nor the two later passion predictions in Matthew 17 and Matthew 20 can be taken as sayings that as they stand go back to Jesus himself.” So, now we have a problem in saying that… The study note is saying that, “This isn’t really what Jesus said. This is more of an interpolation, something that Matthew added to give a sense of urgency to describe Jesus’ mission.”
Trent Horn:
Why should we believe that? Well, this is just modernist form criticism being placed into the text, oftentimes because of an anti-supernatural bias. You’ve got a lot of people who do biblical scholarship, who aren’t even Christian or they’re not believers, or they don’t believe in miracles. Look at Bart Ehrman. He’s the world’s leading scholar on textual criticism of the New Testament. He’s an agnostic. But then, it gets worse. “However, it is probable that he,” Jesus, “foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God.” Look at the language being used here. “It is probable Jesus foresaw his mission would have suffering and perhaps death, but he was confident God would vindicate him.”
Trent Horn:
This turns Jesus into someone like Jesus in many modern film adaptations of the gospel, not good ones, like The Chosen. But, in modern films where Jesus is portrayed as a human being who doesn’t really understand his mission or what God wants from him. But, that’s not true. We believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. That means that Jesus fully understood the divine mission that he was sent for. It’s not just probable that Jesus knew that he would suffer and die for us. It’s necessary. It’s definite because he’s God. He knows this. Paragraph 474 of the catechism puts it this way, “By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.”
Trent Horn:
So, Jesus didn’t show up on earth, “Oh, what am I supposed to be doing here?” Granted, Luke 2 does say, “He grew in wisdom and understanding.” But, the fullness of the eternal plans that he came to reveal, that he was to suffer and die, he knew those. There was never a point where it was probable, he’s thinking, “Oh, I’m doing all this preaching. I hope nothing bad happens.” No, he knew that ultimately his preaching ministry would culminate in his death in Jerusalem and his resurrection so that our sins could be atoned for, and we could be justified. So, this study note at Matthew 16, it’s easily the worst one. I’m so surprised that it’s still there because it seems to imply that Jesus is not divine or at least it undermines traditional Christology understanding that Jesus is fully human, but also fully divine. So, this is just a whopper. If you want to point out to someone why we should be concerned about the NAB, the study note of Matthew 16:21-23 is definitely one of them.
Trent Horn:
But, here’s another one that’s similar talking about Jesus as if… It implies almost that he’s not fully divine or that he didn’t have a full possession of the Spirit until his baptism. Luke 4:1 talks about Jesus being filled with the Holy Spirit. And so it says, “As a result of the descent of the Spirit upon him at his baptism, Jesus is now equipped to overcome the devil.” Then it goes on to talk about the Spirit’s prominence in his ministry, but that’s a really weird line. “As a result of the descent of the Spirit upon him at his baptism, Jesus is now equipped to overcome the devil.”
Trent Horn:
You’re telling me that prior to his baptism, Jesus was not equipped to overcome the devil. Hebrews 4 says that, “Jesus was like us in all things except sin.” So obviously, Jesus had overcome the devil his entire life leading up to his baptism because he never sinned. So, it’s just a weird line. Don’t put that in there. Maybe they mean it in some kind of weird figurative way, but no, Jesus has always been capable of overcoming the devil because once again… He’s God incarnate.
Trent Horn:
In paragraph 727 of the catechism, it says, “The entire mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the fullness of time is contained in this: that the Son is the one anointed by the Father’s Spirit since his incarnation – Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah.” So, Jesus was not just some kind of human being who now filled with the Holy Spirit has divine abilities or divine nature. That’s the heresy of adoptionism from the early church, saying that Jesus was just a man and that God adopted him at his baptism and filled him with the Holy Spirit. No, there was an important revelation of the Trinity at his baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus, but Jesus was certainly equipped to overcome the devil long before his baptism.
Trent Horn:
Let’s go to one other one in the gospels. John 7:20 is when the crowd says to Jesus, “You have a demon.” And the study note here says, “You are possessed; literally, you have a demon. The insane were thought to be possessed by demoniacal spirit.” Am I saying that right, demoniacal? Like maniacal… I would say demonic would be easier here than demoniacal. “The insane were thought to be possessed by a demonic spirit.” Now, this study note would be really, really bad if when Jesus is saying that someone has an unclean spirit or has a demon, that if it said, “People at the time thought the insane had demons,” as if Jesus were wrong about that.
Trent Horn:
So, this is a more ambiguous note because clearly there were times in the ancient world, especially in ancient Mesopotamia, where people thought that the mentally ill were demonically possessed. That’s not always the case. Even today, when a priest goes out to perform an exorcism, he needs the permission of the local ordinary, his bishop, to make sure that this is a case of true demonic possession and not a case of mental illness. So sometimes, mental illness can be mistaken for demonic possession. But, this study note makes it seem like… You know what I’m talking about here. “The insane we’re thought to be possessed by a demonic spirit.” Which is true, but it can give off that vibe like, “Oh, there are no demons,” or “All cases of demonic possession are really just mental illness.” It can really give off that attitude, an anti-supernatural bias once again, that demonic possession is always or 99.9… % of the time mental illness.
Trent Horn:
Now, I don’t know the percentage base. I wouldn’t be surprised though if demonic activity were higher in the first century during the time of the preaching of Jesus’ ministry. It wouldn’t surprise me if the devil is more active right before he’s about to be defeated. So, this is more of a… It’s not as blatantly bad as the previous notes we’ve discussed, but a little bit of these ambiguous things can go a long way in causing someone to doubt their faith.
Trent Horn:
Some of these other ones deal with undermining traditional proofs that are used to promote the Catholic faith. So, here’s one for 1 Corinthians 3:15. That’s the famous passage where Paul is talking about how at the day at the final judgment our works will be tested. Those that are like metals will survive. Those are like hay and straw, inferior works, i.e. sins. They will be burned up. 1 Corinthians 3:15 then says, “He shall suffer loss, but he shall be saved, but as through fire.” Now, for a long time, people understood this is a reference to a cleansing fire that’d be associated with purgatory. We see this in Augustine, Aquinas. I think it’s the first or second Ecumenical Council of Lyon says this.
Trent Horn:
But, here is what the study note for 1 Corinthians 3:15 says. It says, “Will be saved. Although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment, he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere. The text of 1 Corinthians 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” So, the idea here is, it’s kind of being a wet blanket on you. If you’re a new Catholic and you’re reading this and you heard 1 Corinthians 3:15, “Oh, this is evidence for purgatory.” “It’s been used to support the notion of purgatory. The text does not envisage this.”
Trent Horn:
Now, to try to be charitable here, I think what the editors of the NAB may be saying is that, “In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is not describing the situation that occurs for the majority of believers, which is that they die, then that at the particular judgment, it’s determined that they have impurities, attachment to venial sin, a temporal punishment for sin, so they must undergo purification before they can enter into heaven.” Because, 1 Corinthians 3, here, Paul is talking about the day. He’s talking about what is happening at the final judgment, but he is saying that at the final judgment, there are people who will suffer loss, but will be saved as through fire.
Trent Horn:
So, he is talking about purification. Now, it could be after death, or it could be at the final judgment, some people might still be alive. Then, you have this purification that takes place. So, they might be saying here, “Well, he is not talking about postmortem purification.” Well, he’s talking about purification that is necessary for the saved for them to enter into heaven and that provides the foundation for purgatory. It may not be an exact description of it for most believers, but we still have the foundational elements of it in this text, and that’s been noted through the church fathers, medieval theologians, ecumenical councils throughout church history.
Trent Horn:
So, there, you see, I have to give a longer technical explanation to understand this. Whereas, if I were writing this, I might put something like, “While it does not comprehensively define the doctrine, this text is an important foundational element to the doctrine of purgatory,” or something like that. Or, “It provides evidence for it.” But, the way that it’s described here makes it seem like, “Catholics who say this is about purgatory are just wrong.” It makes it seem that way. So, that’s not a great study note.
Trent Horn:
All right, let’s move on to another part of 1 Corinthian or actually, I’ll say that for last. Because, I’ll go to another one here that’s similar to the 1 Corinthians though and that would be Hebrews 13:10. Hebrews 13:10, the author of Hebrews, he’s telling Jewish Christians, “Don’t go back to Judaism. Christianity is way better because sacrifices cannot take away sin. We have the one sacrifice that can, Jesus Christ offered upon the altar, offered upon the cross,” and that’s the issue. What I said there. Because, Hebrew 13:10 says, “We have an altar from which those who serve the tent may not eat.” Those who serve in the tent is a reference to the priests in the temple and Jerusalem. Which provides evidence, by the way, that the letter of the Hebrews was written prior to the year 70 because Hebrews assumes that the temple in Jerusalem is still standing. If the author of Hebrews wanted to tell Jewish Christians to not go back to Judaism, he might have said something like, “There’s nothing left for you there because the tent has been destroyed. There’s no temple.”
Trent Horn:
Hebrews, I think then, was written before the year 70 because it assumes the temple is still functioning. So, we have this line, Hebrews 13:10, “We have an altar from which those who serve in the tent may not come to eat.” Now, many commenters and also even Catholic commenters will say that this is a reference to the crucifixion. That Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary, that itself is the altar of the cross where the priests are not able to eat because they’re not Christian. They don’t believe in Jesus’ sacrifice. So, it may certainly mean that. However, that does not preclude applying Hebrews 13:10 to the altars that Christians had in their own churches or in their own house churches, I should say, from which they received the Eucharist, that those who served the tent, the Jewish priests, could not come to eat it.
Trent Horn:
It doesn’t preclude applying it to that either because we believe… And the letter of the Hebrew doesn’t contradict this, that Christ’s sacrifice he offered one bloody sacrifice that is never repeated, but that one bloody sacrifice on the cross is represented on the altar through unbloody forms, under the form of bread and wine. In fact, the Protestant scholar, [Victor Fitzner 00:15:57], he puts it this way. He says, “The assertion that the theology of Hebrews excludes,” and he’s a Protestant by the way, “The assertion that it excludes any sacramental dimension is questionable. Further sacrifices for atone from sin are rejected.” So, there’s no more bloody sacrifices. It doesn’t mean we won’t be representing the one sacrifice under an unbloody form. “But, 13:9-10 does not rule out the eating of a Christian sacrificial meal. Care must be exercised as not to interpret Hebrews through Paul, but it is interesting to note that Paul by analogy connects the altar of Israel with the table of the Lord,” in 1 Corinthians 10.
Trent Horn:
So, my problem here with Hebrews 13:10 is it’s so emphatically negative. It’s either, you’ve got quasi heretical study notes or wet blanket study notes. This is a wet blanket one saying, “Oh, you thought this supported Catholicism. Nah, not really.” Except, it can. I don’t see why it wouldn’t. I just don’t like the confident negativity. This does not refer to the Eucharist, which is never clearly mentioned in Hebrews, but to the sacrifice of Christ. A better note would be, “Most commenters see this as a reference to the sacrifice of Christ, but it may also refer to a Christian altar,” or something like that. That it’s just not good to just put your foot down and say, “It can’t mean this.” How do you know that? So, I would say that’s problematic in that respect.
Trent Horn:
Here’s the last one, the last one deals with bad study note and bad translation. So, you get a double whammy here and that deals with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, particular 1 Corinthians 6:9. This is the vice list. I’ve talked about this before on the podcast. Because, Paul talks about sins that will keep you from going to heaven. He talks about the immoral, the idolators, the adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Trent Horn:
But, there are two Greek words. It says the arsenokoitai and the malakoi will not inherit the kingdom of God. What do those words mean. In the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, it renders 1 Corinthians 6:9. It says, “Nor adulterers, nor homosexuals.” It translates those two words arsenokoitai and malakoi as one word, homosexuals, nor thieves, nor greedy, etcetera will inherit the kingdom of God. In the New American Bible, it translates… And, the reason why homosexuals is used because I would say the best understanding of those words is that arsenokoitai in Greek means man bedder, like when you take someone to bed in the sexual sense. It means man bedder, and malakoi means soft one. The arsenokoitai is the active male in a homosexual act, and the malakoi is the passive male. Not every malakoi in the ancient world was a passive member of the sexual act. It could also refer to someone who’s weak willed. But, every passive recipient of the homosexual act was a malakoi.
Trent Horn:
There was no doubt about that. The words go together. So, homosexual seems to work there for saying both people involved in a sexual act between two men that, that is immoral, just like these other elements, just like fornicators. And, that would apply to the man and the woman who engaged in fornication, drunkards, revilers, robbers, idolators. Then 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul says, “As such were some of you that you were washed, you were sanctified, you were cleansed through Jesus Christ.”
Trent Horn:
The New American Bible puts it this way. It says, “Nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor sodomites, nor thieves.” So, instead of the word homosexual, it says, “boy prostitutes or sodomites will inherit the kingdom of God.” So then, here’s the study note that’s involved. “The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites. That would be the malakoi. Boys are young men who are kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology, this was the function of Ganymede, the cupbearer of the gods, whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulge in homosexual practices with such boys, see similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10.” So, this is classic revisionist theology to try to say, “Well, the Bible never really says homosexuality is wrong. It just says, “pederasty or exploitative relationships or men having sex with little boys, it says that’s wrong, but not two adults.” This is that revisionist theology. But, it really shoots itself in the foot here though.
Trent Horn:
I have a previous video where I talk about how this translation is wrong. This is not the best way to understand these verses. But notice the problem here, what Paul is saying. So, he’s saying, let’s say boy prostitutes, a 10 year old boy is kept to be raped by older men. That’s what’s going on here. It’s sex slavery. It’s rape. So, the revisionist theologians here are saying that Paul is teaching that a 10 year old boy who is imprisoned to be raped by older men, he’s going to go to hell. That’s what they’re saying, if they’re trying to say that these are boy prostitutes. Because, Paul could have just said the arsenokoitai. That’s it. They’re the ones who are going and not even mention the malakoi here. And say, “It’s just the rapists who don’t inherit the kingdom of God, not the boy prostitutes. These are children who are being raped.”
Trent Horn:
So, you get a real problem here, if you try to make it out this way. I know some of them will say, “Well, some of these boy prostitutes, they could use their status to try to elevate themselves in Roman society.” And, I’m like, “You’re really reaching here, and it sounds really creepy what you’re trying to defend and make the Bible sound out.” Because, they want the Bible to still be the inspired word of God. They just really want this to say that the act of pederasty is sinful, and it is, obviously. But, Paul could have just said that. He could have said, “pederasts.” Those who have engaged in relations with little children, but no, he uses the word arsenokoitai because that is the literal Greek translation of the septuagint in Leviticus 20 and 18. Whenever it says, “A man who lies with a male is an arsenokoitai, who lies with males. It’s literally, Paul is just quoting the Greek version of the Old Testament here.
Trent Horn:
Then, he brings in the malakois. So, he is talking about adults involved in same sex, male same sex relationships here. And, to try to confuse it, to say this is just about male prostitution or especially boy prostitutes, it just doesn’t work for… especially what they’re trying to do.
Trent Horn:
So, I hope that was at least helpful for you. By the way, this doesn’t mean that every other Bible translation is perfect. You can look at other translations, there are problematic notes, or there’s translation elements that I think are incorrect or difficult, even in things like the Douay-Rheims, for example, or the RSV. But, I haven’t really seen whoppers like these that I find in the NAB study notes, just something to be on the lookout for, that you’re aware of. Thank you guys so much, and I just hope you have a very blessed day.
If you liked today’s episode become a premium subscriber at our patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information visit trenthornpodcast.com.