Why does one get the feeling that the commentator has attempted to sell us what he perceives as the benefits of yoga? What on earth does Hindu yoga have to do with God’s “day of rest”? The so-called “contextualization” is appalling. It is not surprising that the entire passage was expunged from the RE.

In his rebuttal of my critique, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “The idea of rest as denoting a celebrative joy expressing a sense of fulfillment is a beautiful one. The comparison to the Indian Samadhi is in order, though few may understand it. (I leave aside Mr. Prabhu’s strong reservations with regard to Yoga).”

Despite the Bishop’s apologetics on behalf of the passage, it has been deleted and is not in the RE.

In another place, he said, “I do not enter into the question of the compatibility of Yoga with the Christian faith … These are complicated issues which would need much more study than has been done till now. I realize that a study of these topics would need to be done but it goes beyond the scope of the present Response and, perhaps, that could be a task undertaken by the CBCI Doctrinal Commission to study and give guidelines to the Church in India.”

We object to the reference to yogic techniques’ being retained in the Revised Edition on page 1649.

We demand a white paper from the CBCI on Yoga and on the New Age. I have been demanding it for years.

4. Page 1900 of the 2008 commentary (RE 1896) on Jesus’ claim as having the Words of Eternal Life (6:60-71) by (Fr.) (?) Mathew Velanickal on the Gospel of John reads:

It seems that Jesus instituted the Eucharist also as a testing stone of our faith and discipleship. Here we come across the divine Lord who demands total self-surrender and a single-minded devotion to him through a life of faith. Similarly, we read in the Bhagavad Gita: “Fix your mind on Me, be devoted to Me, adore Me and made obeisance to Me; thus uniting yourself to Me and entirely depending on Me, you shall come to Me” (IX: 34)

In his rebuttal of my critique, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “A somewhat far-fetched comparison of the words of Jesus in the Eucharistic discourse to that of Krishna in a totally different context – should be dropped.”

The contrived “comparison”, equating Jesus with the Hindu deity Krishna, was NOT dropped.

We object to the allusion to Krishna’s words being retained in the Revised Edition on page 1896.

5. Page 1608 of the 2008 NCB (RE 1610) has an illustration of a “dancing”, crucified, cross-less Jesus:

The “Indianized” or “contextualized” line drawing on the previous page is provided by Fr. Christopher Coelho OFM. It is supposed to illustrate “The Lord, your God, is in your midst … he will dance with songs of joy for you, as one does on a day of festival“, Zephaniah 3:17.

Fr. Christopher Coelho OFM‘s “dancing”, crucified crucifix-less Jesus bears an uncanny resemblance to depictions of the Hindu deity Nataraja, the “Lord of the dance“:

I view the illustration as the Indian clergy’s attempt to ingratiate themselves with the people of the majority religion, to vitiate the unicity of Jesus’ ignominious and painful death, and to obfuscate distinctions between their gods and Ours.

There are a total of 24 of Fr. Christopher Coelho OFM‘s illustrations in the 2008 NCB and 22 in the RE (two have been removed during the “revision”).

Apparently, 20 of them were sketched by the priest way back in 1993 and the last 4 in 1994.

The orderly progression indicates that he was commissioned to provide the illustrations for the NCB.

If that is indeed true, the NCB had been in the making for at least 15 years before it was dumped on an un-suspecting faithful in 2008 who were neither taken into confidence nor consulted for a contribution to it.

The NCB dancing, crucified, crucifix-less Jesus is not a one off thing. Here below left, is a similar illustration of “Jesus” from the CBCI’s National Biblical, Catechetical and Liturgical Centre (NBCLC)’s “God With Us” series of catechism books for children, 1977 to 1981, with the Imprimatur of the Archbishop Chairman of the CBCI Commission for Catechetics. To the right is the now-ex-SVD priest Fr. Francis Barboza performing Bharatanatyam dancing in the Nataraja pose. Nataraja is the dancing aspect of the Hindu deity Shiva.

This picture of the crucified Christ but without a cross – is on page 140 of the Novus Ordo English Missal, Indian Edition, published by Theological Publications of India, Bangalore, 1974.

We object to the retention of the “dancing”, crucified Jesus in the Revised Edition on page 1610.

6. The problem of Isaiah 7:14, page 1239 of the 2008 commentary (RE 1239) which reads:

The virgin is with child and will bear a son and will name him Immanuel (v.14): this version of the text is based on the Greek translation of the OT. However, in Hebrew the word used is almah, which simply means the young woman. What Isaiah actually says to Ahaz is that the young woman (his wife, the queen) will bear another son, and before he reaches the age of puberty (the meaning of v.16) the land of the two kings will be destroyed, …This prophecy in its primary meaning has reference to Isaiah’s time, and the child was offered as a sign at that time. He was Hezekiah who succeeded to his father’s throne in 715, and was a God-fearing king whose counselor Isaiah became. For, God is still with his people: He is Immanuel.

Of course, the prophecy has a fuller sense in addition to its primary meaning. It is an expression of the royal messianism. The Greek version, by using the word “virgin”, is indicative of an early Jewish interpretation and expectation about the coming Davidic Messiah. And when speaking of the Virgin-birth of Jesus, Matthew quotes the Greek text to proclaim that Jesus is the fulfillment of these messianic hopes. He is our Immanuel – the living sign that God will never abandon us. (cf. Mt. 1:23)

In his rebuttal of my critique, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “Mr. Prabhu remarks: “To understand how the NCB commentaries include what is irrelevant to our faith, explain what need not be explained, and do not say what must be said, one must read the CCB (Philippine Christian Community Bible) commentaries, in this case of Isaiah 7 (pages 532, 533) and note the differences.”

I have made a photostat of the CCB. Any reader can see how much clearer and closer to Catholic teaching the NCB is. It explains so clearly the original and the fuller sense of the passage, as the Catholic Church has always held.”

A French priest who has a Doctorate in Theology and lectures in seminaries globally disagrees and refutes the NCB position — which relativises the historical aspect of Bible exegesis — and therefore the defense of the Bishop. He writes (emphases his, colour mine):

Regarding the passage of Mt 1: 23 explaining the prophecy of Is 7: 14, the commentator of the NCB says:

“The OT passages quoted [for example, Isaiah 7:14] did not in their original meaning refer to Jesus nor have the meaning which Matthew
gives them. Matthew re-interprets and sometimes rewrites the texts he quotes in the light of Jesus, believing that in Jesus the Scriptures have been fulfilled.“

The commentary in Matthew in effect indicates that the above words of Isaiah are not really a prophecy of the virginal birth of Jesus. Thus it seems that Matthew is no longer inspired by the Holy Spirit when he quotes the prophecy of Isaiah as being fulfilled! The Holy Spirit who inspired Isaiah didn’t intend at all what is affirmed through Matthew!

Is Matthew an illusionist?

But let us now read the Commentary of St. Jerome
on Isaiah 7:14:

“Since it is introduced in the Prophet by the words “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign,” it ought to be something new and wonderful. But if it be, as the Jews will have it, a young woman, or a girl shall bring forth, and not a virgin, what wonder is this, since these are words signifying age and not purity?

“Indeed the Hebrew word signifying “Virgin” (Bethula) is not used in this place, but instead the word, ‘alma,’ which except the Septuagint (Greek) all render ‘girl.’ But the word, ‘alma,’ has a twofold meaning; it signifies both ‘girl,’ and ‘hidden’; therefore ‘alma’ denotes not only ‘maiden’ or ‘virgin,’ but ‘hidden’, ‘secret’; that is, one never exposed to the gaze of men, but kept under close custody by her parents.

“In the Punic tongue also, which is said to be derived from Hebrew sources, a virgin is properly called ‘alma.’ In our tongue also ‘alma’ means holy; and the Hebrews use words of nearly all languages; and as far as my memory will serve me, I do not think I ever met with alma used of a married woman, but of her that is a virgin, and such that she be not merely a virgin, but in the age of youth; for it is possible for an old woman to be a maid. But this was a virgin in years of youth, or at least a virgin, and not a child too young for marriage.”

In his work against Jovianian, St. Jerome repeats his remarks regarding this oracle of Isaiah:

“Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah! What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham’s servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia: “And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master’s son.” Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded, and guarded by her parents with extreme care.”

Regarding St Irenaeus of Lyon, in his work adversus haereses,
we have another clear defense of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14:

“1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:]

“Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians.
But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, am disinherited from the grace of God.”

So, the scholars who practice theology and write the commentaries with little faith in the historical aspects of the Bible accounts, truthfully admit that the trend among them is to “increasingly reject the explanations” that have been part of Tradition for two thousand years.

We object to the relativist theories as exemplified by the commentary on Isaiah 7:14 in the RE, page 1239.

7. The call of the muezzin… or the prophet Isaiah on page 1318 of the NCB (1318 RE)?

This illustration, the black and white image below extreme left is again another most cunning deception in the NCB. The line drawing is supposed to illustrate “I will not keep silent for Jerusalem’s sake… (Isaiah 62:1)“.

The two color images to its right are those of muezzins leading the call to prayer.

When turning the pages of the NCB, a few confused Catholics asked me why a Muslim muezzin is featured in its pages with Islamic minarets in the background.

On closer examination, I understood the subtle deceit that the illustration conveyed. Because the Jewish prophets cried out “in the wilderness” and in the towns and villages of Israel and not in surroundings built of concrete as in the picture, and the dome in the background is that of St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City.

However, because of the crier in the foreground, one almost automatically associates the dome with that of the minaret of a mosque; the cross atop the dome is hardly visible unless one looks very closely, and to the left of the crier, in the distant background are one or two smaller minaret-like domes.

So this time around who are we trying to obfuscate distinctions with… the Muslims?

We object to the retention of this deceitful illustration on page 1318 of the RE.

Apostasy or Apostacy?

In the NCB, in the Book of Numbers chapter 25, we find mention of “Apostacy at Peor” on page 239 in the 2008 edition and on page 238 in the 2011 edition, twice on each page.

I have never before heard of “apostacy”!

The Book of the minor prophet Hosea chapter 8 records “Israel’s Apostasy“, page 1544 (1546 in the RE).

If there is no such thing as “apostacy”, and if “apostacy” is indeed an error (and not a printer’s devil), how is it that none of the St. Pauls Society priests, the editors and commentators of the NCB, thousands of people who purchased copies of it, all of our learned theologians and bishops including those who gave it the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and especially Bishop Agnelo Gracias, did not arrange to have it corrected in the more than three years that transpired between the 2008 edition and the 2011 First Revised Edition?

If I am wrong and there is something like “apostacy”, I would like to know what it means so that I can apologize to all our readers and correct the above paragraph of this report.

Other reports in the series:

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 01-A CRITIQUE JULY 14, 2008