Do the notes in the NABRE accurately reflect the Catholic Church's understanding of biblical inerrancy? The NABRE is largely a product of the Catholic Church, and it is approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It's even available online at the USCCB website. So I was surprised to find that many of the notes in the translation propose that the bible contains errors - not just transcription or translation errors, but legitimate errors in the original.

Let me focus on a particularly flagrant example, in Matthew 21. Here is the text that the notes discuss:


  (Matthew 21:1-7, NABRE) When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, 'The master has need of them.' Then he will send them at once." This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled:
  
  
    "Say to daughter Zion,
    'Behold, your king comes to you,
    meek and riding on an ass,
    and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"
  
  
  The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.


And now the notes in question:


  (Note on verse 2) An ass tethered, and a colt with her: instead of the one animal of Mk 11:2, Matthew has two, as demanded by his understanding of Zec 9:9.
  
  (Note on verses 4-5) The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Is 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zec 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).
  
  (Note on verse 7) Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy.


The editors seem to believe that Matthew has invented the details of the story of Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem, and furthermore that the chosen details reflect a misunderstanding of Zechariah 9:9.

Does the Catholic Church's understanding of biblical inerrancy really allow for the possibility that these notes are correct?
The footnote apparatus in the NABRE consists mainly of philology, that is describing how the extant text developed into what we have today. Mixed within are some details regarding Catholic doctrine, but the footnotes do not comprise religious or theological commentary. Except for a very few cases where Catholic interpretation is briefly presented, the footnotes consist mainly of technical transmission and translation data, providing a mixture of methodological data, hypothesis, and scholarly theory. 

That being said, the footnotes in question are meant to be read in the context of the technical discussion begun in the NAB introduction to Matthew, namely that the final work as we have today suggests that it was put into final form by someone other than the apostle Matthew. 

As an example of this, these comments in the footnote apparatus are offered as some of the data that leads some scholars to this conclusion. The actual apostle Matthew would have been an eye witness to the events of Jesus' entry to Jerusalem, but the text reads as if the author was not there, mentioning two animals being used instead of one as do the other Gospels. These statements read as if the author is using a technique (midrash?) that is here attempting to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled everything written of the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures, down to the last detail. The author of this section of Matthew seems to "misread" the prophecy as if there are two donkeys being spoken of, and adds this into the account. 

"Matthew" in the footnotes of the NABRE refers to the author(s) of the book, including any redactors, editors, and even perhaps the original saying source that tradition claims was composed by St. Matthew. This composite "Matthew" is spoken of in the footnotes, so at first blush it can read as if the apostle Matthew is being described (which again the introduction makes clear is not the case).

Finally, it should be noted that the apparatus has been found problematic by many Catholics due not to offering unsound scholarship but being somewhat confusing in its presentation (not to mention impractical in its application). They seem to take no consideration of the fact that the average reader cannot make heads or tails of when philological theory is being offered or Catholic doctrine instead. They offer little in the way of application as well, explaining what the data means and its value to the everyday Christian. The recently revised Old Testament of the NABRE has improved somewhat in this regard, and the New Testament is currently being revised along the same lines. Projected for release in 2025, it is believed that the footnotes of the New Testament revision will show similar consideration in redeveloping its footnotes.