GeorgiiMichael Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 It's still a legitimate translation, not only that but it's the translation that our bishops use, and if that's what Kayte Postle is looking for, then help her find a good copy. Goodness gracious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) It's still a legitimate translation, not only that but it's the translation that our bishops use, and if that's what Kayte Postle is looking for, then help her find a good copy. Goodness gracious. It's the one we use because the USCCB decided on it years ago. Many things have changed since then, and I honestly wish they would switch it to the RSV or something. The NAB has terrible problems in it. For instance, my favorite verse is Acts 20:28. Here is that verse from the NAB with the key words being in bold: Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers,* in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. Seems reasonable, right? Well, here's that verse in the Douay-Rheims: Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. See the incredible importance of those words which are terribly watered down in the NAB? There is a very fine line between "tending" something and "ruling" something. Just the same, there is a fine line between an "overseer" and clearly stating that it is referring to bishops. It's clear and to the point. This verse from the Douay-Rheims distills the argument Protestants have that there is no established hierarchy in the Bible that has any significance other than leading in prayer. In the NAB, it makes no clear point of what it is talking about. Edited March 18, 2013 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayte Postle Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Oh my heavens, I certainly didn't intend to start a translation debate......... :blush: Well I've been looking at the Ignatius over the past 2ish hours, and I think it'd be a solid choice. The leather bound has all the other options I'm looking for, the translation seems to have a lot of merit to it, and from many of the reviews (and at y'all suggestion), it seems like it would be readable for me. Also I'd still have my trusty worn out NAB's to reference along side it, just in case. Edited March 18, 2013 by Kayte Postle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiiMichael Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 It's the one we use because the USCCB decided on it years ago. Many things have changed since then, and I honestly wish they would switch it to the RSV or something. The NAB has terrible problems in it. For instance, my favorite verse is Acts 20:28. Here is that verse from the NAB with the key words being in bold: Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers,* in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. Seems reasonable, right? Well, here's that verse in the Douay-Rheims: Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. See the incredible importance of those words which are terribly watered down in the NAB? There is a very fine line between "tending" something and "ruling" something. Just the same, there is a fine line between an "overseer" and clearly stating that it is referring to bishops. It's clear and to the point. This verse from the Douay-Rheims distills the argument Protestants have that there is no established hierarchy in the Bible that has any significance other than leading in prayer. In the NAB, it makes no clear point of what it is talking about. This isn't the best verse to argue your point. Overseer is a term that is unquestionable in it's authority. Overseers, in every other context, aren't questioned by their underlings, and there's no reason why the biblical context would change that. Also, overseer is a more literal translation from the Greek, so, it sounds to me like bishop is more watered down than overseer. Also, in the context of a flock (which, duh, is the context) to tend and to rule means LITERALLY THE SAME THING. So, try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Actually the word "bishop" is a transliteration of the Greek á¼Ï€Î¹ÏƒÎºÏŒÏ€Î¿Ï…Ï‚ through the Old Saxon language into English, and it has the added benefit of being the traditional English word used in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to indicate the office mentioned in Acts 20:28. That said, when I teach high school classes that reference the text in question I end up having to explain the origin of the word used in the Greek New Testament in order to make clear to the students that the office of bishop is being referenced. Needless to say, a proper translation of the Greek word with the traditional English equivalent would negate the necessity of having to explain to the students that a bishop is an overseer in the Church. Alas many of my students often ask, "Why didn't the text just use the world bishop in the first place?" My normal response to that question is that there are people in the Catholic Church who - for some reason - like to obscure the connection between the Catholic tradition (e.g., concerning Holy Orders) and sacred scripture. Edited March 18, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now