Why Does The American Catholic Church Use The Nab?

[cmotherofpirl]

Monk needs a Navarre or St Ignatius Bible to see what he is missing

[Colleen]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 24 2004, 07:43 PM'] Monk needs a Navarre or St Ignatius Bible to see what he is missing [/quote]
The Navarre Bible rocks.

[Iacobus]

I have heard that the footnotes are "surpisingly undogmatic." But yeh. As far as the verse go it works. I tend to skip footnotes so that doesn't bug me.

[Oik]

I know that when I read the NAB, I am really experiencing the phase "some things get lost in the translation." I love the NAB. I use it for reading and studying, however, I am not comfortable with a specific translation though. At times I prefer the DRV (Douy-Rhemis). I am not fond of RSV or other apporved (for private use) catholic Bibles.

[ironmonk]

I use various bibles... mostly the NAB, but also the Douay-Rheims.

Douay-Rheims (and others):
[url="http://unbound.biola.edu"]http://unbound.biola.edu[/url]

NAB:
[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/"]http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/[/url]


I like the adavanced searches with the USCCB's NAB, and Biola U. has a nice search tool for the Douay-Rheims.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Kathryn]

I have a problem with the NAB and this verse:

Luke 9:20
Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God."

Luke 9:21
[b]He rebuked them[/b] and directed them not to tell this to anyone.

The word rebuke is very confusing here.


I prefer the Douay-Rheims which says:

Luke 9:20
And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God.

Luke 9:21
But [b]he strictly charging them[/b], commanded they should tell this to no man.

In the NAB, it looks like Jesus rebuked Peter's correct answer. On another website there is a Catholic who wonders why poor Peter can't get anything right and she quotes this verse using the NAB. To me it comes down to a poor translation of this verse. Even the Protestant Bibles seem to be clearer on this verse and don't use the term rebuke here. Maybe it is something minor, but it is needlessly confusing to me.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Kathryn' date='Jul 26 2004, 02:07 AM'] I have a problem with the NAB and this verse:

Luke 9:20
Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God."

Luke 9:21
[b]He rebuked them[/b] and directed them not to tell this to anyone.

The word rebuke is very confusing here.


I prefer the Douay-Rheims which says:

Luke 9:20
And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God.

Luke 9:21
But [b]he strictly charging them[/b], commanded they should tell this to no man.

In the NAB, it looks like Jesus rebuked Peter's correct answer. On another website there is a Catholic who wonders why poor Peter can't get anything right and she quotes this verse using the NAB. To me it comes down to a poor translation of this verse. Even the Protestant Bibles seem to be clearer on this verse and don't use the term rebuke here. Maybe it is something minor, but it is needlessly confusing to me. [/quote]
It's not a poor translation. Rebuke is a perfectly fine word to use.


Rebuke:
1.) To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish.
2.) To check or repress.


[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke[/url]

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=admonish"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=admonish[/url]


Admonish:
1.) To reprove gently but earnestly.
2.) To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3.) To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.


The Catholic Church gets it right.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

I'll stick with the Navarre Bible and the St Ignatius Study Bible, its footnotes quotes the Church the Saints and the Church and contain actual Catholic teaching.

[P3chrmd]

[quote]I'll stick with the Navarre Bible and the St Ignatius Study Bible, its footnotes quotes the Church the Saints and the Church and contain actual Catholic teaching[/quote]

The only problem I have with these editions is that they are seperate and its not the entire bible TOGETHER! And they don't even have all of the bible avaliable...yes they are GREAT study tools...but they need to do a complete catholic ignatious or navarre study bible...complete!!!

Until then I will use my Jerusalem Bible (best translation in my opinion) although I wish they would re-release the complete Jerusalem Bible with all the study notes! Does anyone have an older Jerusalem Bible from way back...where the complete study notes and footnotes are there?

[Colleen]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jul 26 2004, 11:22 PM']The only problem I have with these editions is that they are seperate and its not the entire bible TOGETHER! And they don't even have all of the bible avaliable...yes they are GREAT study tools...but they need to do a complete catholic ignatious or navarre study bible...complete!!![/quote]
Well, they're still in the process of preparing the Navarre Bible commentaries, that's why it's not in its entirety yet. So far, all of the New Testament is complete (in one bound volume). The Old Testament commentaries are still being compiled. I don't think it'll be possible to have all the Navarre commentaries in one volume, just because there are so many. They don't make books that big!

So far, the Navarre have the New Testament, the Penteteuch, Joshua-Kings, Chronicles-Maccabees, and Psalms and Song of Solomon (Song of Songs).

[catholicguy]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 23 2004, 08:11 AM'] It is not a horrible translation. Nothing can be horrible that the Church approves. [/quote]
I am guessing you have never read the Latin to the Novus Ordo Mass... "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" (through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault) is translated: "through my own fault." [color=red]edited[/color]Another translation: "Credo in unum Deum" (I believe in one God) translates: "WE believe in one God." Anyone who has taken any Latin at all knows that is wrong. Other problems present themselves: "qui pro vobis et pro multis" (which for you and for MANY) is translated "which...for you and for all." Again, just about every Latin student can tell you that multis means many not all.
[color=red]edited[/color]

Edited July 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[catholicguy]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 26 2004, 07:22 AM'] It's not a poor translation. Rebuke is a perfectly fine word to use.


Rebuke:
1.) To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish.
2.) To check or repress.


[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke[/url]

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=admonish"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=admonish[/url]


Admonish:
1.) To reprove gently but earnestly.
2.) To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3.) To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.


The Catholic Church gets it right.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
ironmonk,

Don't watse your time trying to defend that which is wrong. Not everything the hierarchy states should be used is perfect, in fact, very little is. Just because the Church in America chose a bad translation doesn't say anything about the Church. A few bishops got it wrong--what's new. All you have to do is look to Boston (and now the Austrian seminary) to see that.

You define rebuke as a reproval HARSHLY and admonish as a reproval GENTLY. Those are two different things. Further, Christ was neither admonishing nor reproving. He was merely instructing firmly. St. Peter didn't do anything wrong; therefore, he is not being admonished. We admonish the sinner (first and most important spiritual work of mercy), not those with the right answer. The Douay-Rheims version has been used by the faithful since 1609. I guess the Church had it wrong back then? No matter how you look at it sometime someone in the Church had it wrong. Usually its what is more modern (imo, always what is). We should just recognize just because the American Bishops approve a faulty translation, that means nothing about whether the Church is right or wrong, and it is useless to defend the indefensible.

God bless.

[Chrysologus]

I'm so glad that ironmonk hasn't joined the presumptuous crowd of traditionalists who have decided to judge our bishops in their decisions regarding the NAB.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote]You define rebuke as a reproval HARSHLY and admonish as a reproval GENTLY.[/quote]

Uh, I think ironmonk defined rebuke as a "sharp reproval," not harsh.

[quote]Rebuke:
1.) To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish.
2.) To check or repress. [/quote]

Yep! Please do not insert words into the mouth of your colleagues during a debate. It's incredibly bad form.

[catholicguy]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jul 28 2004, 08:27 AM']
Uh, I think ironmonk defined rebuke as a "sharp reproval," not harsh.



Yep! Please do not insert words into the mouth of your colleagues during a debate. It's incredibly bad form. [/quote]
I'm sorry I used a synonymn for one word; therefore, my whole point is disregarded. This is a definition of the word sharp: "Harsh or biting in tone or character"... so I didn't even put words in his mouth. That is a definition of the word. I would like to see someone comment on the translation of the Novus Ordo...