B
bkovacs
Guest
And until we get new leaders in the Church, this won’t change. Hence why I will not be purchasing a NABRE. As one Cistercian Monk put it recently. The NAB should be put to rest!.
- Status
J
johnbres2
Guest
thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I suppose it does deserve a hearing before being condemned to the scrap heap. Can you really already say that the RSV more closely follows the original languages than the NABRE? I thought the whole point of and basif of many decisions was that the text was to be consistent with the Hebrew originals?
C
CalCatholic
Guest
I agree, the new Psalms are much better than the 1991 Psalms, so I like the NABRE, so far. Retailers will have to carry it, after it completely replaces the NAB in about a year and a half, it will be the biggest selling Catholic Bible in the USA just as the last version of the NAB was. Like it or not, it will eventually be the Bible that most American Catholics use.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
johnbres,
You ask a good question, and one that is often misinterpreted or taken for granted by many.
Divino Afflante Spiritu and Liturgium Authenticam do NOT mandate that all translations of the bible be made of "original manuscripts".
The reason for this is quite simple: they no longer exist, and have not existed for thousands of years.
The two encyclicals I cited above require that translations be based on original languages of the various biblical books: ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Now, here are the “catches”:
I think that is pretty important . . .
You ask a good question, and one that is often misinterpreted or taken for granted by many.
Divino Afflante Spiritu and Liturgium Authenticam do NOT mandate that all translations of the bible be made of "original manuscripts".
The reason for this is quite simple: they no longer exist, and have not existed for thousands of years.
The two encyclicals I cited above require that translations be based on original languages of the various biblical books: ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Now, here are the “catches”:
- As far as we know, even St. Jerome did not have “original manuscripts” when he began his Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome was instructed by Pope Damasus I to produce a single bible by translating the “Old Latin Bible” or "Old Latin Texts. By the time of Jerome, Latin had supplanted Greek as the most commonly spoken language. So, most manuscripts available to people, including Jerome, were written in Latin. The problem is that not all of them were identical.
- It is “nice” to say, “use original languages as the basis for your vernacular translation”. But that original language is only as good as the manuscript being used for the translation. I can have a Latin translation of Isaiah and an ancient Hebrew translation of Isaiah. Just because we know that Isaiah was originally composed in ancient Hebrew does NOT necessarily mean that any given Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah is, by default, better than a Latin translation.
- I apologize for repeating myself so often, but the question keeps coming up: my humble proposal for an accurate bible would be to consult two codices: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (which contains the oldest complete NT known to exist), and then the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the recent announcement of the “lead plates” that were discovered by a Bedoin that appears to bear an imprinted picture of Christ, along with some biblical script, one could consult all of these sources and put together a pretty darned good manuscript that I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim is inaccurate.
I think that is pretty important . . .
P
pnewton
Guest
There is only one USCCB and each diocese has only one ordinary. Authority in the Catholic Church is not like it is in Protestant churches where you can pick the leader you like the best.And these are the same bishops who have a problem with what the governor of Wisconsin is doing, right?
Does anyone have any examples of the gender neutral changes from the NAB to the NABRE?
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
Yes, I have read the whole NABRE, and am happy to give as many examples as you wish. If I have a chance, I’ll give some this weekend.
G
garysibio
Guest
The RSC-CE is a more literal, word for word translation while the NABRE is more ordeal for idea. Essentially it’s two different philosophies behind the translation. It’s good to have both however I prefer the NJB over the NAB, RE or not.
R
rotlex
Guest
Agreed 100%. Yes, I’m one who is STILL wondering why the Church itself moved from the Douay-Rheims. Not to even get INTO that conversation, but after skimming the changes in the NABRE, I’m really beginning to wonder what the thinking behind it, or the NAB for that matter, really is. In all honesty, I would prefer the KJV with Apocrypha over the NAB or the new one.You are sadly mistaken. It is a huge issue (as evidenced by what I read here and other Catholic sources). Most people are outraged by the Isaiah passage. The gender neutral garbage is also tedious. It will bomb.
I have a better idea. Purchase the Douay-Rheims. It’s awesome!
M
Mickey
Guest
P
praxising
Guest
How do you know? Is there some place where they have the original languages and the translated passages compared and an explanation of why one is better than the other? I’d like to read that. Or, maybe you read the Hebrew, yourself? In which case, could you give an example? Thanks.
P
praxising
Guest
Could I have a citation for this, please? I’m finding it hard to understand since the Church rejected the Vulgate for so many years.
The provenance is not established, the guy who has them is no Bedouin, the picture is not identified as anyone specific, it was possibly added later, no one has translated what’s inside, which is mostly images, not text. The last I read. If you have updated information, could you leave a link?
S
Salvatore123
Guest
praxising,
■ They are bound by rings on one side (also known as codices)
■ Many of the books are “sealed” on all sides
■ They appear to be from the first century AD, and may be the earliest Christian documents ever found
■ Scholars have noted that, if authentic, this could be bigger than the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
■ They appear to be written in an archaic Hebrew script
■ Some appears to be written in code
■ The sealed nature, and code appearance of the text, suggests that these may contain “secret teachings,” perhaps even “Temple based documentation”
■ A number of recognizable symbols appear, including the menorah (which can be seen in the photos above), branches, fruits, trees, and of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), associated with the enthronement rituals of ancient Davidic kings, and with the coming of the Messiah
"The booklets are currently in the hands of a Bedouin trucker called Hassan Saida who lives in the Arab village of Shibli-Umm Al-Ghanam in Israel. He has refused to sell them but two samples were sent to England and Switzerland for testing.
“Mr. Saida claims the books, containing cryptic messages in Hebrew and Ancient Greek, have been in his family since they were found by his greatgrandfather. He denies smuggling them out of Jordan.”
Again - I have absolutely no idea if these are authentic or fake. At this point, no one does.
I am amazed, quite frankly, that you seem to accuse me of simply making up what I wrote.
If this turns out to be a fake, then it is not my fault, as I did not have a hand in perpetrating the fraud - I was referencing the plates ONLY in the sense that if they were accurate and contained authentic text, they, too, could be consulted with other ancient sources in publishing an accurate bible.
That’s all I meant . . .
- I have absolutely no idea where or how you were told that the Catholic Church “rejected the Vulgate for so many years.” It was the Church who COMMISSIONED the Latin Vulgate so that the Church could have ONE reliable translation of sacred scripture.
- A simple search of the Catholic Encyclopedia on this website (catholicanswers.com) will provide quite a bit of documentation (I don’t know what is your threshold of “proof”) showing that because of the various Latin translations floating around at the time, along with various copying errors, Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to produce a Latin bible for use by the Catholic Church.
- As far as my post about the plates, I stand by what I posted, with the caveat (which I think would be understood without explanation) that I know only what we have been told by the media and people who have possession of them. So far, the following has been disclosed (and this, too, can be found from different news and religious sites):
■ They are bound by rings on one side (also known as codices)
■ Many of the books are “sealed” on all sides
■ They appear to be from the first century AD, and may be the earliest Christian documents ever found
■ Scholars have noted that, if authentic, this could be bigger than the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
■ They appear to be written in an archaic Hebrew script
■ Some appears to be written in code
■ The sealed nature, and code appearance of the text, suggests that these may contain “secret teachings,” perhaps even “Temple based documentation”
■ A number of recognizable symbols appear, including the menorah (which can be seen in the photos above), branches, fruits, trees, and of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), associated with the enthronement rituals of ancient Davidic kings, and with the coming of the Messiah
- According to The Daily Mail (a noted publication in the UK): “The owner of the cache is a Bedouin named Hassan Saeda who lives in the village of Um-al-Ghanam in the north of Israel,according to the Sunday Times. He is believed to have obtained them after they were discovered in northern Jordan.”
- Finally, a more in-depth description from the website “wi fi weekly”:
"The booklets are currently in the hands of a Bedouin trucker called Hassan Saida who lives in the Arab village of Shibli-Umm Al-Ghanam in Israel. He has refused to sell them but two samples were sent to England and Switzerland for testing.
“Mr. Saida claims the books, containing cryptic messages in Hebrew and Ancient Greek, have been in his family since they were found by his greatgrandfather. He denies smuggling them out of Jordan.”
Again - I have absolutely no idea if these are authentic or fake. At this point, no one does.
I am amazed, quite frankly, that you seem to accuse me of simply making up what I wrote.
If this turns out to be a fake, then it is not my fault, as I did not have a hand in perpetrating the fraud - I was referencing the plates ONLY in the sense that if they were accurate and contained authentic text, they, too, could be consulted with other ancient sources in publishing an accurate bible.
That’s all I meant . . .
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
I read the NABRE, I did study Greek and Hebrew, and I hope to post some examples this weekend.
P
praxising
Guest
The Book: a History of the Bible I don’t have my copy with me, when I do next week, I’ll post quotes.
I never thought you were lying, I thought you, perhaps, had read a source that was presuming a lot of facts not in evidence, like when you said
and of course, it’s just an unidentified, and very damaged face and there is a lot of sensationalizing by the press. They really aren’t anything yet, but surely they have no Scripture we know of at this time. Thanks for the extensive quoting.
P
praxising
Guest
Oh good! I do a bit of translation myself, though mostly Greek , so I’ll be very interested in your take on it.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
praxising,
I have this three volume set: amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+cambridge+history+of+the+bible&x=8&y=16
It is pretty much considered the “gold standard” in terms of bible history, and I have yet to find anything in it that suggest the Catholic Church “rejected” the Latin Vulgate.
That (and I am not referring to you, personally) just does not make sense, considering it was the Catholic Church who commissioned the Latin Vulgate.
I have this three volume set: amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+cambridge+history+of+the+bible&x=8&y=16
It is pretty much considered the “gold standard” in terms of bible history, and I have yet to find anything in it that suggest the Catholic Church “rejected” the Latin Vulgate.
That (and I am not referring to you, personally) just does not make sense, considering it was the Catholic Church who commissioned the Latin Vulgate.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
Salvatore – you may wish to reread volume 1 – in particular the last paragraph on page 520 (beginning “the acceptance of Jerome’s work by the Church took time”) and the first full paragraph on page 521 (beginning “This ‘Hebrew’ Old Testament was not well received at first.”) You will note that it took two centuries for Jerome’s work to be fully accepted.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
Here is an example of a verse where the NABRE does not match the Hebrew as well as the RSV and the NRSV. I am using the BHS for the Hebrew.
I simply chose this portion at random – I literally just opened the NABRE to a random page and set my finger down on the page with my eyes shut. If you would like me to analyze a particular chapter of the OT, just let me know.
1 Samuel 14:25
RSV: And all the people [footnote: *Heb. land] came into the forest; and there was honey on the ground.
NRSV: All the troops [footnote:* Heb. land] came upon a honeycomb; and there was honey on the ground.
NABRE: Now there was a honeycomb lying on the ground,
BHS: וְכָל־הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ בַיָּעַר וַיְהִי דְבַשׁ עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה
Comment: The NABRE simply neglects to translate the phrase וְכָל־הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ, only giving the second half of the verse.
I simply chose this portion at random – I literally just opened the NABRE to a random page and set my finger down on the page with my eyes shut. If you would like me to analyze a particular chapter of the OT, just let me know.
1 Samuel 14:25
RSV: And all the people [footnote: *Heb. land] came into the forest; and there was honey on the ground.
NRSV: All the troops [footnote:* Heb. land] came upon a honeycomb; and there was honey on the ground.
NABRE: Now there was a honeycomb lying on the ground,
BHS: וְכָל־הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ בַיָּעַר וַיְהִי דְבַשׁ עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה
Comment: The NABRE simply neglects to translate the phrase וְכָל־הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ, only giving the second half of the verse.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
This is from, ‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’ by Thomas Bokenkotter;** ‘He (Jerome) decided to start fresh from the Hebrew original and produce an entirely new translation. This was a courageous undertaking, for his new rendering of many venerable readings of the Bible shocked the sensibilities of the faithful and he was roundly denounced throughout the Christian world. Even Augustine, as we shall see, fond the new translation uncalled for.’**
Does this sound familiar today?
S
Salvatore123
Guest
BibleReader,
Poor choice of words on my part.
I interpreted praxising as saying the Catholic Church rejected the Latin Vulgate as a valid bible, as opposed to what Jerome did PERSONALLY, on his own, and without oversight, from Rome.
Rome wanted a “master bible” that everyone could refer to as “official”. Jerome just wandered “off the reservation” (or quite a ways off, if one had asked St. Augustine
)
Poor choice of words on my part.
I interpreted praxising as saying the Catholic Church rejected the Latin Vulgate as a valid bible, as opposed to what Jerome did PERSONALLY, on his own, and without oversight, from Rome.
Rome wanted a “master bible” that everyone could refer to as “official”. Jerome just wandered “off the reservation” (or quite a ways off, if one had asked St. Augustine
)- Status