Ecumenism-New American Bible-Offensive Language to Jews Deleted

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrusaderNY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CrusaderNY

Guest
Friday September 29, 1995

Offensive references to Jews deleted in new Bible

DEBRA NUSSBAUM COHEN
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

NEW YORK – Jews haven’t been treated very well in the Christian Bible – until now.

The elimination of traditional New Testament language castigating Jews for the suffering of Jesus in an edition just published by the Oxford University Press is being well-received by most Jewish experts on Jewish-Christian relations – but not all.

Jesus lived and died as a Jew.

But his followers who authored the books read as the Gospels wrote them as they were making the final break from the Jewish people. They were eager to distance themselves from the people who they believed were responsible for the death of the man they viewed as God incarnate.

The Christian Bible condemnation of the Jews has been used by everyone from Martin Luther to Adolf Hitler and countless lesser despots through the centuries to justify tyranny against Jews.

Now the editors of “The New Testament and Psalms: A New Inclusive Translation” have changed that language in order to portray the story of Jesus’ life and death in a way that is not offensive to Jews.

They also altered the God-language to make it gender inclusive, so that instead of “Father,” the metaphor used for God is “Father-Mother.” These and other changes in the new Bible reflect a heightened sensitivity during the past 10 to 20 years over the way language is used, according to the editors.

In the texts of Matthew, John, Acts, Corinthians and the other chapters of the Christian Bible, negative references to Jews are deleted.

Where it said “the Jewish leaders,” the newly released Bible says “the leaders,” or where it said “Jews,” it now says “men,” for example.

In the new version’s introduction, the editors write: "When `the Jews’ is used to refer to the ethnic people, it remains unchanged.

“When it is used to refer to unbelieving people, it is rendered the religious authorities' or simply the leaders’ or `authorities’ to minimize what could be perceived as a warrant for anti-Jewish bias.”

The language changes were welcomed by several Jewish experts on Christian-Jewish relations, though not all agreed that the new edition will be useful.

“I commend them for [taking out] the anti-Jewish stuff, which was originally mistranslated,” said Rabbi A. James Rudin, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee.

The Gospel of “John has been used to beat up on Jews for 2,000 years and this is a step forward,” he said.

Irvin Borowsky, who is chairman of the American Interfaith Institute, worked for a year with the Oxford University Press editors to eradicate the language hostile to Jews. All “murder and abuse of Jews leads back to the inaccurate references in the New Testament,” he said.

"We are very happy as Jews that they are aware of the need to modify the references to Jews made by other Jews in the first century.

“We are enormously encouraged,” Borowsky added. “These changes are the very first in 1,800 years.”

The American Interfaith Institute is a Philadelphia-based organization working to remove anti-Judaism from Christian liturgy.

Not everyone was as pleased, however.

Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a professor of religious studies at the University of South Florida, in Tampa, and a prolific author, said the new translation is “thoroughly dishonest.”

“I don’t blame them for being embarrassed” by what it says about Jews, “but you don’t get to rewrite history or the Bible,” he said. “They have an enormous burden and this effort at evasion of a very ugly truth I don’t think will make a whole lot of difference to anyone.”

Neusner also charged that the eradication of broad anti-Jewish statements from the Christian Bible is, in fact, a negation of Judaism itself.

"They’re erasing from history the fact that the Jewish people en masse did not accept Jesus’ claim – not then and not ever. By removing the Jews from the status of his enemies they also remove from the Jews the status of having their own religion.

“We’re not benign toward them nor they toward us. We deal with conflicting truths and to pretend that they’re not conflicting doesn’t remove the conflict,” said Neusner. “Those who want to draw murderous conclusions [from the Christian Bible] will not be fooled because the entire story is one that sets Jesus against the Jewish people.”
 
I’m confused. I was reading this post with great interest, and after reading it through once, went back to re-read it. The date of the article caught my attention. It seems to be 10 years old. Is there already a Bible translation published with this revised wording?

Thanks,

daring
 
Friday September 29, 1995

Offensive references to Jews deleted in new Bible

DEBRA NUSSBAUM COHEN
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

NEW YORK – Jews haven’t been treated very well in the Christian Bible – until now.

The elimination of traditional New Testament language castigating Jews for the suffering of Jesus in an edition just published by the Oxford University Press is being well-received by most Jewish experts on Jewish-Christian relations – but not all

What in the world is the “Jewish Telegraphic Agency”? That sounds like a website comining from someone’s bedroom.

This “stuff” is ten tears old. I just wonder if Mel Gibson’s Movie “The Passion” fostered a regurgitattion of this blurb?
 
The JTA is real, and looks bigger than a garage organization. Here is what it says about itself:
JTA is an international news service that provides up-to-the-minute reports, analysis pieces and features on events and issues of concern to the Jewish people.
JTA correspondents in New York, Washington, Jerusalem, Moscow and 30 other cities around the globe provide in-depth coverage of political, economic and social developments affecting Jews in North and South America, Israel, Europe, Africa and Australia.
Our daily reports include the latest information about the Middle East peace process, political developments in Washington and Jerusalem, the activities of anti-Semites and other hate-mongers, trends affecting Jewish life in North America, security incidents in Israel, and conditions for Jews in Eastern Europe, Latin America and far-flung communities around the world.
Throughout its history, JTA has established a reputation for journalistic integrity, outstanding reporting and insightful analysis. Over the years, the Jewish community has come to rely on JTA as the single most credible source of news and analysis available about events and issues of Jewish interest anywhere in the world.
Its website can be found at JTA

John
 
The title of this thread is somewhat misleading. I thought it refered to a proposed revision of the Bible widely used by Catholics today, the New American Bible (NAB).
 
Changing the Bible in the Spirit of Vatican II???

From the US Council of Bishops, This is the problem with V2 and all of the sneaky things done behind the average person in the pew who does not know and research, the Mass being changed, the Bible, the sacrements, what is next?
The answer to your question is that yes, the Bible you and I have at home is this liberalized fake Bible, I never knew this was for real until I received this AM an e-mail from my uncle on this from a Traditional website and then went to the US council of Bishops webpage. I am AMAZED!!! I cant past the entire article as it is to long, please go there yourself and decide is this what we want?
Preface the Revised Edition
of the New Testament


The New Testament of The New American Bible, a fresh translation from the Greek text, was first published in complete form in 1970, together with the Old Testament translation that had been completed the previous year. Portions of the New Testament had appeared earlier, in somewhat different form, in the provisional Mass lectionary of 1964 and in the Lectionary for Mass of 1970.

Although the scriptures themselves are timeless, translations and explanations of them quickly become dated in an era marked by rapid cultural change to a degree never previously experienced. ???The explosion of biblical studies that has taken place in our century and the changing nature of our language itself require periodic adjustment both in translations and in the accompanying explanatory materials. The experience of actual use of the New Testament of The New American Bible, especially in oral proclamation, has provided a basis for further improvement. Accordingly, it was decided in 1978 to proceed with a thorough revision of the New Testament to reflect advances in scholarship and to satisfy needs identified through pastoral experience.

For this purpose a steering committee was formed to plan, organize, and direct the work of revision, to engage collaborators, and to serve as an editoral board to coordinate the work of the various revisers and to determine the final form of the text and the explanatory materials. Guidelines were drawn up and collaborators selected in 1978 and early 1979, and November of 1980 was established as the deadline for manuscripts. From December 1980 through September 1986 the editoral board met a total of fifty times and carefully reviewed and revised all the material in order to ensure accuracy and consistency of approach. The editors also worked together with the bishops’ ad hoc committee that was appointed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1982 to oversee the revision.

In especially sensitive problem today is the question of discrimination in language. In recent years there has been much discussion about allegations of anti-Jewish expressions in the New Testament and of language that discriminates against various minorities. Above all, however, the question of discrimination against women affects the largest number of people and arouses the greatest degree of interest and concern. At present there is little agreement about these problems or about the best way to deal with them. In all these areas the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views.

Discriminatory language should be eliminated insofar as possible whenever it is unfaithful to the meaning of the New Testament, but the text should not be altered in order to adjust it to contemporary concerns.

The New American Bible is a Roman Catholic translation. This revision, however, like the first edition, has been accomplished with the collaboration of scholars from other Christian churches, both among the revisers and on the editorial board, in response to the encouragement of Vatican Council II (Dei Verbum, 22). The editorial board expresses gratitude to all who have collaborated in the revision: to all the revisers, consultants, and bishops who contributed to it, to reviewers of the first edition, and to those who voluntarily submitted suggestions. May this translation fulfill its threefold purpose, “so that the word of the Lord may speed forward and be glorified” (2Th 3:1). - The Feast of St. Jerome - September 30, 1986 ****
40.png
daring2dream:
I’m confused. I was reading this post with great interest, and after reading it through once, went back to re-read it. The date of the article caught my attention. It seems to be 10 years old. Is there already a Bible translation published with this revised wording?

Thanks,

daring
 
We are no better than the Protestants, I never knew this and this deeply upsets me that sacred scripture would be tinkered with for Political Correctness, Vatican II, and Ecumenism

Link for US Council of Bishops

usccb.org/nab/prefnew86.htm
40.png
Vincent:
I’m a bit confused, too:

Is the article from the JTA referring to the New American Bible (NAB) or to The New Testament and Psalms: A New Inclusive Translation?

As I understand it, the latter is a revision of the New Revised Standard Version, not the New American Bible.

Or maybe the title refers to a new “American” Bible?
 
40.png
Crusader:
We are no better than the Protestants
Of course not. We are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.
40.png
Crusader:
this deeply upsets me that sacred scripture would be tinkered with for Political Correctness, Vatican II, and Ecumenism
Nobody’s standing over you making you read one translation over the other. Nobody’s taking away your Douay-Rheims or whatever you read.

John
 
Does it not bother you that the sacred word, which is now the standard Bible of the Catholic Church and distributed and sold in all of our Religious stores, and read from every Sunday is another fake and watered down document due to Vatican II? Is anything off limits to the Modernists and those bent on changing the way we have practiced the faith for 2000 years? Even the Bible? It is not a matter of going out and getting a Dhouey Rheims, it is the principal, and Dhouey Rheims is not the approved version of the USCB, the New American is.
John Higgins:
Of course not. We are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.

Nobody’s standing over you making you read one translation over the other. Nobody’s taking away your Douay-Rheims or whatever you read.

John
 
the New American Bible (NAB) approved for use in the lectionary in the United States IS NOT published by Oxford University Press, so your headline is misleading and has led to a lot of misunderstanding on this thread, please endeavor to be accurate. The translation referred to in the news story you quote was not prepared by Catholic scholars and is not approved by the Catholic Church. It is not the New American Bible, it refers to an altered translation of the New Revised Standard Version (which is not a Catholic bible). Oxford does put out a Catholic Study Edition of the NAB, with articles by different scholars, but your news story is not referring to this edition. The NAB is not an inclusive language translation, the NRSV is inclusive language, which is why it is not allowed for liturgical use in this country (although it is used in Canada). My question is why are you quoting a 10 year old news story and posting your own misleading headline? Where are you headed with this?
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
. My question is why are you quoting a 10 year old news story and posting your own misleading headline? Where are you headed with this?
Puzzleannie, I think we know both why and where.

Why waste your breath?

Best wishes.
 
40.png
CrusaderNY:
Does it not bother you that the sacred word, which is now the standard Bible of the Catholic Church and distributed and sold in all of our Religious stores, and read from every Sunday is another fake and watered down document due to Vatican II? Is anything off limits to the Modernists and those bent on changing the way we have practiced the faith for 2000 years? Even the Bible? It is not a matter of going out and getting a Dhouey Rheims, it is the principal, and Dhouey Rheims is not the approved version of the USCB, the New American is.
Unless you read greek and Hebrew this claim is plain scurrilous! I do read Greek (passed Hebrew, don’t read it well enough to do anything). I can tell you that there is nothing “watered down” or “fake” in the current translation. The translation attempts to take the concepts that are found in Scripture and make them accesible in English for both those who read and those who proclaim Scripture. It fails in the latter sense because it is not easy to proclaim. But it is certainly faithful to the original.

Now, if instead of taking someone else’s word for it, you posted what you think is “fake” or “watered down” we could actually address the issue. As it is, your second-hand repeating of report that is, itself, fatally flawed serves no purpose.

Deacon Ed
 
I want to say “Thank You” CrusadreNY, but what I read in your posts IS NOT WELCOME. I am thinking that if these POLITICALLY CORRECT changes were made to the Bible that is used at Mass. Those secular people ARE CHANGING THE MASS. How much more intrusive can the “be good to Jew boys” be. Here is a publishing company changing the Roman Catholic Mass.

“In especially sensitive problem today is the question of discrimination in language. In recent years there has been much discussion about allegations of anti-Jewish expressions in the New Testament and of language that discriminates against various minorities. Above all, however, the question of discrimination against women affects the largest number of people and arouses the greatest degree of interest and concern”

I would not be surprised now if I read that this publishing company will eliminate these words from the Bible in the coming years : Hell, Sin, references against homosexuals and we must ask for forgiveness. Hey, those words discriminate against a lot of people.

While I am at home these new illicite Bibles will have no effect on me. Oh, you say they are not illicite? If the words of the Vulgate are changed…it is illicite.( Isn’t the Vulgate the Official Bible of Rome? ) Since I found out that the Douay - Rheims Bible of 1588 was the first complete Catholic Bible in English, I use it. I want to use the Bible closest to the Vulgate from which D-R was translated. :yup:
 
Exporter…I assume you are not in agreement with changing the Bible…heck you brought up a good point, soon we will no longer refer to God in the bible as “Father”, as that is offensive to woman, we will be calling him “Creator” as has already started I warn you in some seminaries (I know that for a fact, trust me on this one), and you are right, Sodom and Gomorrah will be torn out…Heck didnt Luther and Calvin and the rest do something similar some 500 years ago??
40.png
Exporter:
I want to say “Thank You” CrusadreNY, but what I read in your posts IS NOT WELCOME. I am thinking that if these POLITICALLY CORRECT changes were made to the Bible that is used at Mass. Those secular people ARE CHANGING THE MASS. How much more intrusive can the “be good to Jew boys” be. Here is a publishing company changing the Roman Catholic Mass.

“In especially sensitive problem today is the question of discrimination in language. In recent years there has been much discussion about allegations of anti-Jewish expressions in the New Testament and of language that discriminates against various minorities. Above all, however, the question of discrimination against women affects the largest number of people and arouses the greatest degree of interest and concern”

I would not be surprised now if I read that this publishing company will eliminate these words from the Bible in the coming years : Hell, Sin, references against homosexuals and we must ask for forgiveness. Hey, those words discriminate against a lot of people.

While I am at home these new illicite Bibles will have no effect on me. Oh, you say they are not illicite? If the words of the Vulgate are changed…it is illicite.( Isn’t the Vulgate the Official Bible of Rome? ) Since I found out that the Douay - Rheims Bible of 1588 was the first complete Catholic Bible in English, I use it. I want to use the Bible closest to the Vulgate from which D-R was translated. :yup:
 
#15 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/report.gif
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/post_old.gif Today, 05:18 PM
CrusaderNY http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_432384”, true);
Regular Member
Join Date: January 8, 2005
Posts: 215

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Ecumenism-New American Bible-Offensive Language to Jews Deleted
Exporter…I assume you are not in agreement with changing the Bible…heck you brought up a good point, soon we will no longer refer to God in the bible as “Father”, as that is offensive to woman, we will be calling him “Creator”

If I was told to change even one word of the Holy Scriptures, I would quiver in my boots and say,“NO”. Either they are the Holy Scriptures or …they are not. Personally, I use the Douay - Rheims Bible of 1588 because I want the Bible closest to the Vugate. The D-R was translated from the Vulgate.

Why would a publisher change the Scripture to suit a small group of radicals. I think selfishness and an egocentric attitude is a main motivation. They don’t care about Jesus and God, they want to pander to the NOW crowd.
 
CrusaderNY, you haven’t provided a source for your complaints about the NAB. The Bible referenced in your article was clearly not the NAB, but something published by Oxford University Press.

Exporter, the Douay-Rheims NT was first published in 1582, but the OT didn’t come out until 1609. Regardless, the version currently available is the Challoner revision, which dates from 1750 and borrowed heavily from the KJV.
 
digitomy, I appreciate your remarks but I must correct you.

First, I have a two volume set of the Douay - Rheims. The NT was finished in1582 in Rheims at the English College. It was translated FROM THE VULGATE ( the Vugate was written in Latin as it is today) My D-R is NOT a Challodier (sp) edition.

( Perhaps you do not know that I have this Bible which is a photocopy of the original. What I see on the pages appears as it did back then.)

The O.T. is also a photo copy of the original. The translation from the Vulgate was finished in 1609 at the College of Douay.

If you think a translation from the Latin Vulgate ( The Official Bible) required additional remedy from THE PROTESTANT KING JAMES I VERSION I am telling you it did not. You sound like Jack T. Chick by saying a Catholic Bible is peppered with exerpts from an illicit Bible. That KJV has 69 verses that have been changed or deleted. And thats just in the New Testament. You should not have said that D-R Bible used exerpts from that KJV bible, Dont you know the D-R N.T. appeared long BEFORE the Bible of King James I?
 
Again

The link to the US Council of Bishops website where they narrate the genesis of and the adoption of the New American Bible for Catholics, can not be more clear. I have been sent info that comes from obvious tradtional sites, but I know that wont convince many here as they will only claim that this is from schismatics.

usccb.org/nab/prefnew86.htm

digitonomy said:
CrusaderNY, you haven’t provided a source for your complaints about the NAB. The Bible referenced in your article was clearly not the NAB, but something published by Oxford University Press.

Exporter, the Douay-Rheims NT was first published in 1582, but the OT didn’t come out until 1609. Regardless, the version currently available is the Challoner revision, which dates from 1750 and borrowed heavily from the KJV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top