Ecumenism-New American Bible-Offensive Language to Jews Deleted

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrusaderNY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What’s confusing about this thread is its apparently misleading title:

“Ecumenism-New American Bible-Offensive Language to Jews Deleted”

The post which started this thread was not about the New American Bible at all, or any other Catholic version.

Subsequently, the preface to the revised NAB was posted, so now the thread has something to do about the first half of the title. Ecumenism is found in the underlined area " . . . with the collaboration of scholars from other Christian churches . . . "

However, the only parts of the preface which seem to have any thing to do with the second half of the title, “Offensive Language to Jews Deleted” are:
  • “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.”
  • “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.”
What would be helpful to correct the integrity of this thread (at least to put it in line with the title) is to give examples from the NAB where “Offensive Language to Jews [were] Deleted”.

As it stands, these sections from the revised NAB preface seem incompatible with the aims of the non-Catholic bible described in the JTA article, which started this thread.
 
New American Bible

From Wikipedia

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/160px-Nab-cover.jpgIn 1970 the New American Bible was first published. It is an English Bible translation that was produced by members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. The original languages were translated into English by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy.

Table of contents// [showhide](javascript:toggleToc())] 1 Second version

2 Third version

3 Fourth and most current version

4 External link

edit]
%between%

Second version

In 1986 some traditionally familiar phraseology was restored to the New Testament. This included some inclusive language oft rejected by the Holy See.

edit]
%between%

Third version

In 1991 it was again amended to include more inclusive language in the New Testament. Inclusive language was added to the Psalms. The Holy See rejected it as the basis of the revised Lectionary for the United States Roman Catholic Church. This was because of its use of vertical inclusive language (God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (human beings instead of men).

edit]
%between%

Fourth and most current version

In 2000 the 1991 New American Bible with Psalms and revised New Testament was modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the Roman Catholic liturgy. This is the current text of the Lectionaires of the United States Roman Catholic Church. The Holy See tolerated some use of inclusive language, such as where the speaker intended to address a mixed audience (ex “brothers and sisters”), but in references to God or Christ rejected it. Inclusive language is also rejected in place of “man” when such words have theological and anthropological significance (Psalm 1:1, referring to Adam and Christ).
 
That’s interesting information, Crusader, but it doesn’t address the thread’s title: “Offensive Language to Jews Deleted”.
 
This is from the Jewish News Weekly :Friday September 29, 1995
jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2092/edition_id/33/format/html/displaystory.html
Offensive references to Jews deleted in new Bible (VINCENT , This the way it was on the Jewish site!)

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."

Go to the address above to read the complete story.Can you imagine that if a Christian asked for the Jewsh Torah to be changed because something in it was offensive to Christians? Why the Jewish Defense League would mark that guy for punishment!
 
Exporter,

First, realize that this article talks about a translation that is not used by Catholics for the Liturgy. Since that is the case, I fail to see why there is so much to do about it here.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
Exporter:
This is from the Jewish News Weekly :Friday September 29, 1995
jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/2092/edition_id/33/format/html/displaystory.html
Offensive references to Jews deleted in new Bible (VINCENT , This the way it was on the Jewish site!)
Click to expand...
That much is clear, Exporter. And you’re right, it is atrocious.

But that article isn’t related to your thread title, which seems to connect the NAB with “Offensive Language to Jews deleted”. If you in fact intended to make that connection, then how about providing examples in the NAB where “offensive language to Jews” were “deleted”?
 
40.png
Exporter:
You sound like Jack T. Chick by saying a Catholic Bible is peppered with exerpts from an illicit Bible.
Click to expand...
I didn’t expect that stating information from the Catholic Encyclopedia would make me sound like Jack Chick, but there it is.:whacky:
40.png
Exporter:
I have a two volume set of the Douay - Rheims. The NT was finished in1582 in Rheims at the English College… 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.)
Click to expand...
In this post you say that the version you have can be purchased here, which is a photocopy of a Bible from 1884. In fact, that company describes it as a Douay-Rheims Haydock Bible.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52…

The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation”… In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version…

The best known version published in England in modern times was perhaps Haydock’s, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811-12.
Click to expand...
40.png
Exporter:
You should not have said that D-R Bible used exerpts from that KJV bible
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I should have said so and did. Of course, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the Church, and is not the last word on Bible translation and publishing. If there is good evidence to suggest their information is not true, I will gladly recant.
40.png
Exporter:
Dont you know the D-R N.T. appeared long BEFORE the Bible of King James I?
Click to expand...
Yes - more than 20 years earlier. I also know that the original Douay-Rheims has been seldom used in the last couple centuries, as most all DR editions available today are based in some measure on the Challoner revision.
 
Deacon Ed:
First, realize that this article talks about a translation that is not used by Catholics for the Liturgy. Since that is the case, I fail to see why there is so much to do about it here.
Click to expand...
Here is the translation referred to by the article.

[The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...103-3358051-6347048?v=glance&ref=ed_oe_h&st=*)
by Victor Roland Gold, Jr. Thomas L. Hoyt, Sharon H. Ringe, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Jr. Burton H. Throckmorton, Barbara A. Withers
  • Hardcover: 535 pages
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press (August 1, 1995)
  • ISBN: 0195284186
I couldn’t find it at the OUP site, so I suspect it’s out of print.
 
40.png
Exporter:
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?
Click to expand...
What you have is the Haydock bible which is, in fact, a version of the Challoner revision of the DR. IN all likelihood what you have is based upon the plates made available in 1880 and purchased by an American company that printed both Catholic and Protestant bibles. This is not the Challoner with comments in the Old Testament by Fr. Haydock. New Testament commentary, although attributed to Fr. Haydock, were not done by him but by another priest.

One of the reasons the original is no longer in use is that it tended to invent English words. If there were no clear word, the translators simple turned the Latin into English – producing a translation that was virtually unreadable. This is why Bishop Challoner revised it.

Deacon Ed
 
Of course it is, the US council of Bishops has demanded that this is the bible that must be used at the lectionary for ALL Novus Ordo Masses, with all of the “politically correct” language in it
Deacon Ed:
Exporter,

First, realize that this article talks about a translation that is not used by Catholics for the Liturgy. Since that is the case, I fail to see why there is so much to do about it here.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
 
40.png
CrusaderNY:
Of course it is, the US council of Bishops has demanded that this is the bible that must be used at the lectionary for ALL Novus Ordo Masses, with all of the “politically correct” language in it
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for Deacon Ed, but I think he’s referring to the non-Catholic bible translation referred to in the JTA article you posted, not to the NAB.
 
40.png
CrusaderNY:
Of course it is, the US council of Bishops has demanded that this is the bible that must be used at the lectionary for ALL Novus Ordo Masses, with all of the “politically correct” language in it
Click to expand...
CrusaderNY,

The original article in this thread refers to *The New Testament and Psalms: A New Inclusive Translation *and not to the New American Bible. The NAB is the bible used at Mass, not the NIT. It appears, then, that you simply assumed the two were the same for, based upon what the article said about the NIT you attacked the NAB.

As for “politically correct language” – I’d certainly like to have you point some out so that we can see if there really is a problem. The one issue that someone raised (I don’t know if it was you or Exporter) is that the word “God” was deliberately translated as “creator.” Rather than take over this thread, I started another thread that completely debunks that claim by looking at the 24 passages in the NAB that use the word “creator” and then examining the Hebrew or Greek source as well as, in some cases, the Latin of the Vulgate to see if there was any validity to the claim. In only a couple of cases could I find that the Vulgate translated “creator” as “God” and, when the NAB was translated from the orignal, the word “creator” was used. Since we always want to go back to as near the original as possible, the Vulgate translation was not the basis for the NAB, but rather ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were. This may be where some confusion came into play.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
What you have is the Haydock bible which is, in fact, a version of the Challoner revision of the DR. IN all likelihood what you have is based upon the plates made available in 1880 and purchased by an American company that printed both Catholic and Protestant bibles. This is not the Challoner with comments in the Old Testament by Fr. Haydock. New Testament commentary, although attributed to Fr. Haydock, were not done by him but by another priest.

One of the reasons the original is no longer in use is that it tended to invent English words. If there were no clear word, the translators simple turned the Latin into English – producing a translation that was virtually unreadable. This is why Bishop Challoner revised it.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Dear Deacon Ed, It appears that I was overly defensive of my $99.00 two-volume set of the D - R Bible. Let me say what I have.

The Old Testament of the Holy Catholic Bible. with an extensive Catholic Commentary.
Compiled by Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock
Purchased from Catholic Treasures, Monrovia, CA
The plates (Illustrations) are original
The Title page has :
Old Testament of the Holy Catholic Bible , First published by the English College at Douay,A.D. 1609; Translated from the Latin Vulgate. With useful notes,by the eminent commentator. the most able Rev Fr.Geo.Leo Haydock and Bishop Challoner ,1749 - 52.

And in small type under the Imprinture(39 of them) I see this.
“This book was photographically reproduced from an unabridged edition of **The Catholic Family Bible and Commentary **printed in 1859 by Edward Dunigan and Brother, New York, NY.”

In the preface of the D-R New Testament, a remark by a Dr. Witham indicates that the priests who translated from the Latin Vulgate were accurate and cross checked with the Greek at the time of the translation. Witham confirms correctness in the translation made at the Univ. of Douay in 1582.He warns the unlearned that false interpretations can occur since some of the Scriptures are “obscure”( to use his word).There is a page long warning that Scripture alone does not give the whole truth.
EWTN sell this Bible atewtn.com/vcatalogue/index.asp?category=books
It has 1863 pages, Size is 8 1/4 x 11 inches, added were pages of commentary.
Here is a description directly from EWTN.“This 2 volume set is the greatest Catholic Bible ever published in the English language. It was taken directly from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, the saint who had access to manuscripts that are no longer available but were much closer in both time and text to the original autographs.”.
I have three different Bibles. Since I bought the D - R Bible ( it is not a version) I find I prefer to use it since my confidence level is higher with it. In my meager opinion I think anyone who reads on the high school level will be able to understand it, since the commentary is extensive…
I have verified maybe 20 verses with the on-line Vatican New American Bible (vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM) and found them not wanting. I will contenue to use my D - R Bible with confidence.
 
Exporter,

In general there is nothing wrong with the Challoner Revision of the DR. It’s a fairly good translation. It suffers from being a translation of a translation (Greek/Hebrew → Latin → English) and from carrying forward certain emendations that found their way into the Vulgate (such as the famous Johannine comma). It is not my bible of choice simply because I do read Greek and prefer to read it in, as much as possible, the original languages. At the same time, there are passages in the Greek that I will cross check in various translations (including the Vulgate) to make sure I have understood what is being said. Nobody is fully self-sufficient when it comes to Scripture, and that includes me.

Deacon Ed
 
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1.HTM

This is the New American Bible link, right from the Vatican Archives, with a preface, which explains that the DR bible was the FIRST Catholic bible, and the “Need” for the “New” translation.

I comes equipt with subscripts and footnotes, so the “dumb” and ignorant reader, as you have called me, can be brainwashed into believing and understanding exactly as how the Apostles really meant for us to understand this Bible, that is the 50 “scholars” and yourself referenced in the preface who “retranslated” the Bible starting in 1970, in the spirit of Vatican II.

All things being said, this is a farce and you yourself have no defense for something as deceitful as retranslating a Bible to suit a Council’s point of view, a controveral council at that, as the Church appears to have done after Vatican II.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV7.HTM
Deacon Ed:
Exporter,

In general there is nothing wrong with the Challoner Revision of the DR. It’s a fairly good translation. It suffers from being a translation of a translation (Greek/Hebrew → Latin → English) and from carrying forward certain emendations that found their way into the Vulgate (such as the famous Johannine comma). It is not my bible of choice simply because I do read Greek and prefer to read it in, as much as possible, the original languages. At the same time, there are passages in the Greek that I will cross check in various translations (including the Vulgate) to make sure I have understood what is being said. Nobody is fully self-sufficient when it comes to Scripture, and that includes me.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
 
40.png
CrusaderNY:
We are no better than the Protestants
Click to expand...
But with all due respect, you ARE a Protestant. You protest against the Church, right? You dissent? That makes you a dissident, a Protestant.
 
40.png
CrusaderNY:
We are no better than the Protestants
Click to expand...
No, no, you ARE a Protestant. You protest against the Church, right? You dissent? That makes you a dissident, a Protestant.
 
JKirk, “Crusader is a Protestant? WhatsamataU” Zero in on what he revealed to us…Political Correctness is creeping into the Bible".
Deacon Ed, Thanks. You have made me look a little deeper. Since you do read Greek, you are one of the very, very few that do. I have a question or two.
  1. From my D-R Preface. St Jerome said,“That which varies cannot be true”. Some English Protestants are apt to blame us for translating from the Latin Vulgate rather from the Greek. They say the Greek is the fountain. It is certain that the originals of the Greek were not available for they were lost. Although they were lost, during the 1500s there were copies written almost one thousand years before. (Greek MSS) . Then after almost two hundred and eighty years of searching libraries and studying these Greek MSS copies, The most learned critics agree that there are variations in the MSS. There cannot be found an authentic MSS.
  2. ( These are my thoughts.) Since it was known back in 1575 that the Greek MSS differed from copy to copy , and had been copied over and over for 1500 years it would seem a bit foolish to use the Greek for a translation into English.
What was available, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was done by him when he was much closer in time to the originals. The Latin Vulgate had been authentically copied so that the Latin Vulgate available to the Priests at Douay was a Bible that Jerome had produced. Latin had NOT changed (thank goodness). So it was only rational that the Priests at Douay would translate from the Latin Vulgate. Why translate from the Vulgate…Latin had not changed. Ecclesiastical Latin was not changed.It was pure and unchanged , but the Greek MSS showed diffences in different copies; of which there were many. The Latin Vulgate was preserved over the years in Rome, as it is now.
Deacon Ed, showed the D-R was derived like this. Greek->Latin->English. Yes, but if you are not sure of the Greek (your starting point) you’d do well to use something written about the year 395 to 410. At least that had not changed. So, if the Greek had changed over 1400 years it might be better to use the Latin which was 1100 years old and Latin had not changed. A dead language we say.
3. I assume Deacon Ed will have something to say about the Greek copies. I would welcome that…we learn a little bit each day. I hope the reasoning of the Priests at Douay is appreciated.:yup:
From CrusaderNY’s Vatican reference( 3rd Paragraph- I think) , "The first English Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims (1582-1609/10), and its revision by Bishop Challoner (1750) were based on the Latin Vulgate."
 
Deacon Ed:
CrusaderNY,

The original article in this thread refers to *The New Testament and Psalms: A New Inclusive Translation *and not to the New American Bible. The NAB is the bible used at Mass, not the NIT. It appears, then, that you simply assumed the two were the same for, based upon what the article said about the NIT you attacked the NAB.

As for “politically correct language” – I’d certainly like to have you point some out so that we can see if there really is a problem. The one issue that someone raised (I don’t know if it was you or Exporter) is that the word “God” was deliberately translated as “creator.” Rather than take over this thread, I started another thread that completely debunks that claim by looking at the 24 passages in the NAB that use the word “creator” and then examining the Hebrew or Greek source as well as, in some cases, the Latin of the Vulgate to see if there was any validity to the claim. In only a couple of cases could I find that the Vulgate translated “creator” as “God” and, when the NAB was translated from the orignal, the word “creator” was used. Since we always want to go back to as near the original as possible, the Vulgate translation was not the basis for the NAB, but rather ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were. This may be where some confusion came into play.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Deacon Ed;

Now that we’ve established that the offending MIS-translation is the New INCLUSIVE Translation and not the New American Bible (I lugged the original version around before the 20 year “trip down the Road to Jericho”), may I add a few comments that I’ve heard from both Jews and Christians about the “NIMisTranslation”?

The main problem I’ve heard is that the scriptures that refer to sexual behaviors the Church has taught to be sinful are “translated” in such a way that they are simply “pooh-poohed” - That goes for heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. They are all treated as if they are NOT SINS or barriers to one’s relationship to God, but things that are normal.

Another is Gender Inclusive language where the context simply doesn’t call for it and where its useage seems purposefully designed to detract from the Traditions of the Church. And, Language which seems designed to muddle the Monarchia of the Father as well as the Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

There are others, but once a “Translation” has failed to communicate what the Apostolic writers were writing on those subjects, the rest is simply academic.

BTW, the NIT enjoys some popularity in the Anglican Communion (Archbishop of Canterburry) and in many mainline liberal Protestant denominations.

Although I’ve heard the language in the New American Bible characterized as “Workmanlike”, I’ve never heard anyone have any basis to say that it failed to communicate the Doctrines as laid in the original languages.

Well, that’s my 10 cents worth - Inflation, you know…

Blessings on you and your congregation.

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
Exporter:
Deacon Ed, Thanks. You have made me look a little deeper. Since you do read Greek, you are one of the very, very few that do. I have a question or two.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe very few here – but there are others. I know that Fr. Ambrose had to take Greek in either in college or the seminary. Heck, the Melkite priests take both Greek and Arabic!
  1. From my D-R Preface. St Jerome said,“That which varies cannot be true”. Some English Protestants are apt to blame us for translating from the Latin Vulgate rather from the Greek. They say the Greek is the fountain. It is certain that the originals of the Greek were not available for they were lost. Although they were lost, during the 1500s there were copies written almost one thousand years before. (Greek MSS) . Then after almost two hundred and eighty years of searching libraries and studying these Greek MSS copies, The most learned critics agree that there are variations in the MSS. There cannot be found an authentic MSS.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are some variations in the Greek manuscripts. However, one of the great advantages we have today is computer-aided analysis of the manuscripts. By doing this we’ve discovered that among the manuscripts are considered best the variations amount to some 1% of the text, and in most cases it’s little more than a copyist error that is easily reconciled. Of course, to do the reconcilation requires other manuscripts.

This is why bible scholars (and I certainly do not consider myself a bible scholar) work from multiple manuscripts. It allows them to “cross-check” to ensure that they have the best possible translation because they are using the best possible sources.
  1. ( These are my thoughts.) Since it was known back in 1575 that the Greek MSS differed from copy to copy , and had been copied over and over for 1500 years it would seem a bit foolish to use the Greek for a translation into English.
What was available, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was done by him when he was much closer in time to the originals. The Latin Vulgate had been authentically copied so that the Latin Vulgate available to the Priests at Douay was a Bible that Jerome had produced. Latin had NOT changed (thank goodness). So it was only rational that the Priests at Douay would translate from the Latin Vulgate. Why translate from the Vulgate…Latin had not changed. Ecclesiastical Latin was not changed.It was pure and unchanged , but the Greek MSS showed diffences in different copies; of which there were many. The Latin Vulgate was preserved over the years in Rome, as it is now.
Click to expand...
Jerome also worked from the manuscripts as there were no originals for him, either. Thus, he was subject to the same problems we have today. Although St. Jerome was probably a brilliant linguist he did not have the tools that we have today. He had a limited set of manuscripts (the original Vulgate before the revisions of Pope Sixtus or Pope Clement VIII used only two manuscripts in Greek besides the Septuagint and one Hebrew manuscript). He also didn’t have access to the vast compendium of contemporary Greek works that we have today. This compendium gives us a better understanding of the usage of words and, thus, their meanings, connotations and nuances.

continued in next post…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top