J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
My prayer is that Pope Benedict XVI will out live their foot dragging.
- Status
L
lanceg
Guest
I frankly would like us to go back to the Confraternity Bible. it is excellent!
The NRSV and RNAB may have their good points, but they have too much inclusive language to the point where the language can be quite inelegant.
I prefer the Confraternity, Douay-Rheims, RSVCE or RSV2CE, or the original JB. The NJB is okay I think, the inclusive language is fairly restrained, to the point I do not even consider it an inclusive version.
I have an old NAB for reference, but I really do not care for that either.
Sometimes, inclusive language can be helpful for some passages- e.g., the “lest any man should boast” in Ephesians 2:9 of the original RSV is better rendered “lest anyone boast.”
But sometimes inclusive language obscures the theological meaning of the text.
For example, one of the worst applications of inclusive language is in Psalm 1, where both the RNAB and the NRSV render “Happy are those” rather than “Blessed is the man.” Not only is the sense of the lone individual, following the word of God lost; but the Fathers saw The Blessed Man of Psalm 1 as Christ, and that meaning is totally lost.
The NRSV is horrible to render “Son of Man” as “Mortal” in Ezekiel. It totally ruins the significance of Christ using the term in the Gospels.
I am sorry, I do not mean to sound cavalier, but the RNAB and NRSV are terrible.
Stick with the more traditional texts, especially with the Confraternity Version.
The NRSV and RNAB may have their good points, but they have too much inclusive language to the point where the language can be quite inelegant.
I prefer the Confraternity, Douay-Rheims, RSVCE or RSV2CE, or the original JB. The NJB is okay I think, the inclusive language is fairly restrained, to the point I do not even consider it an inclusive version.
I have an old NAB for reference, but I really do not care for that either.
Sometimes, inclusive language can be helpful for some passages- e.g., the “lest any man should boast” in Ephesians 2:9 of the original RSV is better rendered “lest anyone boast.”
But sometimes inclusive language obscures the theological meaning of the text.
For example, one of the worst applications of inclusive language is in Psalm 1, where both the RNAB and the NRSV render “Happy are those” rather than “Blessed is the man.” Not only is the sense of the lone individual, following the word of God lost; but the Fathers saw The Blessed Man of Psalm 1 as Christ, and that meaning is totally lost.
The NRSV is horrible to render “Son of Man” as “Mortal” in Ezekiel. It totally ruins the significance of Christ using the term in the Gospels.
I am sorry, I do not mean to sound cavalier, but the RNAB and NRSV are terrible.
Stick with the more traditional texts, especially with the Confraternity Version.
T
Talmida
Guest
Can someone explain to me what exactly IS the significance of Christ using the term “Son of Man” in the Gospels?
I can appreciate that one might see a connection with the son of man in Daniel, but what’s the connection with Ezekiel?
In Intermediate Readings in Biblical Hebrew, by Ben Zvi, Hancock and Beinert:
Does “son of man” really mark Ezekiel out “belonging to the category of humans?” as not-God? not son-of-God, or divine? I don’t think it does. But for God to address the prophet as Mortal or Human or even Man (since he is male) seems to more clearly separate Ezekiel from his Divine interlocuter — which seems to be the point of the ben-adam expression.
So if the significance of son of man in Ezek. is to clearly mark Ezekiel out as a member of the not-divine, weak human category, and not the divine immortal category, what is the significance of son of man in the Gospels? It seems to me that it CANNOT be the same significance, and therefore, should not be translated the same way.
And recall, Ezekiel was written in Hebrew more than 500 years BC. Maybe the meaning of ben-adam had changed somewhat by the time the Gospels were written?
Thanks
L
lanceg
Guest
T
Talmida
Guest
What exactly is the difference between American Catholicism and Roman Catholicism?
I’m not American, so I’m not familiar with your church.
I do appreciate that mortality is only one aspect of Jesus humanity, so perhaps “human” is the best translation of ben-adam. Translating it “son of man” is simply the archaic equivalent – adam does not mean man, it means human being, or the human race. It has nothing to do with being male.
If Jesus had wanted to call himself son of a male adult, he would have been ben-ish.
I’m not American, so I’m not familiar with your church.
I do appreciate that mortality is only one aspect of Jesus humanity, so perhaps “human” is the best translation of ben-adam. Translating it “son of man” is simply the archaic equivalent – adam does not mean man, it means human being, or the human race. It has nothing to do with being male.
If Jesus had wanted to call himself son of a male adult, he would have been ben-ish.
S
Spirithound
Guest
American Catholicism is simply the Roman Catholicism of America. It is not a separate denomination (no matter how liberal it is).
L
lanceg
Guest
Tamilda,
Where are you from?
By American Catholicism I simply meant the Catholic Church in America. And actually, I am Byzantine (Greek) Catholic
, rather than Roman Catholic. But I am a Catholic seeking to be faithful to Holy Tradition, and in my view, the NAB and NRSV do not reflect faithful understandings of the biblical text.
*Ben Adam *is still “son of man;” I understand what you mean, *Adam *is simply humankind. But he is ben-adam, son of human kind. The Latin Vulgate translates Fili Hominis, Son of Man, in Ezekiel. Part of my argument against these newer versions is that they leave traditional understandings of the text. Besides, the use of the term Mortal in Ezekiel is only one of dozens of problems with these versions, and not the most serious one.
Thanks for bearing with my diatribe!
Where are you from?
By American Catholicism I simply meant the Catholic Church in America. And actually, I am Byzantine (Greek) Catholic
, rather than Roman Catholic. But I am a Catholic seeking to be faithful to Holy Tradition, and in my view, the NAB and NRSV do not reflect faithful understandings of the biblical text.*Ben Adam *is still “son of man;” I understand what you mean, *Adam *is simply humankind. But he is ben-adam, son of human kind. The Latin Vulgate translates Fili Hominis, Son of Man, in Ezekiel. Part of my argument against these newer versions is that they leave traditional understandings of the text. Besides, the use of the term Mortal in Ezekiel is only one of dozens of problems with these versions, and not the most serious one.
Thanks for bearing with my diatribe!
T
Talmida
Guest
I’m Canadian. 
But I read so much about the Old Catholic Church, Traditional Catholic Church, SSPX, and in fact, there is a group called the American Catholic Church which is not in communion with Rome – I never know which is which.
I agree, the modern translations do move away from the Traditional interpretations. Regrettably, in some cases, this is because the Traditional interpretation was WRONG.
The main reason I taught myself Biblical Hebrew was because I wanted to understand why all the differences in Scripture. The KJV and the RSV, and even the old Douay Rheims may have prettier English, but they also contain some serious errors in translation.
Bringing things back to the NRSV, I really appreciated a passage in one of the articles Manfred linked to about the difference between texts for Lectionary use and those for private use. I had never really considered that issue before.
But I read so much about the Old Catholic Church, Traditional Catholic Church, SSPX, and in fact, there is a group called the American Catholic Church which is not in communion with Rome – I never know which is which.
I agree, the modern translations do move away from the Traditional interpretations. Regrettably, in some cases, this is because the Traditional interpretation was WRONG.
The main reason I taught myself Biblical Hebrew was because I wanted to understand why all the differences in Scripture. The KJV and the RSV, and even the old Douay Rheims may have prettier English, but they also contain some serious errors in translation.
Bringing things back to the NRSV, I really appreciated a passage in one of the articles Manfred linked to about the difference between texts for Lectionary use and those for private use. I had never really considered that issue before.
L
lak611
Guest
Since you know Biblical Hebrew, which translation is the most accurate, based on the original language?I’m Canadian.
I agree, the modern translations do move away from the Traditional interpretations. Regrettably, in some cases, this is because the Traditional interpretation was WRONG.
The main reason I taught myself Biblical Hebrew was because I wanted to understand why all the differences in Scripture. The KJV and the RSV, and even the old Douay Rheims may have prettier English, but they also contain some serious errors in translation.
In the old missals from 1962 or earlier, were the Scripture readings taken straight from the Douay-Rheims, or were they a modified version of the Douay-Rheims? In other words, is modifying the text for public proclamation a recent phenomenon?
T
Talmida
Guest
I can only speak about my own experience with the Old Testament. I do not know New Testament Greek.
I find the NRSV to be the most accurate translation in terms of the original meaning of the Hebrew texts. It’s not the most poetic or the best English, but it’s not horrible.
I don’t know anything about the 1962 missal. It was before my time.
I find the NRSV to be the most accurate translation in terms of the original meaning of the Hebrew texts. It’s not the most poetic or the best English, but it’s not horrible.
I don’t know anything about the 1962 missal. It was before my time.
L
lanceg
Guest
Tamilda,I can only speak about my own experience with the Old Testament. I do not know New Testament Greek.
I find the NRSV to be the most accurate translation in terms of the original meaning of the Hebrew texts. It’s not the most poetic or the best English, but it’s not horrible.
I don’t know anything about the 1962 missal. It was before my time.
Thanks for the continuing dialog. this is important from my view point.
I admit I do not know Hebrew, only a little Latin, Greek, Ukrainian and Russian. I commend you greatly for taking the time and effort to learn Hebrew.
I think I can also trust scholars I know about who prefer traditional translations such as Bishop Isaiah (Did you read his article? He is pretty convincing about the viability of the King James), Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, and Fr. John Echert.
Tamilda, if you know the Hebrew you should know that Psalm 1 says, “Blessed is the Man (the Hebrew is Ish not adam ),” not “Happy are those,” as the RNAB and NRSV have it. Pluralizing the subject in Psalm 1 creates several errors:
- It is an unfaithful translation
- It undermines the sacred authors original intent, which is to praise the lone person, who will persevere in the Law of the Lord regardless of what those around them do.
- The Church fathers saw the Blessed Man in Psalm 1 as Christ. The modern translations once again, undermine the Christological character of Old Testament prophecy.
Tamilda, see Orthodox priest Patrick Henry Reardon’s commentary on Psalm 8 at the link below:
*The Man, Jesus Christ: *
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-06-024-c
Tamilda, the NRSV and RNAB use ideologically-driven translations to keep from offending feminists. I want to be biblically correct, not politically correct. The NRSV in particular is no different for altering the text to “de-man” the bible than the Jehovah’s Witness bible is for altering the translation to minimize the divinity of Christ.
Fr. John Echert, a Roman Catholic priest here in the Twin Cities, answers a forum on www.ewtn.com on sacred scripture. He always counsels people to choose the RSV CE/2CE or the Douay Rheims Confraternity versions over the RNAB and NRSV, which he considers poor translations. See his forum on the EWTN web site, and search under Douay Rheims.
Both Fr. Reardon and Echert are graduates of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. I think their biblical knowledge and scholarship gives them good credentials for their critique of the modern translations.
Tamilda, I hope you will consider looking into the RSV, Confraternity, or Douay Rheims version. They are so much better. The RNAB and NRSV, I am afraid, remind me of the false scribes Jeremiah is prophesying against in Jeremiah 8.8.
Thank you for willingness to dialogue.
Blessings,
Lance
T
Talmida
Guest
It’s been a while since I’ve looked at the Psalms in any detail, Lance, but I agree with you, the plural in Psalm 1 is probably not the best choice.
And although ish does mean man, husband, it can also mean someone, one, and** each**. I think it refers to the male person OR to the individual person (as opposed to the human as a member of the category of humans).
I would have translated this as Happy is the one.
My first goal in translating (or judging a translation) is to see that the meaning of the Hebrew at the time it was written be maintained.
Psalm 8:5 in the Douay-Rhiems:
In the following verse, the D-R translates *elohim *as angels, while the RSV translates it as God! Are both correct?
The psalms are poetry, and Hebrew poetry uses few words to say a great many things. Translations are bound to vary. Interpretations abound.
I seem to recall that the apostles (and maybe Paul too?) used the Septuagint, itself a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.
I personally find the D-R to be a seriously flawed translation, although I understand there is a newer version which I have not seen.
The RSV is not a bad translation – and is certainly more poetic than the NRSV, but I like the inclusive language – I am female, I have daughters, I want them to know that the Scriptures speak to them.
The psalms are also prayers, written by humans, to God. Can I pray the psalms? do I have to call myself a man to do so?
I appreciate that you might consider the NRSV ideologically driven, but ALL translations are ideologically driven. It just depends on which ideology you subscribe to. Some catholic translations are anti-semitic; some protestant translations are anti-catholic; nothing is the same as the original languages.
I don’t see anything wrong with having one version to pray from, a different one for liturgy, a third for study and another just to read.
I like Bibles.
And although ish does mean man, husband, it can also mean someone, one, and** each**. I think it refers to the male person OR to the individual person (as opposed to the human as a member of the category of humans).
I would have translated this as Happy is the one.
My first goal in translating (or judging a translation) is to see that the meaning of the Hebrew at the time it was written be maintained.
Psalm 8:5 in the Douay-Rhiems:
and 8:4 in the RSV:
Neither of these reflects the Hebrew which uses ish for the first “man” and adam (ben-adam) for the second “man.” To translate both ish and adam as “man” in the same verse is hardly reflecting what the author intended!!!
In the following verse, the D-R translates *elohim *as angels, while the RSV translates it as God! Are both correct?
The psalms are poetry, and Hebrew poetry uses few words to say a great many things. Translations are bound to vary. Interpretations abound.
I seem to recall that the apostles (and maybe Paul too?) used the Septuagint, itself a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.
I personally find the D-R to be a seriously flawed translation, although I understand there is a newer version which I have not seen.
The RSV is not a bad translation – and is certainly more poetic than the NRSV, but I like the inclusive language – I am female, I have daughters, I want them to know that the Scriptures speak to them.
The psalms are also prayers, written by humans, to God. Can I pray the psalms? do I have to call myself a man to do so?
I appreciate that you might consider the NRSV ideologically driven, but ALL translations are ideologically driven. It just depends on which ideology you subscribe to. Some catholic translations are anti-semitic; some protestant translations are anti-catholic; nothing is the same as the original languages.
I don’t see anything wrong with having one version to pray from, a different one for liturgy, a third for study and another just to read.
I like Bibles.
L
lanceg
Guest
Tamilda,
I like Bibles too! I have several
Thanks for your patience in replying. I appreciate that you want the scriptures to speak to your daughters. It is important that it does.
Before I get started, the update of the Douay Rheims you refer to is the Confraternity Version. Only the New Testament is still in print, by Scepter Publishers, in the US. The Old Testament of the Confraternity version eventually evolved into the Old Testament text for the New American Bible. I think you will like it Tamilda, it is an excellent translation. You can buy the NT very cheap, brand new for only $10 US.
Back to our incluse language debate-
Inclusive language is appropriate when the original intent is inclusive. For example, the original RSV translated Ephesians 2:9 as that no man may boast; it is better translated, as it is in most other recent versions, “that no one will boast.”
And I can concede that it is perhaps appropriate to translate in the New Testament Greek *adelphoi *as *brothers and sisters *rather than simply brothers, even though *brothers *is a literal translation.
I am not sure I agree from your explanation that the DRV and RSV translations are inaccurate renderings, based on the information you provide here.
Again, key is the Church’s understanding of the text. The writer of Hebrews clearly sees Psalm 8:4[5] as a Christological text.
Also, the Eastern Christian tradition considers the Septuagint inspired in its own right. For the Byzantine Church, the Septuagint is the official text of the Old Testament, in the same way that the Latin Vulgate is for the Latin Church.
The Greek in the Septuagint reads thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, rather than God. Again, our faith tradition teaches us that is appropriate.
For example, take the celebrated text in Isaiah 7:14 “a Virgin shall conceive.” In the Hebrew, it is simply almah, a young woman of marraigable age. But in the Greek, it is parthenos, definitely Virgin, and Saint Matthew hangs his hat for the Virgin Birth in Matthew 1:23 on the Septuagint rendering of the Text.
Translations need to be accurate, and they also need to reflect the mind of the Church.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. You make good points. The NRSV has its virtues; but it is not an appropriate text for the liturgy of the church, since it does not reflect the mind of the Church as much as it should.
Blessings, Tamilda, :tiphat:
Lance
I like Bibles too! I have several
Thanks for your patience in replying. I appreciate that you want the scriptures to speak to your daughters. It is important that it does.
Before I get started, the update of the Douay Rheims you refer to is the Confraternity Version. Only the New Testament is still in print, by Scepter Publishers, in the US. The Old Testament of the Confraternity version eventually evolved into the Old Testament text for the New American Bible. I think you will like it Tamilda, it is an excellent translation. You can buy the NT very cheap, brand new for only $10 US.
Back to our incluse language debate-
Inclusive language is appropriate when the original intent is inclusive. For example, the original RSV translated Ephesians 2:9 as that no man may boast; it is better translated, as it is in most other recent versions, “that no one will boast.”
And I can concede that it is perhaps appropriate to translate in the New Testament Greek *adelphoi *as *brothers and sisters *rather than simply brothers, even though *brothers *is a literal translation.
I am not sure I agree from your explanation that the DRV and RSV translations are inaccurate renderings, based on the information you provide here.
Again, key is the Church’s understanding of the text. The writer of Hebrews clearly sees Psalm 8:4[5] as a Christological text.
Also, the Eastern Christian tradition considers the Septuagint inspired in its own right. For the Byzantine Church, the Septuagint is the official text of the Old Testament, in the same way that the Latin Vulgate is for the Latin Church.
The Greek in the Septuagint reads thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, rather than God. Again, our faith tradition teaches us that is appropriate.
For example, take the celebrated text in Isaiah 7:14 “a Virgin shall conceive.” In the Hebrew, it is simply almah, a young woman of marraigable age. But in the Greek, it is parthenos, definitely Virgin, and Saint Matthew hangs his hat for the Virgin Birth in Matthew 1:23 on the Septuagint rendering of the Text.
Translations need to be accurate, and they also need to reflect the mind of the Church.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. You make good points. The NRSV has its virtues; but it is not an appropriate text for the liturgy of the church, since it does not reflect the mind of the Church as much as it should.
Blessings, Tamilda, :tiphat:
Lance
L
lak611
Guest
We had a guest priest today at my parish. He is from India. I asked him what Bible translation is used for the lectionary in India. He told me it is the JB, the same as in England. He told me he likes it much better than the RNAB which he was stuck with using here.
M
Manfred
Guest
For the record, I merely cited the article to which Talmida makes mention here; the sentiments and opinions expressed by its author are NOT necessarily mine.
- Status