Is the NAB's Nation-wide Use Likely to Change?

[po18guy]

Certainly no theological distinctions might be read into “favored one” vs. “full of grace”

Even the KJV (2 Corinthians 2:10) has Paul forgiving sin “in the person of Christ” (in persona Christi, as do Catholic Priests), whereas the Catholic NAB has Paul forgiving “in the presence of Christ” Huh? How can you forgive sins out of the presence of Christ? This is an adoption of a clearly modern protestant translation, for the sake of ecumenism. For this reason, and various others, I cannot rely on the NAB. Oh, and those footnotes… :barf:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I cannot rely on the NAB.

Yet this is what our bishops give us here in the U.S.

I admit I have yet to understand why, nor have I had the urge to research the question, but my curiosity has now peaked …

 

[po18guy]

Yet this is what our bishops give us here in the U.S.

I admit I have yet to understand why, nor have I had the urge to research the question, but my curiosity has now peaked …

It took a government agency’s hostility toward the Church to awaken them and get them on the same page. Now that their attention is piqued, and now that real reform is underway in the Church, perhaps - perhaps - we can stop using an adaptation of a protestant translation! It is easier to demonstrate Catholic doctrine from the KJV than it is from the Church’s own NAB! George Orwell must have had something to say about this.

 

[ProVobis]

I think that one thing that can be forgotten in the translation controversy is copyright status. If another Bible translation that still retains copyright has a passage using particular words, you can’t just give exactly the same translation, even if you came up with it independently, because it would be plagiarism. So the plethora of modern Bible translations out there really presents a dilemma for would-be translators when it comes to faithfully rendering the text according to the original languages and according to Church beliefs.

I think you meant “can’t be forgotten.”

You expanded on my point made earlier. Also, technically, when quoting from a book (including the Bible) you need to stipulate which translation you’re quoting. Personally I think google violates this since many of its “translations” are from web searches, not necessarily the most literal, but I could be wrong.

Regrettably true, but how utterly ridiculous and ironic. As if people aren’t going to buy Bibles, the best selling book in the history of mankind, and as if the Word of God should be reduced to a profit margin analysis. Put this one at or near the top of the “sad but true” list.

Maybe St. Thomas More had a point about English translations?

 

[JM3]

For me, an update of the Douay-Rheims would be preferred.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

I think that one thing that can be forgotten in the translation controversy is copyright status. If another Bible translation that still retains copyright has a passage using particular words, you can’t just give exactly the same translation, even if you came up with it independently, because it would be plagiarism.

This is one of the reasons that so many people trust the KVJ: the translators were not hampered by copyright restrictions and were free to use the best English words for the Hebrew and Greek instead of trying to come up with approximate substitutions in order to comply with copyright laws.

Since the KJV is not protected by copyright laws (except in the U.K., so I’ve heard) there have been several modern Protestant translations based on it.

Couldn’t we also use it as a base and come up with a great Catholic Bible that reflects the latest archaeological discoveries and Biblical scholarship and still retains the best English word choices?

 

[ProVobis]

Couldn’t we also use it as a base and come up with a great Catholic Bible that reflects the latest archaeological discoveries and Biblical scholarship and still retains the best English word choices?

The theory is that the best word choices are already there in the Vulgate.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The theory is that the best word choices are already there in the Vulgate.

But would that not be translation through translation? And would not the Vulgate express meaning based on 4th/5th century norms?

 

[ProVobis]

But would that not be translation through translation? And would not the Vulgate express meaning based on 4th/5th century norms?

What about the New Vulgate then? I’m sure the Church carefully chose those words for everyone, not just the Anglophones.

 

[buzzoff1031]

The question as to whether the lectionary is likely to be based on another translation the the NAB is negative. I, however, happen to like the NABRE (maybe I’m dumb for that). I’ve read about about some of the “theological issues.” in regards to this translation, but I like it nonetheless. I mean, aren’t we, as Catholics, to be tempering our interpretations of scripture with what Holy Mother Church teaches us anyway? So if we, in the course of reading our terrible NABRE translation, have a doctrinal question that comes up, we can check a number of sources to find out what the church teaches on the matter.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

What about the New Vulgate then? I’m sure the Church carefully chose those words for everyone, not just the Anglophones.

Sure, but it is still translation of translation, no?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What translation on planet Earth isn’t a translation of a translation?

Just because ANY text is in one of the original languages doesn’t mean that it isn’t a translation unless you have the original autograph written by the writer himself!

What if Matthew writes Matthew in Aramaic and then translates his own Aramaic later into Greek?

Is his translation a translation of a translation?

Just because Modern scripture scholar clowns make translation choices from original language text varients does not mean in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER that those choices are inherently better!

Which is why REALLY the Holy See itself should appoint the translators and OK every single word line by line of the whole bible.

They wouldn’t have to say that what they came up with was perfect–just that it wasn’t AGAINST faith and morals.

And then if clown modern scriptural scholars wanted to come up with THEIR translations–go ahead and go for it!

Something tells me that few REAL CATHOLICS would care!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

What if Matthew writes Matthew in Aramaic and then translates his own Aramaic later into Greek?

At least that wuld be coming from the same mind and soul.

Just because Modern scripture “scholars”] make translation choices from original language text varients does not mean in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER that those choices are inherently better!

Agreed! Translation is inherently subjective.

In the old days, monks used to pray for days on end before attempting to scribe reproductions of Holy Scripture.

Even modern iconographers will study and pray in preparation for writing a particular icon, seeking guidance and wisdom in order to render a faithful portrayal.

How many purely scholarly translators do you think actually prepare spiritually for this endeavor? Not to say that some don’t, especially religious and clergy who may be so trained, but faithful translation does require inspiration and a modicum of divine intervention. It also requires one to set aside any objectives other than a faithful conveyance of the original text.