Judith 13:23-31

[Fidelis]

Similarly, the introduction to Judith in the Navarre Bible Commentary (which uses the RSV-CE) says:

The extant manuscripts are in Greek and are thought to be a translation of an original Semitic text (Hebrew or Aramaic). Some translations, such as the old translation into Latin (the Vetus Latina) and the Syriac, derive from the Greek (as does the RSV). St. Jerome’s Vulgate seems to have been a revision of earlier Latin translations made with an eye on an Aramaic text. (Navarre Bible Commentary: Judith, page 345)

It also notes on page 347 that:

…In the Divine Office some passages which sing of this Jewish heroine are applied to the Blessed Virgin (cf. 13:18-20; 15:9).

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fidelis:

If the Vulgate is based on a different manuscript than that used in the NAB (and possibly other translations), this might explain some variances.

Right; I am quite sure that this explains the discrepancy (in the sense of an account of how it came to be). I am sure you will agree, however, that this is not much of an excuse for leaving out passages that the Church claims as Holy Scripture.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Joe Kelley:

The verses in the NAB seem to be more finely divided than in DR, e.g. verse 2 DR is verse 2,3,&4 in NAB. It’s quite a garble but I think the text is all there.

I hope that I do not sound like an irritable crank when I say this, but the text is not all there. To prove this to yourself, I recommend the following experiment. Here is the chapter in question from the Douay-Rheims; here is the identical chapter from the New American. Print them both out, and lay them on the table side by side. Ignoring the numbers, start reading the NAB version, and cross out the corresponding text on the DR page (remember, “amen” is Hebrew for “so be it,” so when the NAB has the people crying “amen,” this corresponds to the DR verse where the people cry “so be it”). If I am right, then there will be something left uncrossed when you finish; if I am wrong, then there will be no DR text which is not crossed out.

 

[campion]

GrzeszDeL:

I hope that I do not sound like an irritable crank when I say this, but the text is not all there. To prove this to yourself, I recommend the following experiment. Here is the chapter in question from the Douay-Rheims; here is the identical chapter from the New American. Print them both out, and lay them on the table side by side. Ignoring the numbers, start reading the NAB version, and cross out the corresponding text on the DR page (remember, “amen” is Hebrew for “so be it,” so when the NAB has the people crying “amen,” this corresponds to the DR verse where the people cry “so be it”). If I am right, then there will be something left uncrossed when you finish; if I am wrong, then there will be no DR text which is not crossed out.

And the result???

 

[GrzeszDeL]

campion:

And the result???

The result is that the NAB is missing a chunk of the text. Do not take my word for it, however; I gave the citations so that you could print out the page and do the experiment for yourself. Go to it and see if I am not right about this.