NAB & DR - Why the difference?

[bobolink]

One verse of Scripture appears very different between the New American Bible and The Douay Rheims Bible.

Ecclesiasticus Chapter 9:

[6] Give not thy soul to harlots in any point: lest thou destroy thyself and thy inheritance. [7] Look not round about thee in the ways of the city, nor wander up and down in the streets thereof. [8] Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up, and gaze not about upon another’s beauty. [9] For many have perished by the beauty of a woman, and hereby lust is enkindled as a fire. [10] Every woman that is a harlot, shall be trodden upon as dung in the way.

The equivalent Sirach Chapter 9:

6
Give not yourself to harlots, lest you surrender your inheritance.
7
Gaze not about the lanes of the city and wander not through its squares;
8
Avert your eyes from a comely woman; gaze not upon the beauty of another’s wife-- Through woman’s beauty many perish, for lust for it burns like fire.
9
With a married woman dine not, recline not at table to drink by her side, Lest your heart be drawn to her and you go down in blood to the grave.
10
Discard not an old friend, for the new one cannot equal him. A new friend is like new wine which you drink with pleasure only when it has aged.

Links here:
drbo.org/chapter/26009.htm
usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach9.htm

I’m confused - what’s going on here?

 

[atassina]

To my limited mind, it seems the author is saying do not lust. The way to avoid lusting after any woman (or man) is not to stare at her and imagine her as a tool to be used by you.

Like knowing your wife after a period of time, a man does not become your friend until after time has passed.

 

[Apollos]

9:9-13 in the DR appear to be an insertion into the text (note that the texts line up again in verse 14 of the DR and verse 10 of the NAB). Sirach was originally written in Hebrew, translated into Greek, and then into Latin. In the mean time, the original Hebrew version fell into disuse and the Greek and Latin versions seem to have been subject to some variation. The Hebrew Sirach was rediscovered in the last century or so, and modern versions are based on whatever Hebrew fragments are currently known. Hence the DR, which is based on the Latin, has the insertion, while the NAB, based on the Hebrew, does not. This is not a translation problem, but a textual problem.

If you really want to make your head spin, compare the DR and NAB versions of Tobit.

 

[Salvatore123]

I do not mean to hijack this thread - but perhaps this is yet another reason why I started a thread suggesting that Rome producing an “official” biblical text (along the lines that have been subjected and discussed in that thread) . . . to give ALL Catholics (and even other Christians) a “go to” Bible when definitive study/catechesis is needed . . .

 

[Apollos]

I do not mean to hijack this thread - but perhaps this is yet another reason why I started a thread suggesting that Rome producing an “official” biblical text (along the lines that have been subjected and discussed in that thread) . . . to give ALL Catholics (and even other Christians) a “go to” Bible when definitive study/catechesis is needed . . .

What’s wrong with critical editions that discuss textual issues in their notes?

 

[bobolink]

I thought perhaps the NAB had been ‘politically corrected’. Hmm…

 

[Salvatore123]

Apollos,

I don’t quite understand your question . . .

If you are asking why not keep the NAB and just “deal with issues” in the margins - my response is that I don’t think Catholics should have to explain why we use a Bible for our official missals in the US that deletes all references to the Blessed Mother as “full of grace” and instead says “Hail oh favored one” or other such nonsense.

Good grief (again - NOT aimed at you) - we Catholics have a difficult enough time walking around with a target painted on our backs and when we argue the Immaculate Conception, we cannot even use the Bible text of that approved in the US to support our argument.

How much sense does THAT make?

Do I deny the Immaculate Conception? Of course not. Would I believe it regardless of what the NAB said? Of course - my church infallibly taught it, so I believe it.

My issue is that I have to defend TWO things instead of one: (1) the Immaculate Conception WAS infallibly taught by the Church, and is thus a dogma, and (2) “hold on Mr. Protestant - wait until I find the “right” bible to give me biblical support for that dogma”.

It is fine to argue dogma with fellow Catholics - it is quite another to argue dogma when a non-Catholic has little or no respect for anything not supported by the Bible. I realize ALL dogmas are not explicitly supported by the Bible - any bible - but geez, one would think that the bible providing text for US missals would say “full of grace” instead of a watered-down protestant version of “hail oh favored one”.

As I said in my own thread about an “official bible” (which the Church recognized for almost 1000 years, and then followed another for almost 500 more years), if a man (St. Jerome) can sit IN A CAVE and produce an entire Bible that is used “officially” for a thousand years, I think biblical study and archaeology has come far enough (especially with the discovery of many scripts at Qumran, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls) for the Church to produce an “official” text that can be seen as the “go to” Bible in the event of differences of opinion on texts.

If Challoner, Haydock, and Knox can provide commentaries in “private”, why can’t the Catholic Church produce one with OFFICIAL commentary that discusses areas of possible “dispute” or “different interpretation”?

 

[Apollos]

Salvatore,

You were asking for something like a “final version” of every book of the Bible in which all textual issues would be addressed. That sounds like a critical edition, and as far as I know these already exist for every book. The problem, though, is that they are updated whenever we find something new, so it would seem imprudent for the Church to designate an “official Bible”. How embarrassing if we find another Qumran!

As far as Mary is concerned, how is “χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ” the same as “πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας” and “πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως”? Doesn’t κεχαριτωμένη itself imply that she was immaculately conceived, or would you rather have an English Bible that says, “Hello, Immaculate Conception”?

 

[Salvatore123]

Apollos,

We followed St. Jerome’s Vulgate from the 400’s to the 1500’s, and the Duoay Rheims from the 1500’s until the the 1900’s, another 400 years.

I see nothing that has been found by way of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls that should make us embarrassed. On the contrary, I think that biblical archaeology has actually proven that the Septuagint was more “dead on accurate” than anyone ever gave it credit. Very little does not match up to the Septuagint. In fact, it is the Masoretic OT text that is sucumbing to ancient manuscripts showing many errors in it.

I would be that had Jesus’s followers NOT been as successful as they became at converting Jews and Gentiles to Christianity using the Septuagint, the Israelites would have never thought to create a Masoretic text.

Let’s face it: the Masoretic text was born mostly out of pride - pride that blinded the Jews from using a perfectly acceptable and accurate OT text such that they simply decided they were not going to use the same text to teach their young as Christians, where that text was also using to convert thousands and thousands to Christianity.

I guess a part of me understands the “logic” of their position (I understand it - I dont’ subscribe to it): Why should we Jews, the chosen people, teach our young in an effort to keep our faith strong and vibrant, by using a text that (1) was also being used to “take away” Jews from our midst, and (2) that was used by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, people whom we consider to be false and not worthy of devotion to any degree.

Thus - the Masoretic text is born.

 

[Salvatore123]

"Apollos,

To answer your question: I would like to have a bible with Luke saying: “Hail, full of grace”

 

[Apollos]

"Apollos,

To answer your question: I would like to have a bible with Luke saying: “Hail, full of grace”

Luke 1:28, “full of grace”, check.

How would John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 read? Are Jesus and Stephen also full of grace, and therefore immaculately conceived?

Look, I’m not being contentious, I’m just emphasizing that translations are kind of relative.

 

[ERose]

Luke 1:28, “full of grace”, check.

How would John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 read? Are Jesus and Stephen also full of grace, and therefore immaculately conceived?

Look, I’m not being contentious, I’m just emphasizing that translations are kind of relative.

Apollo, I have to agree with Salvatore on this one. And you hit nail on the head about translations be relative. We all know that the NAB has issues. If it didn’t then its text wouldn’t have to be altered to be used in our missals. When this happens the red flags go up in my mind that this is not a good translation to use. So for me I have to resort to a Bible translated a few hundred years ago for a decent translation. That shouldn’t be in my opinion.

Also the problem with evaluating a text to every old piece of paper that looks like one of the books of the Bible was written on it is that how do we not know that it was altered by a heretic to support their claims?

One of the biggest gripes I have with modern bibles is the elimination of John 5:7. On what grounds? Because a few old docuements do not have John 5:7 in them we just wipe it out of the bible and forget about it? That is dumb and stupid. Everyone knows that there were plenty of heresies back in the day that would have contested this verse because it explicitly calls out the Trinity. How do you know that the document you have was not altered by a heretic? You don’t. So why eliminate it? Because you are not sure?
That is stupid on all accounts in my opinion. There is enough evidence to show that it was part of our biblical tradition through the Fathers yet this is ignored.

All new translations, even Catholic ones, have eliminated this verse from our Bibles. Just a sign that you cannot trust modern scholarship any longer.

The church can go a long way by generating a universal Bible where all translations must be compared to that Bible. We did it for the catechism why can’t we do it for our Bibles?

 

[nada122]

Luke 1:28, “full of grace”, check.

How would John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 read? Are Jesus and Stephen also full of grace, and therefore immaculately conceived?

Apollos,

First, are you trying to say that Stephen is also full of grace? From what I know, in the original Greek of Luke, the word used in that greeting to Mary was the Greek word Kecharitomene. Does this word was used also to refer to Stephen in any part of the Bible? If so, please present the Greek verse but please use English alphabet as I don’t understand Greek alphabet.

As far as I know, Kecharitomene means "You who have been perfected in grace", this is the participle of the Greek verb charis in past-perfect tense which in the subject of human existence is before conception. Mary was perfected in grace before her creation. Kecharitomene has a fuller description, it means "The One Most Full of God’s Gracious Gift of His Life." St. Jerome translated this word to Latin as Gratia Plena "full of grace."

Secondly, it seems that you are not denying the Dogma of Immaculate Conception directly but you did indirectly. The Solemn Definition of the Dogma has the Divine Maternity for the supreme reason of the privilege but the foundation of the Solemn Definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in rests on that greeting to Mary:

“When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[Luke 1:28] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom “he who is mighty has done great things,” was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God – indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory.” (Pius IX’s Apostolic Constitution solemnly defining the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854)

In connection with these, the Doctors of the Church in referring to that greeting has written what follows in my next post:

 

[nada122]

In connection with my last post, the Doctors of the Church in referring to that greeting as a foundation of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception wrote:

St. Alphonsus Liguori "Glories of Mary":
Hence it is that the angel, before she became the Mother of God, already found her full of grace, and thus saluted her, Hail, full of grace; on which words Saint Sophronius writes, that "grace is given partially to other saints, but to the Blessed Virgin all was given" (“Bene ‘Plena,’ quia caeteris per partes praestatur, Mariae vero simul se tota infudit plenitude gratiae”—De Assumpt.). So much so, says Saint Thomas, that “grace not only rendered the soul, but even the flesh of Mary holy, so that this Blessed Virgin might be able to clothe the Eternal Word with it” - (“Anima Beatae Virginis ita fuit plena, quod ex ea refudit gratia in carnem, ut de ipsa conciperet Deum”—Exp. In Sal. Ang.). Now all this leads us to the conclusion that Mary, from the moment of her conception, was enriched and filled with divine grace by the Holy Ghost, as Peter of Celles remarks, *“the plenitude of grace was in her; for from the very moment of her conception the whole grace of the divinity overflowed upon her, by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost” *- (“Simul in ea collecta est gratiae plenitude, quia ab exordio suae conceptionis, aspersione Spiritus Sancti, tota Deitatis gratia est superfusa”—De Pan. c. 12). Hence Saint Peter Damian says, “that the Holy Spirit was about to bear her off entirely to Himself, who was chosen and pre-elected by God” - (“A Deo electam et praeelectam, totam eam rapturus erat sibi Spiritus Sanctus” - De Annunt.). The saint says “to bear her off”, to denote the holy velocity of the divine Spirit in being beforehand in making this Spouse His own before Lucifer should take possession of her.

St. Augustine on the words "Hail, full of grace", says:
“By these words the angel shows that she was altogether [remark the word ‘altogether’] excluded from the wrath of the first sentence, and restored to the full grace of blessing” - (“Ave ‘gratia plena!’ Quibus verbis ostendit ex integro iram exclusam primae sententiae, et plenam benedictionis gratiam restitutam”—Serm. 123, E. B. app.).

Saint Bonaventure:
“that our Sovereign Lady was full of preventing grace for her sanctification; that is, preservative grace against the corruption of original sin” - (“Domina nostra fuit plena gratia praeveniente in sua sanctificatione, gratis scilicet praeservativa contra foeditatem originalis culpae”—De B. V. s. 2).

 

[Apollos]

Apollos,

First, are you trying to say that Stephen is also full of grace? From what I know, in the original Greek of Luke, the word used in that greeting to Mary was the Greek word Kecharitomene. Does this word was used also to refer to Stephen in any part of the Bible? If so, please present the Greek verse but please use English alphabet as I don’t understand Greek alphabet.

As far as I know, Kecharitomene means "You who have been perfected in grace", this is the participle of the Greek verb charis in past-perfect tense which in the subject of human existence is before conception. Mary was perfected in grace before her creation. Kecharitomene has a fuller description, it means "The One Most Full of God’s Gracious Gift of His Life." St. Jerome translated this word to Latin as Gratia Plena "full of grace."

Secondly, it seems that you are not denying the Dogma of Immaculate Conception directly but you did indirectly. The Solemn Definition of the Dogma has the Divine Maternity for the supreme reason of the privilege but the foundation of the Solemn Definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in rests on that greeting to Mary: …]

In connection with these, the Doctors of the Church in referring to that greeting has written what follows in my next post:

No, I’m saying when your theology dictates your translation you get paradoxes. Salvatore wants to translate Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” because he wants it to say that Mary was immaculately conceived. But John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 say that Jesus and Stephen were “full of grace”, but with a different phrase, pleres charitos. So if Mary is immaculately conceived because she is “full of grace”, then Jesus and Stephen must be immaculately conceived because they are “full of grace” too.

I’m not denying the immaculate conception and I’m not saying Stephen was immaculately conceived. Just because I say someone else is wrong doesn’t automatically mean I believe the opposite.

 

[Salvatore123]

Apollos,

I do NOT want Luke to read “full of grace” because I want Mary Immaculately Conceived (which occurred regardless of what the translation you look to says). I want it to say that BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE ARCHANGEL GABRIEL SAID!!!

If Gabriel did NOT say that, then by all means - please correct all references in all bibles that say Mary was full of grace.

But good grief - if the original said “full of grace”, why in the world are we tinkering with the Word of God, especially on so important a point of theology?

Does it not seem illogical and absurd to you that we, in America, follow a bible translation that does not reflect what was actually told to the Blessed Mother?

I simply find that incredible and ridiculous,

My argument is not with you - it is with the USCCB for allowing such nonsense.

You would think, by now, after having been embarrassed by Rome several times on their ICEL work, the USCCB would get the point. Apparently, they do not.

I kid you not - I am CONVINCED there are bishops in the US who were dismayed when Ratzinger was elected Holy Father - convinced!

As I said in my own thread about an official bible, when the bishops start being permissive with God’s word, they become permissive about other things.

I know first hand - I am from Acadiana in Louisiana. This is “ground zero”, the first site where a US priest was the FIRST EVER IN CHURCH HISTORY to be sued for abuse of a minor. To see how this man was passed around from diocese to diocese makes one ill.
The bishops in America hardly have much moral authority right now, considering what they did with the sex scandals across the entire continent.

I will say it again - when we become permissive with the Word of God and then just pass it off as “it is not that big of a deal”, then Lord have mercy on us. Everything else is then up for grabs.

Although I accept Vatican II, I accept as valid all popes since John XXIII, and I accept the Novus Ordo as valid (although I attend a Summorum Pontificum 1962 Mass each Sunday), I have yet to see ANYTHING good come about from the changes wrought by the clerics in the Church in the mid-1960’s/early 1970’s. I was an altar boy before and after the Novus Ordo, and I saw the profound changes that took place.

Go to Youtube and search for where a BISHOP refused - REFUSED - to give Holy Communion to an older woman who kneeled to receive. How dare a man in his position refuse to give communion to a woman who was showing the utmost respect for God’s body and blood. And yet I would bet my HOUSE he would readily give communion to every heretic Catholic in Congress who voted to allow a baby’s head to be puncture by scissors and his brains sucked out.

 

[Apollos]

Apollos,

I do NOT want Luke to read “full of grace”…

Sounds like the “full of grace” issue is just one star in a big constellation.

 

[Salvatore123]

Apollos, you said:

“Salvatore wants to translate Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” because he wants it to say that Mary was immaculately conceived.”

That is NOT why I want Luke translated as “full of grace”. I want it translated that way because that is how Gabriel said it. As the other poster said, it is PRECISELY because of that greeting that the Church meditated, thought, and eventually dogmatically proclaimed Mary was immaculately conceived.

I just don’t get how the USSCB can choose a translation that does not reflect the basis of one of our most blessed dogmas.

Let’s call it for what it is - THEY CHANGED THE WORD OF GOD!

Is that not what Protestants did in the 1500 and 1600’s?

 

[Apollos]

I want it translated that way because that is how Gabriel said it.

I would translate it “Hello Superfavored! The Lord is with you”. So there.

 

[KShaft]

Apollos,

I do NOT want Luke to read “full of grace” because I want Mary Immaculately Conceived (which occurred regardless of what the translation you look to says). I want it to say that BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE ARCHANGEL GABRIEL SAID!!!

If Gabriel did NOT say that, then by all means - please correct all references in all bibles that say Mary was full of grace.

But good grief - if the original said “full of grace”, why in the world are we tinkering with the Word of God, especially on so important a point of theology?

Does it not seem illogical and absurd to you that we, in America, follow a bible translation that does not reflect what was actually told to the Blessed Mother?

I simply find that incredible and ridiculous,

My argument is not with you - it is with the USCCB for allowing such nonsense.

You would think, by now, after having been embarrassed by Rome several times on their ICEL work, the USCCB would get the point. Apparently, they do not.

I kid you not - I am CONVINCED there are bishops in the US who were dismayed when Ratzinger was elected Holy Father - convinced!

As I said in my own thread about an official bible, when the bishops start being permissive with God’s word, they become permissive about other things.

I know first hand - I am from Acadiana in Louisiana. This is “ground zero”, the first site where a US priest was the FIRST EVER IN CHURCH HISTORY to be sued for abuse of a minor. To see how this man was passed around from diocese to diocese makes one ill.
The bishops in America hardly have much moral authority right now, considering what they did with the sex scandals across the entire continent.

I will say it again - when we become permissive with the Word of God and then just pass it off as “it is not that big of a deal”, then Lord have mercy on us. Everything else is then up for grabs.

Although I accept Vatican II, I accept as valid all popes since John XXIII, and I accept the Novus Ordo as valid (although I attend a Summorum Pontificum 1962 Mass each Sunday), I have yet to see ANYTHING good come about from the changes wrought by the clerics in the Church in the mid-1960’s/early 1970’s. I was an altar boy before and after the Novus Ordo, and I saw the profound changes that took place.

Go to Youtube and search for where a BISHOP refused - REFUSED - to give Holy Communion to an older woman who kneeled to receive. How dare a man in his position refuse to give communion to a woman who was showing the utmost respect for God’s body and blood. And yet I would bet my HOUSE he would readily give communion to every heretic Catholic in Congress who voted to allow a baby’s head to be puncture by scissors and his brains sucked out.

Amen sir.

We now know scripture, didn’t say what they thought it said 2000 years ago, and what was good is now evil and what was evil is now good. Apathy(tolerance of evils such as tyranny and murderous regimes because it is ‘none of our business…’ and other sinful behavior individually) , fornication, homosexuality, artificial birth control, abortions, indulgence without guilt, defaming and slander, a lack of consideration for your fellow man, etc… Its in now. So we need to justify this somehow so people wont think were mean and not with the times. Change what Scripture says or confuse it to obscure the meaning! So people in the church are doing the same thing secularists try to do. And guess who did it before them;? heretics, namely protestants. Benedict is right that the worst enemies are from within.