NAB & DR - Why the difference?

[Vico]

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

Ecclesiasticus Chapter 9:

The equivalent Sirach Chapter 9:

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

I’m confused - what’s going on here?

As another poster wrote, there is a difference in the Hebrew and Greek and Latin texts used. Here is a comparison of the KJV and the Douay and RSV, from Sirach 9:8.

*KJV (based upon the Hebrew), *Douay (based upon Latin Vulgate) 10/11 are not in KJV
K 8: Turn away thine eye from a beautiful woman, and look not upon another’s beauty; for many have been deceived by the beauty of a woman; for herewith love is kindled as a fire.
D 8 Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up, and gaze not about upon another’s beauty.
D 9 For many have perished by the beauty of a woman, and hereby lust is enkindled as a fire.
D 10 Every woman that is a harlot, shall be trodden upon as dung in the way.
D 11 Many, by admiring the beauty of another man’s wife, have become reprobate, for her conversation burneth as fire.

K 9: Sit not at all with another man’s wife, nor sit down with her in thine arms, and spend not thy money with her at the wine; lest thine heart incline unto her, and so through thy desire thou fall into destruction.
D 12 Sit not at all with another man’s wife, nor repose upon the bed with her:
D 13 And strive not with her over wine, lest thy heart decline towards her, and by thy blood thou fall into destruction.

RSV is like the KJV and D combined, verse 8 is like D 8/9, D11, and verse 9 like D12/13:

8 Turn away your eyes from a shapely woman, and do not look intently at beauty belonging to another; many have been misled by a woman’s beauty, and by it passion is kindled like a fire.
9 Never dine with another man’s wife, nor revel with her at wine; lest your heart turn aside to her, and in blood you be plunged into destruction.

This D10 verse does not appear in either the KJV or the RSV:

D 10 Every woman that is a harlot, shall be trodden upon as dung in the way.
Vulgate:
V 10 omnis mulier quae est fornicaria quasi stercus in via conculcatur

 

[po18guy]

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.

Is being immaculately conceived the only form that God’s grace takes?

Salvatore is 100% correct when he desires accuracy in scripture. In analyzing any given fact or set of circumstances, it is always good to look at the big picture. It is well known and documented among exorcists that the evil one and his demons do not touch upon Mary. regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?id=14318&se=364&ca=118&te=782 However, evil still detests her and so has devised a plan: dupe well-meaning humans into diminishing Mary’s status and importance. Thus, man is tricked into attempting what Satan fears to do. Examples? They are Legion, if I may use this analogy. Here is one: The New International Version (NIV) was commissioned by evangelicals in the 1960s and completed in the late 1970s, mostly because they did not agree with OT Messianic prophecy, or the portrayal of Mary in the RSV! They knowingly, and with an agenda, sought to diminish Mary’s role in salvation history, by re-interpreting (re-writing) scripture. I do not have an NIV, but if I did, I would burn it.

This is how heresy creeps in. Pope Paul VI said that “the smoke of Satan enters the Church through the fissures” speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=2879 The USCCB’s approval of the NAB, IMO, is just such an example. It is a highly modified, very worldly translation, offensive only in its attempt to avoid offense. Did Jesus worry about offending with the truth?

 

[Vico]

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?

It can be translated correctly in more than one way, but one has to understand the Greek to get the best understanding.

Greek *kharitoo (χαριτόω) means: *to grace, to favor, to exalt, the state of kharis.
Kharis is favor done without expectation of return. In the Greek classics, kharis is expressed in a reciprocal relationship with a God.

But Luke 1:38 uses Greek khaire kekharitomene, which was translated by Saint Jerome as Latin Ave gratia plena, “Hail, full of grace”, but Latin has fewer words in comparison with Ancient Greek, so Saint Jerome’s translation is closer to the words used for Saint Stephen in Acts, pleres kharitou "filled with kharis". Latin has no direct equivalent for kekharitomene, the perfect middle/passive participle of the verb kharitoo (χαριτόω), note the suffix ke- and ending -mene.

Perfect middle/passive participle: “You are now in a state which has resulted from being done in the past”

Pasive Voice: the subject is the recepient of the action.

Participle: “-ing” or “-ed” suffix, used like verb or noun.

Perfect Tense: action completed at at specific point of time in the past with results continuning in the present and in some contexts is permanent.