New American Bible (NAB) use of "highly favored one" vs. "full of grace"?

[Eddy]

I don’t think there’s one ‘good’ translation and I find the idea of judging a Bible translation purely by one verse in Luke very strange indeed.

I’m no Greek scholar, but I have studied Greek, and exegesis. On one occassion we spent 12 hours going through John 1:1-18, comparing the Greek against 8 different translations. The incredible thing is that every translation, except the New Living Translation won as a ‘best’ translation for at least one verse. I spent some time with a passage from Ephesians 4 last year, and, having spent several hours labouring with the Greek, I then went to the NIV, the NRSV, the NJB, the JB and the Message. And The Message was the only one that gave an accurate sense of what the Greek seemed to be saying.

I love the story told of Eugene Peterson (who translated the message) being asked at a conference, by some folk trying to pin down his theology, which Bible version he used. He smiled and said ‘the Greek of course’. You can’t/shouldn’t be choosing a translation for how well it ‘fits’ with your theology surely. Surely you should choose a translation for how accurate it seems to be against the original Hebrew/Greek, and then allowing that to shape your theology?

I would dearly love to be able to afford this bibleworks.com/
but it’s beyond my finances at the moment.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Wake me up whenver you disvcover the original Greek text–until then you have to make choices–what’s wrong with the choices that the Vulgate made?

Unless the Catholic Church tells you that the Vulgate made a bad choice at this or that spot–with what authority can you claim any alternate renderings for the Greek text?

Who cares what any blbilical scholar’s opinion is about anything?

St. Jerome was wrong about the deuterocanonicals and he was about the best translator there was in ancient times–which just goes to illustrate that it is the Catholic Church and its magisterium–the bishops united with the pope and not anyone else who must claim priority whenever it comes to bliblical translation.

Since there is no official Catholic Church Text the Nova Vulgata has more support for its renderings than any other text I can think of. Can anyone list a more endorsed or favored text than it when it comes to doctrinal matters?

Is the witness of the Latin Vulgate over many centuries not superior to the Guesstimates of modern biblical translations over the last 100 years?

If you had to bet your soul on one or the other–which would you choose?

 

[Dr_M]

The NAT was not a typo on my part. It’s my nickname for the New American Bible, the New American Tragedy. for it’s rendering of St. Luke 1, 28, and some of the herodoxal footnotes.

 

[Dr_M]

You’re thinking of 2 Tess 2:15.

thanks for the correction , that was a typo.

 

[alih]

if my memory serves me correctly, i do believe that the imprimature for the n.a.b. was rescinded for liturgical use but was okayed in part for bible study. (pope john-paul ii).
the motu proprio “praestantia scripturae sacrae” by pope st. pius x, excommunicates those should “be so rash as to defend any one of these propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter " docentes” of the “apostolicae sedis” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae…"
this entire document can be found using the search engine provided on the vatican website. have a good year. (alih)

 

[Brian_C]

I’ve just been in an email conversation with a PhD priest who runs my diocese’s adult formation programs on this subject. He said if he had to be on a desert isle with one translation, it would be the RSV-CE and that it is what all his professors used save one in his seminary and graduate training (including Notre Dame). However, he stated he wasn’t sure why there was so much fuss over the NAB…Ahem, one of our former bishops was chair of the committee that oversaw the NAB.

 

[Dr_M]

The NAB was approved for lectionary purposes (granted after Rome practically re did it)

 

[alih]

and when pope john-paul ii desired to have professors in catholic colleges, such as notre dame, mandated to teach dogmatic catholicism, father hesberg (sp?) balked. have a good year. (alih)

 

[Brendan]

The NAB was approved for lectionary purposes (granted after Rome practically re did it)

Including changing Luke 1:28 to “full of Grace”

 

[NoelFitz]

I read with amazement and horror what a Senior Members (JerryJet) wrote:

Who cares what any blbilical scholar’s opinion is about anything?

What scholars say about the Bible are vital, whether they are blbilical or not.

They stick to the texts and explain them in the light of almost 2000 years of study. I am reading a book at present, Jesus of Nazareth, by one of the foremost Catholic Biblical scholars, Prof Joseph Ratzinger. I care about what he says.

Are your views the accepted ones in CAF? If so, am I in the wrong place?

 

[porthos11]

They stick to the texts and explain them in the light of almost 2000 years of study. I am reading a book at present, Jesus of Nazareth, by one of the foremost Catholic Biblical scholars, Prof Joseph Ratzinger. I care about what he says.

Um, you are aware that Prof. Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, aren’t you?

Are your views the accepted ones in CAF? If so, am I in the wrong place?

Don’t worry, such views are the minority. Most level-headed posters here maintain open minds about the strengths and weaknesses of various translations. According to past polls, the RSV-CE is the favorite among most of the posters here, while most also love the Douay-Rheims.

Just keep in mind that just because a person is a Biblical scholar doesn’t necessarily mean he is completely faithful to the Magisterium or to the principles laid down by Rome.

 

[NoelFitz]

Porthos11

You wrote:

you are aware that Prof. Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, aren’t you?

The point I was making is that I have time for Prof R, aka B XVI.

He wrote:

…this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, bur is solely an expression of my personal search…Everyone is free then to contradict me. (J of N p.xxiii & xxiv)

You also wrote:

Just keep in mind that just because a person is a Biblical scholar doesn’t necessarily mean he is completely faithful to the Magisterium or to the principles laid down by Rome.

I would add:

Just keep in mind that just because a person is a Biblical scholar doesn’t necessarily mean he is NOT completely faithful to the Magisterium or to the principles laid down by Rome.

 

[porthos11]

Porthos11

You wrote:

you are aware that Prof. Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, aren’t you?

The point I was making is that I have time for Prof R, aka B XVI.

Just making sure.

Just keep in mind that just because a person is a Biblical scholar doesn’t necessarily mean he is NOT completely faithful to the Magisterium or to the principles laid down by Rome.

That is also true. This means know your faith so that you can identify, er, not-so-good scholars.

In any case, most of us here are supportive of sound Biblical scholarship. For me and others like Manfred, the two key documents that we use as standards are Divino Afflante Spiritu and Liturgiam Authenticam. You might want to check these two out.

 

[NoelFitz]

Porthos11

Many thanks!

I am not so interested in Liturgicam Authenticam, I have only skimmed through it.

I would like to spend the little time I have left studying the Bible itself (not quite Sola Scriptura).

I have glanced at Papal documents including:

*Providentissimus Deus (Leo XIII 1893)
Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pius XII 1943)
Humani Generis (Pius XII1950)
Dei Verbum (Paul VI 1965)
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (PBC 1993)
The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (PBC 2002).
*
There is a good list of Catholic Church Documents related to Biblical Studies at catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/.

It amazes me that Catholic Biblical scholarship is so recent.

 

[porthos11]

Porthos11

Many thanks!

I am not so interested in Liturgicam Authenticam, I have only skimmed through it.

I would like to spend the little time I have left studying the Bible itself (not quite Sola Scriptura).

I have glanced at Papal documents including:

*Providentissimus Deus (Leo XIII 1893)
Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pius XII 1943)
Humani Generis (Pius XII1950)
Dei Verbum (Paul VI 1965)
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (PBC 1993)
The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (PBC 2002).
*
There is a good list of Catholic Church Documents related to Biblical Studies at catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/.

It amazes me that Catholic Biblical scholarship is so recent.

What do you mean, little time left? Don’t talk like that :crying:

Oh, you don’t need to read all of Liturgiam Authenticam, just the sections that pertain to Scripture translations. Just focus on paragraphs 34 to 45.

 

[Manfred]

Porthos11

Many thanks!

I am not so interested in Liturgicam Authenticam, I have only skimmed through it.

I would like to spend the little time I have left studying the Bible itself (not quite Sola Scriptura).

I have glanced at Papal documents including:

*Providentissimus Deus (Leo XIII 1893)
Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pius XII 1943)
Humani Generis (Pius XII1950)
Dei Verbum (Paul VI 1965)
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (PBC 1993)
The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (PBC 2002).
*
There is a good list of Catholic Church Documents related to Biblical Studies at catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/.

It amazes me that Catholic Biblical scholarship is so recent.

Noel,

“…little time left…”??? That makes some of us worry.

There’s also another good Vatican document “On the Historicity of the Gospels” (1964). Try ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM.

 

[NoelFitz]

Manfred

Thank you for your post:

I note:

*At an audience graciously granted to the undersigned Secretary on April 21, 1964, His Holiness Pope Paul II approved this Instruction and ordered its publication.

Benjamin N. Wainbacq, O. Praem.
Secretary.
Rome, April 21, 1964.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM.*

With all humility, not calling infallibility in question, I disagree.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has:

Pope Paul II(PIETRO BARBO) Born at Venice, 1417; elected 30 August, 1464; died 26 July, 1471.

 

[porthos11]

Manfred

Thank you for your post:

I note:

*At an audience graciously granted to the undersigned Secretary on April 21, 1964, His Holiness Pope Paul II approved this Instruction and ordered its publication.

Benjamin N. Wainbacq, O. Praem.
Secretary.
Rome, April 21, 1964.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM*.

With all humility, not calling infallibility in question, I disagree.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has:

Pope Paul II(PIETRO BARBO) Born at Venice, 1417; elected 30 August, 1464; died 26 July, 1471.

Heh heh. Well EWTN is not infallible. I think they mean Paul VI.

 

[Manfred]

Heh heh. Well EWTN is not infallible. I think they mean Paul VI.

Thanks, porthos; I missed that (probably a typo, anyway).