M
Mike1w
Guest
Is this a sound version of the Bible. Please forgive any apparent ignorance.
- Status
Is this a sound version of the Bible. Please forgive any apparent ignorance.
C
chrisjb
Guest
Yes I used it all the time. It is the same as the print edition, but in online format, but with all notes and cross references and hyperlinked. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.
N
normdplume
Guest
You can also access the NABRE Bible at biblegateway.com. It supports access to most versions of the Bible (e.g., NRSVCE, the Bible recommended for Canadian Catholics) in case you want compare passages. You can also search for specific phrases or books in the Bible using the search field at the top. Be sure you select your preferred version of the Bible from the pick list at the top. You can read entire chapters or books by clicking the forward and back links at the bottom of the screen. To avoid endless scrolling to get to the bottom of each page, simply hit the End button on your keyboard.
U
UpUpAndAway
Guest
It would be illogical for the US bishops conference to put a version of the Bible that isn’t “sound” on their Web site. Be at peace. 
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
The biggest complaint about the NAB(RE) are the notes, but not the translation.
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
This is the source translation (more or less) for the Mass readings in the US. Why wouldn’t it be sound?
D
Dovekin
Guest
It made sense to St Luke when he wrote it that way, so I don’t see why we should not be able to understand it.
Why did St Jerome translate these into Latin the way he did? They are two different phrases. Maybe he had a reason, but whatever it was, it has been lost.
B
Bithynian
Guest
It’s primarily to a grammar oddity in Latin.
The verb χαριτῶ in Lk 1:28 is used only once elsewhere in Eph 1:6. In the latter case, Jerome translated it with gratifico (with the sense of ‘bestowing a favour’), which is the only viable translation in Latin.
The issue lies with the history of this Latin verb: in Classical Latin, it existed only in the deponent, gratificor. By the time of Jerome, the deponent had become displaced by the active, gratifico, but the deponent still retained its active sense. The result is that there is no form of the verb with a passive sense.
That is to say (for those unfamiliar with Latin), there is no possible way in Latin to modify the verb gratifico with the result that it means “to be favoured, graced”. This complicated Jerome’s efforts to translate Lk 1:28 where χαριτῶ is used in the passive sense (as a perfect passive participle).
Jerome was clearly moved by necessity to be creative and translate κεχαριτώμενη (Lk 1:28) in a circumlocutory way. We can only speculate as to why he, specifically, chose the phrase “gratia plena”, with the result that he translated κεχαριτώμενη as though it were πλήρης χάριτος (Acts 6:8) which he also translated as “gratia plena”.
I suspect that it was mostly due to the shared etymology between χαριτῶ and χάρις in both verses, and perhaps Jerome felt more comfortable with using a phrasing pre-existing in Scripture rather than coin something totally original.
D
Dovekin
Guest
OK. The reason has not been lost. Thanks for the explanation.
Which leaves us with the original question, does it make sense to not translate κεχαριτώμενη as full of grace? Given that St Jerome’s circumlocution is so well known, should we retain it in English?
You introduce another element, the “shared etymology” of χαριτῶ and χάρις is important at other places in the NT. Romans 5:15 uses χαρισμα, χαριτι and χάρις in a brief sentence, for example. Why use favored instead of graced or even gifted?
I think NABRE got it right at least in distinguishing the angel’s greeting from the description of St Stephen. There are broader issues that I know little about, like connections to other uses of χαρις, what greetings were like at the time, etc. Translations can always be improved, I guess.
Which leaves us with the original question, does it make sense to not translate κεχαριτώμενη as full of grace? Given that St Jerome’s circumlocution is so well known, should we retain it in English?
You introduce another element, the “shared etymology” of χαριτῶ and χάρις is important at other places in the NT. Romans 5:15 uses χαρισμα, χαριτι and χάρις in a brief sentence, for example. Why use favored instead of graced or even gifted?
I think NABRE got it right at least in distinguishing the angel’s greeting from the description of St Stephen. There are broader issues that I know little about, like connections to other uses of χαρις, what greetings were like at the time, etc. Translations can always be improved, I guess.
B
Bithynian
Guest
I agree with you. My post wasn’t a negative critique of either your position or of the NABRE translators.
I was unclear in my original post: the explanation I offered was mostly to highlight that the primary impetus for Jerome translating via a circumlocution is because of a grammatical constraint in the Latin language. If he could’ve translated κεχαριτώμενη as gratificata with the sense that it meant “o woman who has been favoured”, he likely would’ve done so as he’s often a stickler for literalness. Since we don’t have that particular constraint in English, we don’t have a need (or any legitimate reason) to follow Jerome’s construction.
J
JustLOL
Guest
Yeah, and it is the biggest complaint about most bibles…kind of silly when you think about it…those monks copying scripture before the printing press included no footnotes, yet the faith survived by prayerful reflection and good preaching of our priests.
The real meaningful footnotes to scripture are written on our hearts through the actions guided by the Holy Spirit!
D
Dovekin
Guest
Yes, but:
The notes are a necessary part of Catholic bibles. Those in the NABRE were reviewed by at least some of the US bishops before they all chose to publish it. Are there errors? Probably, but the NABRE was given to us by the bishops as part of their responsibility to preach the Gospel. It is a reliable translation in that sense, to answer the OP’s question.
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
I agree, and the notes are often pure conjecture based on conclusions drawn from soft sciences like textual criticism which is riddled with biases.irenaeuslyons:
You have got that right.
I am appalled at the notes and introductions honestly. I have no issue with skepticism on authorship in an academic Bible, such as the Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV, but this Bible is just a Bible made for lay Catholics. The introduction to 2 Peter blatantly says it is not written by Peter. This is so bad for the faith. How can we have a Bible that openly goes against what the Church says? Stuff like this could make a person on the fence fall on the wrong side.
P
pnewton
Guest
Sure, there is no problem with it. It is about as Catholic as one can get, albeit a rather dynamic translation, meaning, priority was given more to making it readable than literal. Despite the issues above, making theological points based on translation is shaky. In every language, exact word meaning will sometimes vary with context. This is but one good reason for the Church to serve as authoritative interpreter, and why sola scriptura really isn’t possible while maintaining more than a passing unity.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I thought Peter had two secretaries, Silas and Mark, who recorded Peter’s memoirs.irenaeuslyons:
You have got that right.
I am appalled at the notes and introductions honestly. I have no issue with skepticism on authorship in an academic Bible, such as the Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV, but this Bible is just a Bible made for lay Catholics. The introduction to 2 Peter blatantly says it is not written by Peter. This is so bad for the faith. How can we have a Bible that openly goes against what the Church says? Stuff like this could make a person on the fence fall on the wrong side.
P
pnewton
Guest
I just went to the USCCB website. There is no introduction to to 2 Peter, and the on to 1 Peter simply mentions the differing ideas. I would bet one shirt that the Church will never come out with any sort of authoritative doctrine on such a matter.
That said, textual criticism of this nature has a fundamental flaw - it assumes there is not change in people, or how they right. Peter was a fisherman. There is no reason to think he had not become much more educated through a few decades as head of the Church. Likewise, Paul was smart enough to know that the audience he wrote to might dictate his style of writing. I do not like reports like I do essays. Even here, my private messages are markedly different in style than public posts. The assumptions upon which such textual criticism must depend is simply too numerous to make those endeavors fruitful, anymore that counting dancing angels on a pin.
That said, textual criticism of this nature has a fundamental flaw - it assumes there is not change in people, or how they right. Peter was a fisherman. There is no reason to think he had not become much more educated through a few decades as head of the Church. Likewise, Paul was smart enough to know that the audience he wrote to might dictate his style of writing. I do not like reports like I do essays. Even here, my private messages are markedly different in style than public posts. The assumptions upon which such textual criticism must depend is simply too numerous to make those endeavors fruitful, anymore that counting dancing angels on a pin.
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
120 AD isn’t that far removed from the potential lifespan of Mark and/or Silas. It’s entirely plausible that “Peter’s people” wrote these epistles, even if after his death.
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
Why is that?
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
The books of the Bible in canon aren’t selected based solely on authorship, though. It’s based on whether the Church deems them inspired by the Holy Spirit. There are plenty of contemporary texts that may have been written by St. Paul or others excluded from the Bible.
- Status