What don't you like about NAB?

[Epistemes]

ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS : WHY ARE THERE SO MANY VERSIONS OF THE CATHOLIC BIBLE?
WHICH ONE’S THE BEST FOR STUDY ANPRIVATE READING?
HELP PLEASE!

Hi maria:

Since lak answered you question about abbreviations, I thought I’d be the first to take a stab at your question about which bible to read, and so forth.

I’d like to say that the reason why there are so many versions of the Catholic Bible is due to agenda, but that’s not true: it’s rarely, if ever, about agenda. Instead, our Scriptures are translated based on need. As the English language continues to develop, we require new ways of expressing old things, and when those “things” happen to be dead languages then the challenge becomes even more difficult. This is just the problem of language. For instance, a “chemist” in American English is not the same as a “chemist” in British or Scottish English - imagine the difficulties we can experience when translating words from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin, and attempting to give those words their fullest meaning whole also making the text readable for an English audience. Not only is is the translation of words important, but word order as well. In English, we say

The ball is rolling down the stairs.

In Greek, it’s possible to say

*The ball the stairs down is rolling *

(or any combination) and the sentence would make sense to a Greek-speaking person! So if we translated the Bible as-is, we’d all be hopelessly confused! Translators try to translate the words accurately, give the sentences their meaning, and some try to do this while also expressing the fullest possible meaning for its intended audience (like an English-speaking audience).

Can you see all the nuances now, and why it seems the art of biblical translation can seemingly never be mastered?

On that note, what Bible you read for study and for your personal devotion is clearly up to you, as a person, and we all have our personal preference for a particular Bible. Some people prefer the Douay-Rheims, some prefer the New American Bible, others prefer the Revised Standard - Catholic Edition.

Consider these for yourself:

Douay-Rheims – translated from the Latin Vulgate in the late 16th, early 17th century, and revised in the early 18th century. Contains very Catholic commentary. Very popular.

Haydock-Douay-Rheims – the same as above, except the commentary included is exceptional for its including snippets from the Church Fathers pertaining to selected verses. Quite large, quite heavy, quite expensive.

Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition – A Protestant translation sprinkled with Catholic flavour. Highly readable, superb translation; unless, of course, you’re a stickler for Luke 1:34; John 19:5 and other verses being translated according to Catholic convention.

Jerusalem Bible (1966) – An English translation from the French. Very popular translation, very readable.

New Jerusalem Bible (1985) - An updated version of the above, except it was completely modified based off the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Very readable, very popular outside the United States, except the translation could be classified as slightly “radical” since it definitely isn’t traditional in some spots. Great commentary.

*New American Bible *-- the translation we’ve been talking about above. You can see our discussion on it. Fairly decent translation except for the Psalms (which includes inclusive language) and the unreasonable re-ordering of some verses in the OT with very little warning or explanation. A version of the NAB is used during Mass in most parishes inside the United states.

Hope this helps.

 

[MTD]

If you think the translation of the NAB is awful and should be condemned, then why? Please provide us some examples.

I don’t like NAB because of the heretical footnotes, the loose translation, and the non-traditional rendering of certain passages, such as Luke 1:28. That’s not talking about the inclusive language of the current edition (the 1970 edition is actually not too bad on that point).

Can you not get past the gender inclusive language, which, while greater than the New Jerusalem Bible, is most definitely less than the amount found in the NRSV?

Inclusive language is not tolerable in the least. It’s an abomination to the Word of God and is alone enough to reject any translation. The KJV itself is better than the NAB for that reason alone!

I, personally, find this strange since the NAB gets several often debated translated passages correct, including Gen 22:18; Matt 16:18; John 19:5,14; Gal 2:16, etc.

When you say Gal. 2:16, are you referring to the RSV-CE? I don’t like the NAB rendition of Gal. 2:16. Look:

1970 NAB: Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by legal observance but by faith in Jesus Christ, we too have believed in him in order to be justified by faith in Christ, not by observance of the law; for by works of the law no one will justified.

RSV-CE: yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

D-R: But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Why does the NAB have to use three different terms, legal observance, observance of the law, and works of the law, for the same term, works of the law. Ugh! Translators aren’t supposed to correct the style of the Biblical authors to conform to modern standards of variety in writing!

The commentaries in the NAB aren’t the best, no, and is a main gripe of mine - however, I’ve *learned *to appreciate those commentaries to a certain extent since Ignatius does not appear to be in a rush to publish a one-volume bound edition of any study bible, and the best we can do for commentaries in the Douay-Rheims is to purchase the Haydock-Douay-Rheims and a small wagon to tote it in.

The footnotes of the Challoner D-R are quite sufficient, at least in comparison to the NAB.

Other stuff like Marcan priority, or “Jesus didn’t really predict his passion” I can simply swallow it and ignore.

What? You mean you can actually ignore something you swallowed? Haven’t you already internalized it just by swallowing it? Surely you aren’t using Mark 7:18-19 to justify reading those notes!

Maria

 

[porthos11]

Why does the NAB have to use three different terms, legal observance, observance of the law, and works of the law, for the same term, works of the law. Ugh! Translators aren’t supposed to correct the style of the Biblical authors to conform to modern standards of variety in writing!

This is fine if the translation is that of dynamic equivalence. The NAB 1970 clearly positioned itself as that, so we we probably can let it slide for them and the JB/NJB. Dynamic equivalence translations are not as concerned with word-for-word matching as literal/formal equivalence translations are.

What? You mean you can actually ignore something you swallowed? Haven’t you already internalized it just by swallowing it? Surely you aren’t using Mark 7:18-19 to justify reading those notes!

Maria

Yep, just like bad medicine

 

[MTD]

In fact, the 1970 NAB NT’s rendering of the Pauline Epistles was VERY readable.

I disagree. I didn’t list readability as one of my reasons for disliking the NAB since if I were to base my choice on readability, I wouldn’t be using the D-R. However, when it comes to the Pauline Epistles, I personally think the RSV-CE is the easiest, followed by the Confraternity, NAB, and D-R, in that order. The RSV-CE flows. To my ears, the NAB is absentminded or even scatterbrained! In the Office of Readings for the last week, we had Galatians. With that fresh in my mind, let me point out some passages which I find so disconnected. I mean, I literally had to read some of those passages more than once or even consult another translation to finally get what the NAB was saying!

Gal. 1:6-7

1970 NAB: I am amazed that you are so soon deserting him who called you in accord with his gracious design in Christ, and are going over to another gospel. But there is no other. Some who wish to alter the gospel of Christ must have confused you.

RSV-CE: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal. 1:12

1970 NAB: I did not receive it from any man, nor was I schooled in it. It came by revelation from Jesus Christ.

RSV-CE: For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Gal. 2:12-13

1970 NAB: He had been taking his meals with the Gentiles before others came who were from James. But when they arrived he drew back to avoid trouble with those who were circumcised. The rest of the Jews joined in his dissembling, till even Barnabas was swept away by their pretense.

RSV-CE: For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.

Gal. 2:20

1970 NAB: I have been crucified with Christ, and the life I live now is not my own; Christ is living in me. I still live my human life, but it is a life of faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

RSV-CE: I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who love me and gave himself for me.

Gal. 3:18

1970 NAB: Clearly, if one’s inheritance comes through the law, it is no longer conferred in virtue of the promise. Yet it was by way of promise that God granted Abraham his privilege.

RSV-CE: For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

These passages just didn’t flow in the NAB, for me. (You may have to read the above passages in context in order to see what I mean. Then again, you may find the NAB easy enough to understand in these passages.)

This is fine if the translation is that of dynamic equivalence. The NAB 1970 clearly positioned itself as that, so we we probably can let it slide for them and the JB/NJB. Dynamic equivalence translations are not as concerned with word-for-word matching as literal/formal equivalence translations are.

Oh yeah, you’re right. I guess that just goes to show my disdain for dynamic equivalence translations. But let’s not get into that!

Maria

 

[Epistemes]

I don’t like NAB because of the heretical footnotes, the loose translation, and the non-traditional rendering of certain passages, such as Luke 1:28. That’s not talking about the inclusive language of the current edition (the 1970 edition is actually not too bad on that point).

The footnotes of the Challoner D-R are quite sufficient, at least in comparison to the NAB.

I’ve yet to run across any footnote in the NAB which is explicitly heretical, but I am open to suggestions.

Inclusive language is not tolerable in the least. It’s an abomination to the Word of God and is alone enough to reject any translation.

How? If the Greek word *adelphoi *was understood as brethren which was understood as *brothers **and *sisters, then isn’t it more an abomination of conventional English translation than the actual Word of God, which says what it says?

When you say Gal. 2:16, are you referring to the RSV-CE?

No, this is more an issue of whether the translation renders the text “by faith in Christ” or “by the faith of Christ.” The NAB and RSV-CE win points for this. DR doesn’t.

 

[Manfred]

If the NAB has a problem of having too much inclusive language, then why was it approved in the American dioceses? Was it the US Bishops that approved its use or was it the Vatican?

For private (non-liturgical) reading and study, many less-than-satisfactory translations are approved by the US hierarchy; among them (in no particular order): the NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, the NRSV, the Good News Bible, the Living Bible.

However, for use in the Lectionary, the Revised NAB had to go through a purgation of sorts by Rome itself before it could be used in the US Lectionary. What had to be purged, of course, was its excessive use of inclusive language, particularly in those places where reference is made to God (“vertical” inclusive language). Much of its “horizontal” inclusive language to supplant references to “man”, fathers", “brothers” was, however, retained.

As for who does what: a comittee apppointed by the bishops prepares a Lectionary based on a given translation - here, the Revised NAB. Then the bishops (or others duly appointed by them) review the text and suggest modifications before giving it their approval. Only then is it submitted to Rome for final review and approval.

 

[MTD]

I’ve yet to run across any footnote in the NAB which is explicitly heretical, but I am open to suggestions.

I actually don’t own a copy of the NAB, so I’ll get back with you tomorrow after I do some searching online!

How? If the Greek word *adelphoi *was understood as brethren which was understood as *brothers **and ***sisters, then isn’t it more an abomination of conventional English translation than the actual Word of God, which says what it says?

Brothers and sisters is not a translation of adelphoi; it’s a paraphrase. Brethren is not only correct, but perfectly understandable. In my opinion, even brothers is okay, in the tradition of men referring to all humans.

Paraphrases mean dynamic equivalence translations. I can’t stand those translations. If I’m going to make the effort to read the Word of God, I want to read the Word of God! If I’m going to spend my time reading an explanation of the Word of God (which is basically what a dynamic equivalence translation is), I might as well just read some other religious work, such as the Catechism or the Fathers of the Church, since I’m not reading the Word of God in the first place!

Maria

 

[Epistemes]

Brothers and sisters is not a translation of adelphoi; it’s a paraphrase. Brethren is not only correct, but perfectly understandable. In my opinion, even brothers is okay, in the tradition of men referring to all humans.

I’m not exactly sure I follow on how brothers and sisters is a paraphrase. “Brethren” is correct, but it’s not the only correct form. My Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon specifically list brothers and sisters as a rendering of adelphoi, so I’m not quite following how it’s a paraphrase when two well-studied philologists, Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, offer it as a direct translation?

Mind you, this is just one example, and the NAB (nor any inclusive-language Bible) is free on all charges (such as “Happy those” in Ps 1:1, which is inexcusable since the original Hebrew does support the notion of one man, not many), but in instances like these when the original word in the original language means what it says and is translated accordingly* forsaking convention*, then I can’t quite fathom how we can say the translators are radicalizing or “dumbing down” the text when it’s the Word of God which stands as it is.

 

[Epistemes]

For private (non-liturgical) reading and study, many less-than-satisfactory translations are approved by the US hierarchy; among them (in no particular order): the NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, the NRSV, the Good News Bible, the Living Bible.

Hi again, Manfred:

What criteria are you using for these selections as less-than-satisfactory? What is satisfactory?

I ask because I’m surprised to see you include the Jerusalem Bible in the list, which, from what I can tell, is a good translation, and enjoyed by many who still want a traditional Catholic Bible without the 16th Century English or Protestant fluff.

 

[garysibio]

But then again there’s that annoying habit of moving whole passages around in Job and in Proverbs 5 and 6 which makes me throw my hands up.

There are a couple of other places in the OT where the NAB does that and, like you, it makes me crazy. It’s not just the RNAB either; the original does the same thing.

 

[porthos11]

I’m not exactly sure I follow on how brothers and sisters is a paraphrase. “Brethren” is correct, but it’s not the only correct form. My Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon specifically list brothers and sisters as a rendering of adelphoi, so I’m not quite following how it’s a paraphrase when two well-studied philologists, Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, offer it as a direct translation?

Mind you, this is just one example, and the NAB (nor any inclusive-language Bible) is free on all charges (such as “Happy those” in Ps 1:1, which is inexcusable since the original Hebrew does support the notion of one man, not many), but in instances like these when the original word in the original language means what it says and is translated accordingly* forsaking convention*, then I can’t quite fathom how we can say the translators are radicalizing or “dumbing down” the text when it’s the Word of God which stands as it is.

Brothers and sisters for adelphoi, although annoying, is permissible in the proper context. However, in there are places wherein “brother” should be maintained.

However, it’s more dangerous substituting “those” or “person” or “people” for “man” to translate anthropos. Neither do I like using “child” or “children” or “sons and daughters” instead of “son/s” to translate huios(oi). These terms have important Semitic meaning with regards to the way we relate to God and each other.

 

[Epistemes]

Brothers and sisters for adelphoi, although annoying, is permissible in the proper context. However, in there are places wherein “brother” should be maintained.

However, it’s more dangerous substituting “those” or “person” or “people” for “man” to translate anthropos. Neither do I like using “child” or “children” or “sons and daughters” instead of “son/s” to translate huios(oi). These terms have important Semitic meaning with regards to the way we relate to God and each other.

porthos:

I agree. I guess the point I’m trying to draw is that not all inclusive language is a bad thing, only the inclusive language which dilutes theological significance. The NAB’s usage of horizontal inclusive language is permissable in certain spots, but, no doubt, isn’t in others.

 

[maria_rose]

Hi maria:

Since lak answered you question about abbreviations, I thought I’d be the first to take a stab at your question about which bible to read, and so forth.

I’d like to say that the reason why there are so many versions of the Catholic Bible is due to agenda, but that’s not true: it’s rarely, if ever, about agenda. Instead, our Scriptures are translated based on need. As the English language continues to develop, we require new ways of expressing old things, and when those “things” happen to be dead languages then the challenge becomes even more difficult. This is just the problem of language. For instance, a “chemist” in American English is not the same as a “chemist” in British or Scottish English - imagine the difficulties we can experience when translating words from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin, and attempting to give those words their fullest meaning whole also making the text readable for an English audience. Not only is is the translation of words important, but word order as well. In English, we say

The ball is rolling down the stairs.

In Greek, it’s possible to say

*The ball the stairs down is rolling *

(or any combination) and the sentence would make sense to a Greek-speaking person! So if we translated the Bible as-is, we’d all be hopelessly confused! Translators try to translate the words accurately, give the sentences their meaning, and some try to do this while also expressing the fullest possible meaning for its intended audience (like an English-speaking audience).

Can you see all the nuances now, and why it seems the art of biblical translation can seemingly never be mastered?

On that note, what Bible you read for study and for your personal devotion is clearly up to you, as a person, and we all have our personal preference for a particular Bible. Some people prefer the Douay-Rheims, some prefer the New American Bible, others prefer the Revised Standard - Catholic Edition.

Consider these for yourself:

Douay-Rheims – translated from the Latin Vulgate in the late 16th, early 17th century, and revised in the early 18th century. Contains very Catholic commentary. Very popular.

Haydock-Douay-Rheims – the same as above, except the commentary included is exceptional for its including snippets from the Church Fathers pertaining to selected verses. Quite large, quite heavy, quite expensive.

Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition – A Protestant translation sprinkled with Catholic flavour. Highly readable, superb translation; unless, of course, you’re a stickler for Luke 1:34; John 19:5 and other verses being translated according to Catholic convention.

Jerusalem Bible (1966) – An English translation from the French. Very popular translation, very readable.

New Jerusalem Bible (1985) - An updated version of the above, except it was completely modified based off the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Very readable, very popular outside the United States, except the translation could be classified as slightly “radical” since it definitely isn’t traditional in some spots. Great commentary.

*New American Bible *-- the translation we’ve been talking about above. You can see our discussion on it. Fairly decent translation except for the Psalms (which includes inclusive language) and the unreasonable re-ordering of some verses in the OT with very little warning or explanation. A version of the NAB is used during Mass in most parishes inside the United states.

Hope this helps.

THANKS EPHISTEMES, THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.I APPRECIATE IT.
I HAVE AN NAB BUT I 'LL CHECK OUT THE DOUAY RHEIMES ONE OF THESE DAYS.
THANKS AGAIN.

 

[mccorm45]

Thanks for this debate, which I think has been very helpful to those who enjoy looking at the strengths and weaknesses in various translations.

My two cents:

1. I don’t think the NAB is a terrible translation. Is it as good as the RSV in regards to literalness, no, but it is certainly not a full blown “dynamic equivalence” translation either. If you look around at various websites, mostly protestant, that tackle the issue of the NAB’s literalness, it usually falls between the RSV and the NIV. I think that is pretty spot on. I use to dislike the NAB at first, but over time I have come to appreciate the balance in the translation.
2. As mentioned above, I will be very eager to get a hold of a completed Ignatius Study Bible when it comes out…sometime before 2020…maybe. It will certainly be the best one out there. However, until that time comes, the best option for me, taking into consideration translations, notes, maps, print etc…, is to get a copy of the 1990 NAB Study Bible from Oxford. Is it perfect, by no means. But for me it works and has the best combination that I am looking for. The NJB has some fine qualities, like its format and crossreference and notes, but the over all translation is too dynamic. The DR Haydock is also good to have, but the DR is a translation of a translation and the two volumes are not in the least portable or user-friendly. So, that leaves the NAB 1990. Not the best thing since sliced bread, but the best in combination with various factors.

 

[Epistemes]

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/ScepterChangesC.htm

Above is the link to mmortal03’s thorough analysis concerning the RSV-CE text with 1971 revisions. Below I have provided the NAB’s rendering of the Gospel of Matthew and have marked in blue those verses which match the 1971 RSV-CE suggested revisions:

Matthew

6.2 I say to you, they have received their reward.
6.5 I say to you, they have received their reward.
6.16 I say to you, they have received their reward.
10.8 Without cost you have received
12.1 began to pick the heads of grain
13.33 three measures of wheat flour
14.23 he went up on the mountain by himself
15.27 scraps that fall from the table of their masters
15.29 went up on the mountain
17.20 ‘Move from here to there’
18.8 cut it off and throw it away
18.9 tear it out and throw it away.
18.12 will he not leave the ninety-nine in the hills
19.5 the two shall become one flesh
19.6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh
19.6 no human being must separate
19.11 Not all can accept [this] word
24.8 the beginning of the labor pains
26.7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar
26.18 Go into the city to a certain man
27.11 Jesus said, “You say so.”
27.32 As they were going out

You can, of course, see a pattern. If you all find this type of analysis helpful, I’ll be glad to continue on through the remaining Gospels and through the Epistles to illustrate where the NAB captures the suggested revisions of the 1971 RSV-CE, which is only published in the Oxford-Scepter Compact Editions.

 

[MTD]

Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition – A Protestant translation sprinkled with Catholic flavour. Highly readable, superb translation; unless, of course, you’re a stickler for Luke 1:34; John 19:5 and other verses being translated according to Catholic convention.

It is not Catholic convention to translate Luke 1:34 with “I do not know man” or even the dynamically equivalent “I have no relations with a man.” It is plain and simple honesty in translation; in other words, it’s translation without an agenda, Catholic or otherwise.

Maria

 

[MTD]

I’ve yet to run across any footnote in the NAB which is explicitly heretical, but I am open to suggestions.

You are right in that the footnotes may not be strictly heretical. But I’m not too far off in the broad sense. (However, I’ll strive to be more precise in the future.) Some examples I found this morning (I don’t read the NAB, so this is by no means an exhaustive list):

Matthew 5, footnote 3:
The form Blessed are (is) occurs frequently in the Old Testament in the Wisdom literature and in the psalms. Although modified by Matthew, the first, second, fourth, and ninth beatitudes have Lucan parallels (Matthew 5:3; Luke 6:20; Matthew 5:4; Luke 6:21, 22; Matthew 5:6; Luke 6:21a; Matthew 5:11-12; Luke 5:22-23). The others were added by the evangelist and are probably his own composition.

[That’s the equivalent of saying Luke lied when he credited Jesus with having said those things. So much for inerrancy!]

Luke 1, footnote 2:
The narrative uses early Christian traditions about the birth of Jesus, traditions about the birth and circumcision of John the Baptist, and canticles such as the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and Benedictus (Luke 1:67-79), composed of phrases drawn from the Greek Old Testament. It is largely, however, the composition of Luke who writes in imitation of Old Testament birth stories, combining historical and legendary details, literary ornamentation and interpretation of scripture, to answer in advance the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?”

[So what the authors are saying is that Luke didn’t really mean it when he said he had been “investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down” (NAB Luke 1:3). Interesting.]

Luke 2, footnote 11:
(And you yourself a sword will pierce): Mary herself will not be untouched by the various reactions to the role of Jesus (34). Her blessedness as mother of the Lord will be challenged by her son who describes true blessedness as “hearing the word of God and observing it” (Luke 11:27-28 and Luke 8:20-21).

[Huh?!]

Isaiah 9, footnote 1:
A child: the Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:8; cf Isaiah 11:1, 2, 9. In Christian tradition and liturgy, this passage is used to refer to Christ. Upon his shoulder dominion rests: authority. Wonder-Counselor: remarkable for his wisdom and prudence. God-Hero: a warrior and a defender of his people, like God himself. Father-Forever: ever devoted to his people. Prince of Peace: his reign will be characterized by peace.

Like God, but not God Himself, right?]

Maria

 

[MTD]

I’m not exactly sure I follow on how brothers and sisters is a paraphrase.

Adelphoi is a single word; if in our language we have a single word that can both accurately and understandably translate the single Greek word, we should use it even if there is a more conventional phrase available because a phrase would inevitably add words to the text. If we were to attempt to translate all the conventions of speech in the Bible to our modern conventions of speech, we’d have to do a lot of revising to the Bible. I mean, um, why not change the word hate in Luke 14:26 to something else more conventional in modern English? That word causes a lot more problems than brethren.

I suppose in a dynamic translation brothers and sisters for adelphoi would be acceptable (which translations you already know I despise). However, when I called inclusive language an abomination, I was mainly referring to instances such as the NAB translation of Psalm 1:1 you noted above. (As I mentioned in a previous post, in the future I’ll try to be more accurate.) There are plenty of these instances in the NAB; I could give some examples, but frankly, I haven’t time, so I’ll restrict myself to a few from Galatians.

Gal. 1:1
Paul, an apostle not from human beings nor through a human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead,

[This one certainly isn’t the worst, but doesn’t that use of *human being sound so artificial?]

Gal. 1: 10
Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ.

[The word *people does not necessarily designate humans. People, as well as being a collective singular noun in some cases, is also the plural of person. We use the word person even for God, i.e., the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. So by using the word people (in the case in question it is obviously used as the plural of person) the significance of Paul’s claim of serving God rather than men is lost!]

Gal. 4:6-7

As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

[Hmmm, it’s not very easy to see the direct reference to our sharing in the sonship of Jesus.]

Finally, where did you get that brothers and sisters anyway? The NAB doesn’t even use that, at least not in Galatians; it uses brothers (Gal. 4:12, 4:31, 5:13, 6:1, 6:18).

As an aside: on perusing the current NAB online, I noticed that the clumsiness of Galatians in the 1970 edition I noted above in one of my posts has actually been removed from the current edition. So my claim of the NAB sounding absentminded/disconnected in the Pauline Epistles may only apply to the 1970 edition.

Maria

 

[hopefull]

Well, here’s just one example of what I find very annoying about the NAB. Take the wedding feast of Cana. The D-R mentions the “chief steward”. To me, that has the connotation of a primary responsibility, and also in stewardship, a protective, serving, careful, sacrificing responsibility. Changing that to “head waiter” doesn’t cut it for me. Steward of the feast isn’t bad, and apparently closer to the original meaning, but I feel something is lost in understanding of that person’s responsibilities when it is reduced to a headwaiter situation. So what if that is the closest we have today? What is wrong about understanding the context of Jesus’ time?

I personally use the D-R for prayerful meditation on scriptures, and the RSV-CE for Bible Study. I never open the NAB, and often just suffer through it at Mass. I am glad at least that the Catechism uses the RSV-CE. I also understand that the RSV is used at Mass in Canada, although I haven’t confirmed it. I don’t care at all about the inclusive gender thing; I just want to be close to what the original words meant, not to being spoon-fed a modernist semi-equivalence. My opinion.

 

[porthos11]

Adelphoi is a single word; if in our language we have a single word that can both accurately and understandably translate the single Greek word, we should use it even if there is a more conventional phrase available because a phrase would inevitably add words to the text. If we were to attempt to translate all the conventions of speech in the Bible to our modern conventions of speech, we’d have to do a lot of revising to the Bible. I mean, um, why not change the word hate in Luke 14:26 to something else more conventional in modern English? That word causes a lot more problems than brethren.

Again, the appropriateness of phrases-for-words depends on whether the Bible is positioned as literal or dynamic. It’s bad practice for a literal translation (such as the NRSV), but tolerable for dynamic (like the 1970 NAB), for the dynamic’s intent is not to render word-for-word.

I suppose in a dynamic translation brothers and sisters for adelphoi would be acceptable (which translations you already know I despise).

Which is fine. But there is indeed value to dynamic translations, which is why serious study can obtain much from even far-dynamic translations such as the JB or TEV. Dynamic translations have their place and they address needs different from those addressed by formal translations.

Gal. 1:1Paul, an apostle not from human beings nor through a human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead,

[This one certainly isn’t the worst, but doesn’t that use of *human being

sound so artificial?] ****

Yes, it sounds artificial and grates on the ears.

**

Gal. 1: 10

Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ.

[The word people* does not necessarily designate humans. People, as well as being a collective singular noun in some cases, is also the plural of person. We use the word person even for God, i.e., the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. So by using the word people (in the case in question it is obviously used as the plural of person) the significance of Paul’s claim of serving God rather than men is lost!] ****

I am very leery of translations that support “person” for “man”, but I think “people” for “men” suffices, for as long as the context clearly refers to the human race.
**

Gal. 4:6-7

As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

[Hmmm, it’s not very easy to see the direct reference to our sharing in the sonship of Jesus.]

**

That’s why in this passage, children is wrong, wrong wrong. Only “sons” fits here. This passage is one of those specifically amended by Rome for the US Lectionary. If you check your Revised NAB lectionary or Missal, you will see that “sons” has been re-inserted in this passage.

Finally, where did you get that brothers and sisters anyway? The NAB doesn’t even use that, at least not in Galatians; it uses brothers (Gal. 4:12, 4:31, 5:13, 6:1,
6:18).

The 1986 NAB, thankfully, sticks with “Brothers.” You will find “Brothers and sisters” in the NRSV and the US Lectionary to introduce epistolary readings.