- Status
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
Father Corapi said his favorite is the RSV-CE.
M
Manfred
Guest
Hello, Epistemes.
The Good News Bible and The Living Bible are clearly paraphrases, i.e., extremely dynamic equivalents. These should NEVER be used for any serious study, or, in my opinion, even devotional reading. I suspect the only reason they are available in “Catholic editions” is because our beloved shepherds felt Catholics were going to read them anyway, since they are very prominent with evangelicals on campuses. (Someone handed me a GNB NT at some function in 1971 when I was a senior in college.)
The NRSV claimed to be, by Bruce Metzger (who just passed away), “as literal as possible, as free as necessary”. Yeah, right. Elsewhere in these Forums I expressed my pessimism that a committee working to produce a Lectionary based on the NRSV - similar to what our own shepherds did with the RNAB - is doomed, since the NRSV is rife with an excess of inclusive language.
The NJB was an improvement over the overly-dynamic JB, in that the former was more consistent in its renderings, particularly in those places in the NT, for which “there was a major theological note”. While not as bad in the inclusive-language department as either the RNAB or the NRSV, it strayed way too far for me from traditional, time-honored renderings; e.g., “there was no room for them in the living space”; “no human agency has revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven”. But I do like its format, its extensive cross-references, the breadth and depth (though not the slant) of its book introductions and footnotes.
The JB is a “smooth read”, better-flowing than its successor. Again, great format, cross-references, generous book intros and footnotes, but even more outlandish (read “non-traditional”) renderings; a bit too colloquial, though nowhere near as bad as the New English Bible. “Simon bar-Jona, you are a happy man!” And, in the book of Tobit, somewhere in chapter 2, “it was the seventh of March”. Hulloh!
You know, you, I and all these other nice folk can discuss and debate these various versions till the cows come home. Unfortunately, none of our shepherds nor any publishers are paying attention to any of this. Too bad for us.
Manfred
M
Manfred
Guest
Just a gentle correction or two, here; to wit, it is not the RSV-CE that is used in the CCC; it is the “generic” RSV with the 1971 NT, and in some places, the NRSV. Also, Canada DID use the RSV-CE until the NRSV came along. Use of the latter was supposed to be “provisional”, until the shepherds there could produce a better Lectionary, since the Vatican, no less, balked at the NRSV’s excessive inclusive language; I think it’s been “provisional” for 15 years now.
J
jmcrae
Guest
But as a female, it’s physically impossible for me to share “sonship” with Jesus. I don’t have any problem with the inclusive version, since I have no problem (as a woman) with the idea of women being saved, too - after all, Mother Mary can’t share “sonship” with Jesus, either, but she is very definitely a child of God.
PS: I don’t know why so many people have such trouble with the idea of women being explicitly included in salvation. Somehow, we are just supposed to infer that we can be included, but it is this terrible, awful sin for the idea of women going to Heaven, or being included as Christians and members of the Church to become explicitly articulated.
Sonship here is not a matter of gender; it is a matter of relationship. Indeed, the origin of the notion of sonship is based on the fact that the eldest male child (firstborn son) was entitled to the double inheritance of his father’s estate. This is the biblical model of sonship, in that we, regardless of gender are related to as sons because we are heirs to a heavenly inheritance. In other words, the use of the word “son” points to the biblical rights of the relationship rather than the gender. In this sense all of us, male and female, are sons of God.
That’s why our Lady can be correctly be called a son of God too.
Now changing this to “child” removes the power conveyed by the word “son”, and in fact, Galatians 4:1 distinctly differentiates between “child” and “son”. A “child” (nepios) has no right to the inheritance till he comes of age, in which case Paul explicitly uses the word “son” (huios) to specifically indicate that we are heirs entitled to receive.
This verse is crucial because our relationship with God is the same as Jesus relationship with the Father, only that our status as sons is by adoption, while his Sonship is by nature. Removing the word “son” dilutes the closeness and parallel of our relationship with God and Jesus’ relationship with the Father. That’s why Rome re-inserted “sons” in the Lectionary for this passage.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Wouldn’t a better translation be “heir,” then? Since women can be heirs, but we can’t be sons - and long gone are the days when “son” was the same as “heir” - the law now, and has been for quite a while, that the first-born child is the heir, regardless of sex - it was changed by Queen Elizabeth I during Diana’s first pregnancy, because they had thought that she was going to give birth to a girl, and they wanted to ensure that even if it was a girl, she would still receive the throne.
This is true today, but St. Paul was a Semite using semitic terms, not terms of Western monarchy. We should interpret the Bible not according to modern sensibilities, but according to the environment and understanding of the times. If we are to let modern sensibilities take over, we lose the power and force of the verse in question, just as I have pointed out. Moreover, the word “child” used in the context of Galatians specifically refers to immature, babes in arms, contrasted directly with the maturity of sons.
In Galatians, St. Paul uses both terms “son” and “heir” together drawing a parallel between the ancient patriarchal societies and the privileges to the son (unfair by today’s standards, yes) and the Sonship of Christ, and applying its benefits to all, Jew and Greek, male and female, mentioned only a few verses earlier. He clearly shows that regardless of race or sex, the privileges of the son are now available to all, because of our share in the Sonship of Christ.
If only taken correctly and with the proper cultural understandings, women are indeed sons of God and should be proud of it, because it’s the way God relates to them. Hence, one can see many faithful Catholic women like Mother Angelica virulently opposing inclusive language in critical verses that describe our relationship with the Father, and they never feel left out. In other contexts, such changes are permissible; in fact, I think they are appropriate in modern writing. But not the Bible.
Again, the point is, sonship in this context is not by virtue of gender, but by virtue of Christ and the Father’s relationship to us.
E
Epistemes
Guest
I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusion. Nowhere does this footnote claim that the text is uninspired, and it’s more than evident, as it has been for centuries, that Matthew and Luke do differ on this matter. It does not imply that Luke lied, or that Matthew lied, nor that Jesus never actually said these things, but it *can *suggest that Matthew was inspired to compose additional beatitudes not otherwise recorded by Luke. If such is the case, then that makes it Matthew’s own composition since it’s apparent Luke didn’t write it.
Again, I think you’re jumping too hastily to the wrong conclusion. Anyone with a decent biblical background can recognize the allusions to the OT in Jesus’ birth, and Luke was first among these to place the birth of Jesus in its proper historical, prophetic, and soteriological sense. Since the Lucan nativity is unique to Luke, it is his composition. Nowhere does this footnote claim that the nativity never actually occurred nor that Luke was not inspired to compose it.
Won’t Mary’s blessedness be challenged? It will. The point being, as it has stood the test of time, is that her blessedness is challenged but is never found to be wanting because she is the paragon of blessedness. It is indirect challenge to those listening to be like his mother and brothers who hear the word of God and observe it.
Where does this footnote specify that it is *not *God Himself, or that the God-Hero is *unlike *God Himself? Isaiah never says that it is God Himself, so why should the footnote? To say a child as God-Hero is like God Himself is still a very strong connotation of divinity while not putting words into Isaiah’s mouth regardless of how this verse has been traditionally interpreted.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Well, see, this is exactly where so many women get the idea that women can and should be priests. After all, if women are interchangeable with men as regards our relationship with God, then why not?
But the fact is that we’re not. Women have a totally different relationship with God than men do, in most aspects, so it makes very little sense to all of a sudden say, “Well, women are really included, even though the terms are all male.” So, how does one differentiate between all-inclusive male terms, and male terms that apply only to men?
What makes sense to me is just to cut to the chase, by going back to the original text, and translating exactly what’s written. If what’s written is gender-inclusive in the original, then why not make it gender-inclusive in the translation? Since it avoids so much confusion, in the long run.
Rather than having to continually explain to people, “Well, in the original, this one is gender inclusive, so it means you, too, but that one is not gender inclusive, so that one isn’t you.”
For a man reading it, it doesn’t matter, because everything includes him. But for women, it gets complicated to try and sort out, “okay, am I a “man” in this passage, or is this referring only to males?”
M
MTD
Guest
Let me just be nit-picky here and say that dynamic translations do not address needs but desires. We never “needed” dynamic translations until the last century. Commentaries were quite sufficient.
What’s the difference? Only singular and plural. I know it would sound artifical, but human beings would be much better than people since it’s more accurate.
I’m sure it is, but we’re talking about the NAB here.
Maria
E
Epistemes
Guest
Maria makes a good point here, however succinct!I’m sure it is, but we’re talking about the NAB here.
Now that the laity IS reading the Bible, and has been for some time, it confounds me that the USCCB has no difficulty releasing and distributing new lectionaries based off of needed revisions, yet the laity must continue purchasing the same out-of-date, unrevised versions! The Ignatius RSV-2CE was only released last year and now they offer both personal Bibles AND Lectionaries! I’m not sure what gives with the tardiness when it comes to the NAB?
M
MTD
Guest
Excuse me; I’m sorry for the bad typo. I meant to say Matthew, not Luke.
You see, the beatitudes not listed by the other evangelists are said to be probably composed by Matthew. Now think about it: if they aren’t in the other gospels but are in Matthew, they are Matthew’s composition; there’s no probability in that. But the footnote says probably. That gives me reason to believe that the authors mean something else when they say “probably his own composition.” The heavy implication in the footnote is that Matthew made up those beatitudes himself and then credited Jesus with having said them. What else am I to conclude? That the authors just didn’t have a very good command of the English language and so didn’t realize the significance of that word probably?
No, I’m not jumping to conclusions. The footnote says that he used traditions and legendary details in his narrative. But Luke specifically says he gathered accurate details. If the inspired author intended to write fact, it is fact. That’s what Biblical inerrancy is all about. If on the other hand, he intended to reveal truths allegorically or analogously, that is what his words can be understood as (for example, the account of Creation and the Fall in Genesis). But in the first verses of his gospel, Luke basically says that he is writing literally not allegorically or analogously.
No, her blessedness was not challenged by Jesus. He was pointing out that biological relation to Him was not the only form of blessedness. Furthermore, He was not challenging the blessedness of Mary so much as he was correcting the woman’s wrong notion of true blessedness. Finally, He was saying that they could have a share in Mary’s blessedness by relation who would hear the Word of God and keep it; thus, they too could be his “mother.”
Yes, Isaiah does say God Himself. A more literal translation, such as the RSV-CE, renders it Mighty God. The reason the authors said “like God” is because they were interpreting the text as they thought the Jews would have, since after all, the Jews didn’t really think it would be possible for man to also be God. But that’s not what the text says.
Maria
M
MTD
Guest
I can tell you.
The producers of the NAB don’t agree with the changes the Holy See required in the Lectionary. They like their NAB just as it stands!Maria
C
Cranch
Guest
Epistemes - Here’s my :twocents:. If you agree with the NAB note here, that’s of course up to you, but it most certainly implies Jesus did not say the beatitudes which have no Lucan parallel. The note plainly states they “…are probably his [Matthew’s] own composition.” Obviously Matthew “composed” this Gospel and yes it is inspired. With respect, that is beside the point. In this context, the note’s use of the word composition indicates that the note writer believes Matthew “probably” authored the sentiments in beatitudes 3 and 5 through 8 himself. I believe this plainly implies Jesus was not the author of those beatitudes. If the note writer believed Jesus was the originator of these words there would be no mention of Matthew and “probably”. He/she would have been content to simply note the lack of Lucan parallels to certain of Jesus’ words here. Maria is highlighting this note because what it says conflicts with Scripture since all the beatitudes are introduced with these words:*When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him. He began to teach them, saying: "Blessed are the poor in spirit…
*
Note the use of quote marks to indicate Jesus direct speech. It’s obvious Matthew is here presenting these words as coming from the mouth of Jesus. The note implies some of those words “probably” had a different origin.
M
MTD
Guest
Let me add one thing to porthos11’s excellent explanation. If we were to use heir where the Bible says son we’d get “So you are no longer a slave but an heir, and if an heir then also an heir, through God” (Gal. 4:7). Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, does it?
The reason is because the inheritance is not the result of inheritance but of sonship. If heir were used instead of son, it would be impossible to understand Paul’s line of reasoning; i.e., that we are heirs for the precise reason that we are sons.Well, in the first place, our participation in the sonship of Jesus is not physical but spiritual. So you’re creating a problem where there is none.
It’s not as simple as that. If I’m not mistaken, the same problem in our language of using man to designate both males and the whole generality of humans also exists to a certain extent in the original languages with their own words. The problem with too many women today is that they’re losing sight of the order of creation: woman was taken from man. This is why, in my opinion, the same term in many languages for male humans is often used also to refer to both male and female humans–it’s an outgrowth of the proper order of things. Sure men and women are equal before God in dignity, but not in role.
I know I’m plunging into dangerous waters here, but I’m going to point out that when God took on our human nature, he became a male man. Also, remember that we always talk about inheriting Adam’s sin. But wasn’t Eve the first to sin? Jesus is the new Adam to repair the damage the old Adam did. He is the eternal High Priest Who continually offers Himself to God on our behalf for this purpose. Is it not entirely fitting that the ordained should not also be males? There is an order here established by God, which we have no right to question or tamper with.
And my point is that languages often reflect this order in their use of terms to designate humans in general.
Women never had a problem until the last half century.
You know, your “as a woman I feel left out” argument doesn’t hold water in this thread. I’m admittedly the fiercest (or at least the most vocal
) opponent of inclusive language on this thread, and I’m a woman!Finally, maybe you should make another thread for this topic; after all, we were talking about the NAB, not inclusive language in general.
Maria
J
jmcrae
Guest
Actually, this has been going on since the time of Mary Stewart (1500s) - about the time they started letting us learn to read.
No, I myself am fully aware that, although it is never mentioned explicitly in the English translations of Scripture, I am included as a child of God. But as a teacher, I find that using the NRSV Bible in class avoids the whole problem of female students wondering and asking all these questions. If it weren’t for having to teach it to girls, while there are also boys in the room who are saying to them “Ah nah nah, girls are evil, I always knew it,” I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Also, although Eve sinned first, her sin was venial. It was Adam’s sin that was mortal; not Eve’s - and it was Mary who undid Eve’s sin; not Jesus. Jesus died for Adam’s sin.
M
MTD
Guest
That’s debatable. Women didn’t have to read in order to be aware of the use of man for all humans. They did have ears, you know.Actually, this has been going on since the time of Mary Stewart (1500s) - about the time they started letting us learn to read.
And your claim of women finally being allowed to read in the 16th century is false. Off the top of my head, I can remember some very interesting written correspondence between a 13th century Dominican nun, Blessed Diana D’Andalo and the Master of the Dominican Order, Blessed Jordan of Saxony. What do you mean women couldn’t read and write before the 16th century?Where on earth did you get that idea?! Eve lost sanctifying grace just like Adam. And she was punished by God for it too! Besides, though we speak of Adam’s sin, Eve fully participated in his sin and was even the instigator of it. A very ugly role, and one of which women have reason to be ashamed. Just look at what the Catechism has to say about both Adam and Eve having a share in the same original sin:
CCC 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.
CCC 404 …By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice…
CCC 417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and thence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.”
No, Jesus “undid” all sin. Mary is contrasted to Eve, but Mary’s actions per se had no efficacy without the saving work of Jesus; even given the work of Jesus, Mary is not the redeemer of Eve, but only co-redemptrix, just as she is for the rest of us.
Maria
J
jmcrae
Guest
Death did not come into the world until after Adam sinned - not when Eve sinned. Eve lost sanctifying grace along with the rest of Creation, and she suffered for the consquences of her action, but it was Adam alone who brought death into the world. If Adam had refused to be tempted, Eve would have received a punishment for her sin, but it would not have been death.That’s debatable. Women didn’t have to read in order to be aware of the use of man for all humans. They did have ears, you know.
Where on earth did you get that idea?! Eve lost sanctifying grace just like Adam. And she was punished by God for it too! Besides, though we speak of Adam’s sin, Eve fully participated in his sin and was even the instigator of it. A very ugly role, and one of which women have reason to be ashamed. Just look at what the Catechism has to say about both Adam and Eve having a share in the same original sin:
CCC 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.
CCC 404 …By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice…
CCC 417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and thence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.”
No, Jesus “undid” all sin. Mary is contrasted to Eve, but Mary’s actions per se had no efficacy without the saving work of Jesus; even given the work of Jesus, Mary is not the redeemer of Eve, but only co-redemptrix, just as she is for the rest of us.
Maria
But Adam brought death to the whole world, including the animals, birds, fish, and plant life (who definitely did not sin) - and also including Eve.
J
jmcrae
Guest
If they were hearing it in Latin, then they were hearing the “gender inclusive” version, of course. It’s only the English translations that use “man” for both the male and for all human beings. In Latin, “viri” is used for the male, and “homo” is used for all human beings, regardless of gender. “Homo factus est” literally translated means, “A human being he truly became.” If the intent had been to say that he became man, it would have said, “viri factus est” instead of “homo factus est.”That’s debatable. Women didn’t have to read in order to be aware of the use of man for all humans. They did have ears, you know.
This is when public education first became available to women of all classes. It’s true that in all ages, women of the upper classes often learned to read, if their male friends and relatives took the time to teach them.
- Status