Why does the Vatican use the NAB on its site?

[Hananiah]

## It would be interesting to see that. ##

Here is the footnote:

Genesis 21:14
Placing the child on her back: the phrase is translated from an emended form of the Hebrew text. In the current faulty Hebrew text, Abraham put the bread and the waterskin on Hagar’s back, while her son apparently walked beside her. This reading seems to be a scribal attempt at harmonizing the present passage with the data of the Priestly source, in which Ishmael would have been at least fourteen years old when Isaac was born; compare Genesis 16:16 with Genesis 21:5; cf Genesis 17:25. But in the present Elohist story Ishmael is obviously a little boy, not much older than Isaac; cf Genesis 15:18.

It would be very interesting to read - I’ve been to the site: is there more than one version of the critique ?​

It has been updated recently. Here is the link again:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/nab.asp

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hananiah:

Here is the footnote:

Genesis 21:14
Placing the child on her back: the phrase is translated from an emended form of the Hebrew text. In the current faulty Hebrew text, Abraham put the bread and the waterskin on Hagar’s back, while her son apparently walked beside her. This reading seems to be a scribal attempt at harmonizing the present passage with the data of the Priestly source, in which Ishmael would have been at least fourteen years old when Isaac was born; compare Genesis 16:16 with Genesis 21:5; cf Genesis 17:25. But in the present Elohist story Ishmael is obviously a little boy, not much older than Isaac; cf Genesis 15:18.

It has been updated recently. Here is the link again:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/nab.asp

TY ​

That’s all very useful to know - I have your article in Favourites

I have to say though, that I think your gloss on the note is not what is meant by the commentators - I can see why one might gloss the note in way, but, not that such a gloss is a fair interpretation. ##

 

[campion]

This is a long thread, so excuse me if this has been addressed.

I’m a newbie to the D-R, but I noticed on the online version that Psalms 23 “The Lord is my Shepherd…” is actually Psalm 22 in the D-R. How come???

And are there other differences throughout as far a verses and chapters go? If so, the D-R will be difficult to use in conjunction with other versions. That’s problematic.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Traditionally [small t] there are 150 Psalms. However the division of the Bible into Chapters and verses occurred quite late. You will find discrepancies in several books. It is similar to the problem of how to divide the Commandments into ten.

Specifically for the Psalms the DR lists as Psalm 10 what most other Bibles now list as Psalms 10 and 11. [The split is between verses 18 and 19.] The DR lists as Psalm 113 what most other Bibles now list as 114 and 115. [The split is between verses 8 and 9.] What the DR lists as Psalms 114 and 115 are combined by most other current Bibles to make Psalm 116. What the DR lists as Psalms 146 and 147 are combined by most other current Bibles to make Psalm 147.

The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition gives both numberings.

 

[campion]

Thanks, Joe. I definitely want to add the D-R to my library. Can you suggest a paperback, inexpensive one?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

campion:

Thanks, Joe. I definitely want to add the D-R to my library. Can you suggest a paperback, inexpensive one?

My copies are quite old. I doubt if it is available in paperback. There is not a big market for it.

Personally I much prefer the RSV-CE. the second edition with Scott Hahn’s note is due out soon.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Joe Kelley:

Traditionally [small t] there are 150 Psalms. However the division of the Bible into Chapters and verses occurred quite late. You will find discrepancies in several books. It is similar to the problem of how to divide the Commandments into ten.

Specifically for the Psalms the DR lists as Psalm 10 what most other Bibles now list as Psalms 10 and 11. [The split is between verses 18 and 19.] The DR lists as Psalm 113 what most other Bibles now list as 114 and 115. [The split is between verses 8 and 9.] What the DR lists as Psalms 114 and 115 are combined by most other current Bibles to make Psalm 116. What the DR lists as Psalms 146 and 147 are combined by most other current Bibles to make Psalm 147.

The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition gives both numberings.

The reason being, that 9 and 10 in the Hebrew & Protestant Bibles are an acrostic Psalm - a feature of the text which is lost in the Septuagint and the Vulgate (and therefore, in versions which follow their numbering).​

Though why it has come to be lost - I dunno

But the canonical number of Psalms is 150 - so it was made up in a different way from in the Hebrew. (The Orthodox accept as canonical Psalm 151, IIRC; which is about David and Goliath). ##

 

[Skyreacher63]

Use a quality commentary with the NAB

Really, any one who wishes to study scripture should have at least one quality commentary on hand “with” their bible of choice. Of coarse the NAB with its commentary is good for mobility or ‘on the go’ - but my feeling is if one in studying at home with one or more quality commentaries and other reference books, then when using at church say, or at a coffe shop - it should not be an issue.

---

IN GOD WE TRUST
IN CHRIST WE LIVE