Why Does The American Catholic Church Use The Nab?

[Kathryn]

I have a problem with the NAB and this verse:

Luke 9:20
Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God."

Luke 9:21
[b]He rebuked them[/b] and directed them not to tell this to anyone.

The word rebuke is very confusing here.


I prefer the Douay-Rheims which says:

Luke 9:20
And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God.

Luke 9:21
But [b]he strictly charging them[/b], commanded they should tell this to no man.

In the NAB, it looks like Jesus rebuked Peter's correct answer. On another website there is a Catholic who wonders why poor Peter can't get anything right and she quotes this verse using the NAB. To me it comes down to a poor translation of this verse. Even the Protestant Bibles seem to be clearer on this verse and don't use the term rebuke here. Maybe it is something minor, but it is needlessly confusing to me.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Kathryn' date='Jul 26 2004, 02:07 AM'] I have a problem with the NAB and this verse:

Luke 9:20
Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God."

Luke 9:21
[b]He rebuked them[/b] and directed them not to tell this to anyone.

The word rebuke is very confusing here.


I prefer the Douay-Rheims which says:

Luke 9:20
And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God.

Luke 9:21
But [b]he strictly charging them[/b], commanded they should tell this to no man.

In the NAB, it looks like Jesus rebuked Peter's correct answer. On another website there is a Catholic who wonders why poor Peter can't get anything right and she quotes this verse using the NAB. To me it comes down to a poor translation of this verse. Even the Protestant Bibles seem to be clearer on this verse and don't use the term rebuke here. Maybe it is something minor, but it is needlessly confusing to me. [/quote]
It's not a poor translation. Rebuke is a perfectly fine word to use.


Rebuke:
1.) To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish.
2.) To check or repress.


[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke[/url]

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=admonish"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=admonish[/url]


Admonish:
1.) To reprove gently but earnestly.
2.) To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3.) To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.


The Catholic Church gets it right.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

I'll stick with the Navarre Bible and the St Ignatius Study Bible, its footnotes quotes the Church the Saints and the Church and contain actual Catholic teaching.

[P3chrmd]

[quote]I'll stick with the Navarre Bible and the St Ignatius Study Bible, its footnotes quotes the Church the Saints and the Church and contain actual Catholic teaching[/quote]

The only problem I have with these editions is that they are seperate and its not the entire bible TOGETHER! And they don't even have all of the bible avaliable...yes they are GREAT study tools...but they need to do a complete catholic ignatious or navarre study bible...complete!!!

Until then I will use my Jerusalem Bible (best translation in my opinion) although I wish they would re-release the complete Jerusalem Bible with all the study notes! Does anyone have an older Jerusalem Bible from way back...where the complete study notes and footnotes are there?

[Colleen]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jul 26 2004, 11:22 PM']The only problem I have with these editions is that they are seperate and its not the entire bible TOGETHER! And they don't even have all of the bible avaliable...yes they are GREAT study tools...but they need to do a complete catholic ignatious or navarre study bible...complete!!![/quote]
Well, they're still in the process of preparing the Navarre Bible commentaries, that's why it's not in its entirety yet. So far, all of the New Testament is complete (in one bound volume). The Old Testament commentaries are still being compiled. I don't think it'll be possible to have all the Navarre commentaries in one volume, just because there are so many. They don't make books that big!

So far, the Navarre have the New Testament, the Penteteuch, Joshua-Kings, Chronicles-Maccabees, and Psalms and Song of Solomon (Song of Songs).

[catholicguy]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 23 2004, 08:11 AM'] It is not a horrible translation. Nothing can be horrible that the Church approves. [/quote]
I am guessing you have never read the Latin to the Novus Ordo Mass... "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" (through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault) is translated: "through my own fault." [color=red]edited[/color]Another translation: "Credo in unum Deum" (I believe in one God) translates: "WE believe in one God." Anyone who has taken any Latin at all knows that is wrong. Other problems present themselves: "qui pro vobis et pro multis" (which for you and for MANY) is translated "which...for you and for all." Again, just about every Latin student can tell you that multis means many not all.
[color=red]edited[/color]

Edited July 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[catholicguy]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 26 2004, 07:22 AM'] It's not a poor translation. Rebuke is a perfectly fine word to use.


Rebuke:
1.) To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish.
2.) To check or repress.


[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebuke[/url]

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=admonish"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=admonish[/url]


Admonish:
1.) To reprove gently but earnestly.
2.) To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3.) To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.


The Catholic Church gets it right.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
ironmonk,

Don't watse your time trying to defend that which is wrong. Not everything the hierarchy states should be used is perfect, in fact, very little is. Just because the Church in America chose a bad translation doesn't say anything about the Church. A few bishops got it wrong--what's new. All you have to do is look to Boston (and now the Austrian seminary) to see that.

You define rebuke as a reproval HARSHLY and admonish as a reproval GENTLY. Those are two different things. Further, Christ was neither admonishing nor reproving. He was merely instructing firmly. St. Peter didn't do anything wrong; therefore, he is not being admonished. We admonish the sinner (first and most important spiritual work of mercy), not those with the right answer. The Douay-Rheims version has been used by the faithful since 1609. I guess the Church had it wrong back then? No matter how you look at it sometime someone in the Church had it wrong. Usually its what is more modern (imo, always what is). We should just recognize just because the American Bishops approve a faulty translation, that means nothing about whether the Church is right or wrong, and it is useless to defend the indefensible.

God bless.

[Chrysologus]

I'm so glad that ironmonk hasn't joined the presumptuous crowd of traditionalists who have decided to judge our bishops in their decisions regarding the NAB.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote]You define rebuke as a reproval HARSHLY and admonish as a reproval GENTLY.[/quote]

Uh, I think ironmonk defined rebuke as a "sharp reproval," not harsh.

[quote]Rebuke:
1.) To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See Synonyms at admonish.
2.) To check or repress. [/quote]

Yep! Please do not insert words into the mouth of your colleagues during a debate. It's incredibly bad form.

[catholicguy]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jul 28 2004, 08:27 AM']
Uh, I think ironmonk defined rebuke as a "sharp reproval," not harsh.



Yep! Please do not insert words into the mouth of your colleagues during a debate. It's incredibly bad form. [/quote]
I'm sorry I used a synonymn for one word; therefore, my whole point is disregarded. This is a definition of the word sharp: "Harsh or biting in tone or character"... so I didn't even put words in his mouth. That is a definition of the word. I would like to see someone comment on the translation of the Novus Ordo...

[catholicguy]

bump - ironmonk, can you make a response to the translation of the NO?

[Kathryn]

Actually, Ironmonk showed me that the NAB's translation was accurate based on definition number two.

2.) To check or repress.

It doesn't have to mean:
1.) To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand.

Jesus clearly was repressing the answer, without criticizing, reproving, or reprimanding.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 28 2004, 04:30 PM'] bump - ironmonk, can you make a response to the translation of the NO? [/quote]
Nope.
We do not debate a Mass approved by the Church. Whether the translations is perfect or not, it was approved by the Church.
Negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo or John Paul II."

Edited July 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Aloysius]

also: the ICEL is retranslating it as we speak.

[catholicguy]

So is the ICEL wrong now or were they wrong before? The point is that the translation is bad. [color=red][Edited by Ice Princess: Personal attack][/color] I have seen this happen with any and all debates that concern something that is approved by the Church which is erroneous (but was different in the past and could change in the future and is not infallible and, in fact, [i]is[/i] going to change in the future!). Just because there is an error in something, that does not somehow mean that the Church has erred. Obviously, as I stated earlier, the ICEL translation is [i]wrong[/i]. That is what it is--erroneous, wrong, whatever else you want to call it. This does not mean that the Church has erred. This is a matter of discipline at best and is something that a committee has formed (these committees are really beginning to remind me of the Baptists; you've got the ICEL, the USCCB, and the various other committees and conventions and coalitions; we wonder why people complain about legalism; [i]behold[/i], (I mean "this is") the bureaucracy in the post-Conciliar Church!) We have to be honest with ourselves. Does anyone actually believe that a translation error (or even a doctrinal error, which are also present) in the Novus Ordo Mass somehow discredits the infallibility of the Church? It is quite strange indeed to see the defense for a mistranslation (or other mistake in the Mass) to be "We do not debate a Mass approved by the Church." I guess I would rather have "Non-Catholic" instead of "Phishy" so that way I could at least debate the facts of the matter!

N.B., the comment above "[i]behold[/i], (I mean "this is")" is an allusion to another mistranslation into english (and possibly other languages) of the [i]Ecce Agnus Dei[/i]: "Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi" which translates "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world". This is currently translated "This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world [add whatever ending desired; most often "Happy are those (or, we) who are called to His Supper]."

Edited July 28, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[Aloysius]

all of these translations you're citing MEAN the same thing, just with a little word error that means the same thing but could be expressed better.

[catholicguy]

"Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" translated "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault" is the same as "through my fault"? Do you not think that there is a purpose for having stated mea culpa three times? Apparently the ICEL does not. Further, "I believe" is a different statement than "We believe". The biggest, most important, error is in the Consecration. The moving of "Mysterium fidei" (the Mystery of Faith) from the Consecration to immediately after the Consecration, coupled with the mistranslation of "pro multis" as "for many" is much, much, much more important than these other erroneous translations. To say "for many" has theological significance. I do not fault you for not understanding the symbolic expressions of doctrinal truths as well as the specific wording which does the same since the NO Mass is almost devoid of these instances. The Catechism of Council of Trent explained why "for many" was used instead of "for all". Notice that the Council was written in Latin and that it discusses separately the two ideas, "for many" ("pro multis") and "for all" ("pro omnibus"). In any event, the Catechism of the Council of Trent explains this well, saying:

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew (26:28), some from Luke (22:20), but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. 9:28); and also of the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are Thine" (John 17: 9)

[Aloysius]

that scripture actually translates "for the many" which is an idiomatic expression meaning for the common people, and thus "for all" can be considered a valid translation of the scripture passage there. "for many" is theologically true for the reason the Council of Trent explains, and "for all" is also theologically true as that Council of Trent quote breifly mentions... then coming to see that Jesus' words actually could have been refering to the fact He was sheding it for all. It is true that He shed it for all, it is true it is only for many insomuch as the Eucharist is only for many and only many of the human race bear fruit from it.

[catholicguy]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 28 2004, 04:26 PM'] that scripture actually translates "for the many" which is an idiomatic expression meaning for the common people, and thus "for all" can be considered a valid translation of the scripture passage there. "for many" is theologically true for the reason the Council of Trent explains, and "for all" is also theologically true as that Council of Trent quote breifly mentions... then coming to see that Jesus' words actually could have been refering to the fact He was sheding it for all. It is true that He shed it for all, it is true it is only for many insomuch as the Eucharist is only for many and only many of the human race bear fruit from it. [/quote]
1) No, it is NEVER "for all", by no stretch of the imagination can "for all" be theologically held beyond the bare-bones fact that all COULD have part in salvation, which we know is false. Therefore, He did not shed His Blood for all, as the Council and St. Thomas Aquinas write clearly.

2) Your argument is that the translation is not bad or at least not very bad. Of the example I have given, these are VERY bad translations, especially when they destroy theology behind many of these phrases. It's not reasonable to argue the theology against "for all" because the Church has already done that. She has explained why it is wrong in the Council of Trent and others. It comes back to the fact that you can't defend when the ICEL or anyone in the Church authority messes up. Just admit the fact that they don't get it right everytime. To say that they do is to give the Pope and everyone in authority a sort of infallibility that is not granted by the Church.

[Chrysologus]

_The English translation of the mass is not "bad," it's just not literal._

It wasn't intended to be literal but to convey the true meaning of the Latin text into English. Anyone who's studied a foreign language knows that when you translate something, there are many words and phrases which you translate non-literally. In any case, a new English translation is being made which is more literal. Apparently the ICEL feels the original translation was not literal enough.