Charms717RM1 Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Ok, so I was reading in Matthew the other day and I came across these verses, which I thought were appropriate considering my discernment and application to the seminary: 37 Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; 38 so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest." Now what confuses me is the footnote that says: 23 [37-38] This Q saying (see Luke 10:2) is only imperfectly related to this context. It presupposes that only God (the master of the harvest) can take the initiative in sending out preachers of the gospel, whereas in Matthew's setting it leads into Matthew 10 where Jesus does so. My question is how is it "only imperfectly related to this context?" It seems quite apt to me, saying that we should pray for more laborers and then going to Jesus sending the twelve out. Furthermore, I'm confused as to why the footnote says "It presupposes that only God (the master of the harvest) can take the initiative in sending out preachers of the gospel, wheras in Matthew's setting it leads into Matthew 10 where Jesus does so." Why does the footnote make that distinction when Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trinity? Any help would be appreciated ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 The NAB is a bad translation with bad footnotes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Oftentimes people with less than apt theological language use "God" (i.e., referring to the whole Trinity) when they really mean "the Father". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charms717RM1 Posted May 3, 2006 Author Share Posted May 3, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='970008' date='May 3 2006, 04:50 PM'] Oftentimes people with less than apt theological language use "God" (i.e., referring to the whole Trinity) when they really mean "the Father". [/quote] Ah, gotcha- thanks! Lol, i was like "what, is the NAB saying that Jesus isn't Divine?" [quote name='StThomasMore' post='969993' date='May 3 2006, 04:39 PM'] The NAB is a bad translation with bad footnotes... [/quote] Yeah, i didn't know what translations were out there when I bought it. I only got it because i know its the one our lectionary uses. Now i'll agree with you about the footnotes, but why is it a bad translation? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just curious why you'd say that. Peace, Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 [quote name='Charms717RM1' post='970012' date='May 3 2006, 05:56 PM']Yeah, i didn't know what translations were out there when I bought it. I only got it because i know its the one our lectionary uses.[/quote] well, actually, the NAB that is used in the lectionary is a revised version that is not even available to buy. the NAB has been edited and re-edited so many times that the laity can't even read the scriptures of the mass anymore. [quote]Now i'll agree with you about the footnotes, but why is it a bad translation? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just curious why you'd say that. Peace, Keith[/quote] here's an article that explains it well: [url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/public.html#bible"]http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/public.html#bible[/url] pax christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 I love First Things. (if you're a student, you can subscribe for only $15!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 [quote]Yeah, i didn't know what translations were out there when I bought it. I only got it because i know its the one our lectionary uses. Now i'll agree with you about the footnotes, but why is it a bad translation? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just curious why you'd say that.[/quote] inclusive language, translation from inadiquite "original" documents, liberalness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 I wish the RSV-CE were readily available online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 [quote name='thedude' post='970112' date='May 3 2006, 05:55 PM'] I wish the RSV-CE were readily available online. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 They have the Douay Rhiems online, and it's much better anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 If what they say is true then translations are a sad deal. Why in these situations can a group of solid bishops not get together and comission an orthodox person to do a new translation and then make that one standard. This really sounds like more attacks by satan. I have a really hard time understanding how everything gets so turned around as it comes across the atlantic, especially in regard to Vatican II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 [quote name='StThomasMore' post='970279' date='May 3 2006, 08:53 PM'] They have the Douay Rhiems online, and it's much better anyway. [/quote] The DR is a good version, but the Church called for more investigation into the ancient original languages...of those Bibles, the RSV-CE is best, especially the Second Edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 (edited) the DR is still better Edited May 5, 2006 by StThomasMore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 (edited) The NAB -- the original 1970 translation, the 1986 revision, the 1991 revision, and subsequent revisions -- really is a clunker of a translation. Alas, as Father Neuhaus has pointed out in [i]First Things[/i], the attitude among US bishops is, "It may be bad, but it's ours." This bishopric pride has evidently trickled down to the masses. I always see American Catholics, here and elsewhere, bashing the NRSV (the translation used in the Canadian Church), but they should think about what [i]they[/i] are subjected to at Mass. I would take the NRSV over the NAB any day of the week, even with its gender-inclusive language. Heck, I'd take numerous Protestant translations -- the old RSV, NEB, NKJV, ESV. All of them trump the NAB in terms of scholarship and readability. [quote name='Raphael' post='970445' date='May 3 2006, 09:26 PM'] The DR is a good version, but the Church called for more investigation into the ancient original languages...of those Bibles, the RSV-CE is best, especially the Second Edition. [/quote] I would give the RSV-CE/SCE honors for best modern formal equivalence (literal) Catholic translation, but overall, I think the 1966 Jerusalem Bible is the best translation that English-speaking Catholics possess. There are some other, older dynamic translations out there that are truly fantastic as well: Msgr. Ronald Knox's, the Kleist/Lilly New Testament, to name a couple. Unfortunately, these have been pretty much forgotten. Edited May 5, 2006 by Nathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 is readability really something that is so important, or something that we term a modern comfort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now