Question on some NAB footnotes

[Resurrexi]

a modern comfort.

[Oik]

Actually, the NAB is not really as bad as it is made out to be.

I prefer the NAB as a primary text when I am doing biblical exegesis.
When I am doing exegesis for a passage, I of course use several translations.

I usually only consult the Douay-Rhiems. It is not a primary text for me when I do exegesis. The modern translations are easier to work with.

I use the NAB, RSV-CE (Ignatius), DR, TEV.

The RSV-CE is really not my favorite for exegesis. Some of the words they use and ways they phrase are not as informative or descriptive as the NAB.


NOW, all this being said, I don't recommend the NAB to read for it's poetic style or flow. I recommend the Douay-Rhiems.

If you want a Bible that will maintain some poetic style and flow, yet set in modern English, then the RSV-CE (Ignatius) is the best.


Still, some of the translations are more illuminative to me in the NAB, BUT, this really requires some exposure to the methods of Biblical Exegesis to honestly appreciate.

[Oik]

I'll give you a good example.

Open your bible to John 18.

Here in the garden during the arrest of Jesus, Johnhas already set up some really important things in his theme of 'the Glorification of Jesus the King, who is obedient to God, unto death'.

18 opens with the crossing of the Kidron Valley. King David crosses the Kidron too. This sets up the kingly motif of Jesus.

Okay, so let's see, Verse 4 reveals who is really in controlo here: Jesus. He already knows what is going to happen to Him.

Now, The RSV-CE, in verse 5 translates Jesus' response as "I am he". They fall back.
This falling back really doesn't fit too well.

UNLESS....
We turn to the NAB translation. Verse 5 is translated "I AM".

Let's have a look at those "bad footnnotes in the NAB".
The foot note for 18:5 reads as follows:

18,5: Nazorean: the form found in Mt 26, 71 (see the note on Mt 2, 23) is here used, not Nazerene of Mark. I AM: or "I am he," but probably intended by the evangelist as an expression of divinity (cf thier appropriate response in 6); see the note on 8, 24. John sets the confusion of the arresting party against the background of Jesus' divine majesty.


Hey, let's now turn to the RSV-CE (Ignatius) for those wonderful footnotes....oh wait, there isn't a footnote for 18:5....bummer

[mortify]

I purchased my NAB thinking it would be great since it has a commentary and is considered the "official catholic bible" (at least thats what it says on the cover). Boy was I horrified when I read the commentary. The commentary's main focus seems to be the textual veracity of a passage rather than the theme or meaning. And you immediatly get the point that whoever wrote the commentary does not believe much of what has been written; owing much to theological interpolation. What bothers me most is how the author assumes to know things which can't possibly be known, like what was going on in an Evangelist's mind when he was writing a passage, and note how boldly the author talks about the the so called Gospel of Q, as if it actually exists! How can you speak of something existing when there is not even a shred of evidence of its physical existence? My questions are, *who* wrote that commentary and *how* it ever get into our bible.

[Oik]

I know that the fuss of the NAB goes back to many preconceived notions about the attack of liberalism and it's infiltration into the Church. Thus, I empathize with the feelings and reservations that many have in regard to the NAB.

Let's look at the text itself.

Here is the [url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm"]preface the the NAB[/url].

If you do not prefer the translation, fine. Everyone is has thier own opinions. However, the continued assertation that the NAB is a "poor" or "bad" translation has to stop. Either the preface indicates what the translation of the text provides or it does not. I know it does and the NAB translation is wonderful for biblical exegesis.


Hey, if someone doesn't understand or know how to do biblical exegesis, fine, that's a choice. I however, don't undersatnd this dislike for a text that is suited for exegesis and a modern approach.

If you want to read the Douay-Rheims or RSV-CE (or both) only, that's your choice. It has no bearing on the NAB's suitibility for biblical exegesis (which really requires numerous translations and commentaries).


Finally, the NAB footnotes really HELP a lot in Exegesis. Now, if you are offended becasue you don't understand the terminology or you are afraid that the footnotes contain heresy or theological mistakes, don't read the NAB.

I assure you though, this isn't the case.
Edited May 5, 2006 by Oik

[phatcatholic]

are you really saying that there is [i][b]no[/b][/i] heresy in the footnotes? also, did u read the article i provided?

[phatcatholic]

new article just released on this issue:
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/highlights/highlights.cfm?id=107"][b]It's the Church's Bible[/b][/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Imprimatur granted to the NAB footnotes should be removed.

[Nathan]

[quote name='Oik' post='972319' date='May 5 2006, 09:41 AM']However, the continued assertation that the NAB is a "poor" or "bad" translation has to stop. Either the preface indicates what the translation of the text provides or it does not. I know it does and the NAB translation is wonderful for biblical exegesis.

Hey, if someone doesn't understand or know how to do biblical exegesis, fine, that's a choice. I however, don't undersatnd this dislike for a text that is suited for exegesis and a modern approach.[/quote]

The NAB "wonderful" for exegesis? Whatever it is you've been smoking, I gotta get me some of that.

[Oik]

[quote]are you really saying that there is no heresy in the footnotes? also, did u read the article i provided?[/quote]

I read through the link you posted which provided many short articles.

Fr. Neuhaus' article didn't have any citations, so it lends itself more to well-informed opinion. That doesn't really have much to do with anything as I already pointed out in my post that everyone can hold whatever personal opinion they want to on the matter.

What does concern me is that no one in this post, other than the original poster (Fr. Neuhaus' article included) addresses the facts I presented.

I gave an example of the NAB in action in exegesis and compared it to the RSV-CE (Ignatius). I think the NAB translations and footnote I provided give a good example as to why they are good.

The failure of the RSV-CE to have any really substanial footnotes or commentary, as it were, really does not lend the RSV-CE (Ignatius) to exegesis in the same way (though I always use it in exegesis as my second text of choice).

Edited May 6, 2006 by Oik

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Oik' post='971896' date='May 5 2006, 12:16 AM']
I'll give you a good example.

Open your bible to John 18.

Here in the garden during the arrest of Jesus, Johnhas already set up some really important things in his theme of 'the Glorification of Jesus the King, who is obedient to God, unto death'.

18 opens with the crossing of the Kidron Valley. King David crosses the Kidron too. This sets up the kingly motif of Jesus.

Okay, so let's see, Verse 4 reveals who is really in controlo here: Jesus. He already knows what is going to happen to Him.

Now, The RSV-CE, in verse 5 translates Jesus' response as "I am he". They fall back.
This falling back really doesn't fit too well.

UNLESS....
We turn to the NAB translation. Verse 5 is translated "I AM".

Let's have a look at those "bad footnnotes in the NAB".
The foot note for 18:5 reads as follows:

18,5: Nazorean: the form found in Mt 26, 71 (see the note on Mt 2, 23) is here used, not Nazerene of Mark. I AM: or "I am he," but probably intended by the evangelist as an expression of divinity (cf thier appropriate response in 6); see the note on 8, 24. John sets the confusion of the arresting party against the background of Jesus' divine majesty.
Hey, let's now turn to the RSV-CE (Ignatius) for those wonderful footnotes....oh wait, there isn't a footnote for 18:5....bummer
[/quote]
Is that all you've got? You used the same argument this morning with me.

Yes, in that case, it may be better, but I still point out the psalms to you.

[Oik]

Sorry Micah, I'm not a bible scholar (yet?). So, it's Dr. Bergsma vs. Dr. Minto.

:

[Oik]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='972691' date='May 5 2006, 04:14 PM']
new article just released on this issue:
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/highlights/highlights.cfm?id=107"][b]It's the Church's Bible[/b][/url]
[/quote]

The article was brief and general unsatisfying for me.

I was well composed. I cracked open my NAB, DR, and RSV-CE (Ignatius) to see what this Psalm 23:6 controversy was all about.


NAB
Only goodness and love will pursue me all the days of my life; I will dwell in the house (e*) of the LORD for years to come.

(e*)= Ps. 27,4

Psalm 27:4 NAB

One thing I ask of the LORD; this I seek: To dwell in the LORD'S house all the days of my life, To gaze on the LORD'S beauty, to visit his temple.


The indication is pretty clear here.

Dr. Mirus' example really fails for me. I don't agree that the translation of "unto length of days" to "for years to come" fails, but "forever" succeeds.

Alternately, the RSV-CE (Ignatius) indicates yet another rending of the phrase as "as long as I live".




Opinions, Opinions. I'm don't see any examples that hold water.


Furthermore, Micah indicated today some "problem" in Psalms. I am undable to check this problem as it was only addressed general. Micah, if you want to go back and inquire, that's on you.



[quote]The Imprimatur granted to the NAB footnotes should be removed.[/quote]

??? Okay.



Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Oik' post='973093' date='May 6 2006, 01:29 AM']
I read through the link you posted which provided many short articles.

Fr. Neuhaus' article didn't have any citations, so it lends itself more to well-informed opinion. That doesn't really have much to do with anything as I already pointed out in my post that everyone can hold whatever personal opinion they want to on the matter.

What does concern me is that no one in this post, other than the original poster (Fr. Neuhaus' article included) addresses the facts I presented.

I gave an example of the NAB in action in exegesis and compared it to the RSV-CE (Ignatius). I think the NAB translations and footnote I provided give a good example as to why they are good.

The failure of the RSV-CE to have any really substanial footnotes or commentary, as it were, really does not lend the RSV-CE (Ignatius) to exegesis in the same way (though I always use it in exegesis as my second text of choice).
[/quote]

Navarre Bible Commentary would be the 'footnotes' for the RSV as far as I'm concerned. There are still better commentaries to use for exegetical purposes than the NAB.

the RSV-CE 2 also seems to have more footnotes. Though not as extensive as the NAB

[Oik]

[quote]The NAB "wonderful" for exegesis? Whatever it is you've been smoking, I gotta get me some of that.[/quote]

I'm not a bible scholar, just a novice theologian and exegete. I don't even pretend to know the extent of the usefulness of certain translations.

I can only share what I know from doing Exegesis. My OPINION is that the NAB is wonderful for exegesis.


"Stand up man, I'm not the Pope."