Question on some NAB footnotes

[Laudate_Dominum]

well, you'll get different commentaries (or none at all) in different editions of the NAB so I think the question ought to be the usefullness of the translation itself for exegesis.

If that's all we're talking about the NAB smells of elderberries because the rule is that you want a more literal translation as your primary text when doing exegesis. The RSV is a more strictly literal translation than the NAB. I think that's generally where people are coming from when they recommend the one over the other.

Although I guess one could argue that the scholarship behind the NAB is more contemporary than that of the RSV. But personally I just can't stand the NAB. I suppose the sensibilities of the scholars who worked on it were just far from my own. Once you switch over to a Greek NT or the LLX, you won't go back. That's all I can say.

[Oik]

Bro. Adam,

I know we are in different camps on this. That's okay.

I haven't even used the Navarre Commentary.

[quote]
There are still better commentaries to use for exegetical purposes than the NAB.[/quote]

That is Dr. Minto's opinion as well. I don't know where I stand on this issue because I have had very little exposure to exegesis.

I can say that the NAB has been most helpful and was my primary source.

When it comes to commentaries, I should say, the commentary I used for the NAB was the footnotes alone. The other commentaries I used were actually books.


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

Maybe one day it will. I hope so. Unfortunately for me, its not only the footnotes, is the translation too. With the RSV-CE (Ignatius) I found, as a personal opinion, that I did not like the translation when it came to using it for exegesis. I preferred the NAB in most cases.

However, I do not have a favorite translation. I like various translations for various reasons. I know we agree here (or do we not?).

[quote]Although I guess one could argue that the scholarship behind the NAB is more contemporary than that of the RSV. But personally I just can't stand the NAB. I suppose the sensibilities of the scholars who worked on it were just far from my own. Once you switch over to a Greek NT or the LLX, you won't go back. That's all I can say.[/quote]


WISDOM! BE ATTENTIVE!

I have a feeling you are right here.

Going back to the Greek would be the most satifying. Why stop there though? Why no learn Hebrew and Aramaic to identify thier influences?

You gotta draw the line somewhere. I think for me the Greek would be a good place to draw that line.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Oik' post='973137' date='May 5 2006, 10:30 PM']
Bro. Adam,

I know we are in different camps on this. That's okay.

I haven't even used the Navarre Commentary.
That is Dr. Minto's opinion as well. I don't know where I stand on this issue because I have had very little exposure to exegesis.

I can say that the NAB has been most helpful and was my primary source.

When it comes to commentaries, I should say, the commentary I used for the NAB was the footnotes alone. The other commentaries I used were actually books.
Maybe one day it will. I hope so. Unfortunately for me, its not only the footnotes, is the translation too. With the RSV-CE (Ignatius) I found, as a personal opinion, that I did not like the translation when it came to using it for exegesis. I preferred the NAB in most cases.

However, I do not have a favorite translation. I like various translations for various reasons. I know we agree here (or do we not?).
WISDOM! BE ATTENTIVE!

I have a feeling you are right here.

Going back to the Greek would be the most satifying. Why stop there though? Why no learn Hebrew and Aramaic to identify thier influences?

You gotta draw the line somewhere. I think for me the Greek would be a good place to draw that line.
[/quote]
I'd love to learn to actually read Hebrew and Aramaic someday.. But I must say, Greek in itself is very satisfying.. "Slimey yet satisfying", j/k.. I'm dead serious though.. Greek is a totally gorgeous language.. its sheer poetry.. I wish learning Greek was a normal part of CCD and RCIA.. ok, that'll never happen, but its a nice thought.

[Oik]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='973140' date='May 5 2006, 10:38 PM']
I'd love to learn to actually read Hebrew and Aramaic someday.. But I must say, Greek in itself is very satisfying.. "Slimey yet satisfying", j/k.. I'm dead serious though.. Greek is a totally gorgeous language.. its sheer poetry.. I wish learning Greek was a normal part of CCD and RCIA.. ok, that'll never happen, but its a nice thought.
[/quote]




too bad though!

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Oik' post='973137' date='May 6 2006, 02:30 AM']
Bro. Adam,

I know we are in different camps on this. That's okay.

I haven't even used the Navarre Commentary.

[/quote]

I guess we are! Some things we totally agree on, some things are different. I'm pretty much completely against the version, but then I would trust you working with it becuase you are orthodox.

[jasJis]

Reading this thread is enlightening. So regular Joe Cath will learn herresy by reading a Cath approved bible translation?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='jasJis' post='973326' date='May 6 2006, 07:19 AM']
Reading this thread is enlightening. So regular Joe Cath will learn herresy by reading a Cath approved bible translation?
[/quote]
not the translation, the [i]footnotes[/i]

also, i wanted to point out that, while i may be wrong here (some please correct me!), i don't think there is any outright, blatant heresy in the NAB footnotes. instead, what i find is a dependence on the historical-critical method, which i think implants into the reader a questioning and doubting spirit that, if you are not strong in your faith, could lead you to discredit much of what we see, for example, in the Gospels.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='973353' date='May 6 2006, 09:18 AM']
not the translation, the [i]footnotes[/i]

also, i wanted to point out that, while i may be wrong here (some please correct me!), i don't think there is any outright, blatant heresy in the NAB footnotes. instead, what i find is a dependence on the historical-critical method, which i think implants into the reader a questioning and doubting spirit that, if you are not strong in your faith, could lead you to discredit much of what we see, for example, in the Gospels.
[/quote]
Agreed. The historical-critical method can be good sometimes, but like any method, it has weak points. When I was first getting interested in Scripture, the NAB was all I had...I read the footnotes and it shook my faith a few times...especially that comment on the gods sleeping with the daughters of men and how it's just Hebrew mythology that Moses is trying to pass on...Moses would NOT pass on a pagan theology...sorry, wouldn't happen. I like Dr. Bergsma's explanation...so far, to that point, Genesis had discussed the fallen line of Cain, but the line of Seth was still relatively virtuous (sons of God), but then started interbreding with the daughters of Cain and got corrupted (which fits with the theme throughout the OT of intermarrying with sinful people causing corruption among the formerly righteous).

[Brother Adam]

Really. Wouldn't it be easier to say that Cain and Seth are just myths?



Sorry.

[Oik]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='973203' date='May 6 2006, 12:57 AM']
I guess we are! Some things we totally agree on, some things are different. I'm pretty much completely against the version, but then I would trust you working with it becuase you are orthodox.
[/quote]



Thanks. I have to say it really took me by surprise that I preferred the NAB. I used to really hate it!

It really just came about by reading tha text. I acutally don't own an NAB translation until recently, as I got rid of mine (I don't remember what I did with it) just before I came to school here.

You should read my 2 exegesis' I did for Dr. Minto, one for PBS I, on Isaiah and the other for PBS II on John.

[Oik]

Okay, the whole myth part of this thread can easily be a touchy subject. This is one of those thing where you either see the fruitfulness of the method or not. It's really a matter of opinion.

The Historical-critical method does have problems. The idea of calling things myths is very destructive in many senses.

For me, though, the idea that the OT employs myth and mythic language, whether or not this is a conclusive idea, provides some insight into the influence those things had on the author. It is illuminative.

Micah, as for the sons of heaven, I am in a different camp on that. Here is that footnote:


Genesis footnotes, NAB:
[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation--the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.


A "fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology" that the sacred author incorporated into the text is hardly promulgating the mythology of Pagans.

A fitting story, or part of, that is used tp explain morality (and if its was modified we don't know) doesn't bother me, which seems to be a more accurate rending.

This is an example in the Bible is which literary genre comes into play.
Are you scandalized by the Song of Songs? I know many are. Its poetry.

Edited May 6, 2006 by Oik

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Oik' post='973488' date='May 6 2006, 12:57 PM']


Thanks. I have to say it really took me by surprise that I preferred the NAB. I used to really hate it!

It really just came about by reading tha text. I acutally don't own an NAB translation until recently, as I got rid of mine (I don't remember what I did with it) just before I came to school here.

You should read my 2 exegesis' I did for Dr. Minto, one for PBS I, on Isaiah and the other for PBS II on John.


[/quote]

Send them my way. I will read them over the summer. I'd be interested in seeing what is expected since I will have to do one in the Fall.

[Oik]

:

Will do! I might even stop by and drop off the physical copies.

Who are you taking? D. Bergsma, Dr. Miletic, or Dr. Minto? What do you all have to do in terms of an exegesis?

[Brother Adam]

Dr. Bergsma. The other two kept on him about making his classes do an exegesis so now we do. I'll have him in the fall for pbsII. From what I know it isn't an exegesis in the traditional sense, as most people do not know original languages, but they had to use at least 3 different commentaries and each exegesis had a whole bunch of different sections.

[Brother Adam]

John 18:5

"The band, with which Judas shood, answered the question: 'whom seek ye?' by using the ordinary designation of the master: 'Jesus of Nazareth': cf. Mrk 10:47. The words "I am he", uttered by him who could say "I am who am', caused what Jn undoubtedly attributes to miraculous power, namely, a backward stampede, involving an impressive fall to the ground of many, at least, of the arresting party."

The Old Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture: John XVIII, 5