Where is Job 31:1 in my NAB?

[jswranch]

A response to a budy yesterday was, "Cats and Prots use different manuscripts for their bibles. Job 31:1 is not there in the Cat versions." Is this an LXX issue?

[homeschoolmom]

[thessalonian]

Good question as to why it is not in our NAB. It's in the DR, RSV, and another Catholic tranlation I have so I don't think the Catholic/Protestant issue he is making is that big a deal. The passage only shows that in the Old Testament man could know that lust was not a good thing either. (Job was gentile remember). There are other passages like this that are in Catholic but not in Protestant Bibles and vice versa as well. This is not as big a problem in Catholicism as we have sacred oral tradition which passes along the concepts that are carried in these passages.

He has a problem in an English translation. There is no way that any English translation carries on the full meaning of the passages. So he has lost part of the word of God in an english translation. Once again, it is not as big a deal to us with Sacred OT.

[JJMG2001]

The NAB often moves verses around in the text for many reasons. 31:1 has been moved after verse 4O

Edited July 24, 2006 by JJMG2001

[thessalonian]

On the usccb site it is even odder than that. They put v. 38, 39, 40 after 8 and then go to 1 and 9.

[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job31.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job31.htm[/url]

But there's the answer. Thank you for it.

Edited July 24, 2006 by thessalonian

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1029846' date='Jul 24 2006, 08:30 AM']
On the usccb site it is even odder than that. They put v. 38, 39, 40 after 8 and then go to 1 and 9.

[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job31.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job31.htm[/url]

But there's the answer. Thank you for it.
[/quote],
That is how it is in my bible too I just missed that 38,39, & 40 were moved.

[Sojourner]

OK. That is just weird.

[pyranima]

sometimes we forget that the bible is not actually divided into chapters and verses that is actually a human tradition, there for they can be organized as the editor sees fit.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='pyranima' post='1030657' date='Jul 25 2006, 07:24 PM']
sometimes we forget that the bible is not actually divided into chapters and verses that is actually a human tradition, there for they can be organized as the editor sees fit.
[/quote]
Well sure ... but if you're going to organize it differently, why not just re-number the verses? Why put 1 out of order?

[jswranch]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1031249' date='Jul 26 2006, 10:39 AM']
Well sure ... but if you're going to organize it differently, why not just re-number the verses? Why put 1 out of order?
[/quote]
I believe that is a big taboo in the bible publishing world.

[thessalonian]

Likely some manuscripts have the order variations. A reason for not renumbering is likely that other Catholic bibles (i.e. RSV) have the ordering the same as the protestant Bibles. Thus for cross referencing between Bibles keeping the numbering (which is an addition of the 1500's) would make cross reffing easier.