Talk:New American Bible

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Back when I was studying religion at Notre Dame (in 1960-61) I helped out in a very small way on this translation (punctuation, mostly), and can report that the chief translators were indeed conservative Catholics. RJJensen 20:56, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Don't know about that. The end product was so liberal that the Vatican rejected it and required a major re-editing. Feminist influence on the translation was one problem, as the meaning of gender was changed to appease liberals.
But the objections in this entry have more to do with simply awkward or outright mistaken translations. "Grain ... produces much fruit"??? How is that possibly defensible? It such an important passage, too.--Andy Schlafly 21:00, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
I agree there are a handful of awkward places like "fruit" (the problem is that "fruit" has multiple meanings.) The OT Prophets books I worked on were much improved in the new version. The Vatican in those days had some oddball and "liberalism" was not at issue. More serious was the idea that Americans would replace the Douai version which had many vested interests in terms of book publishers, as well as old-fashioned clergy who really liked the wholly outdated Doua1 language. RJJensen 21:07, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
The word "fruit" has a figurative meaning ... when used figuratively, as in "bears fruit." But the phrase "produces much ..." is not a figurative phrase. "Produces much fruit" is simply wrong here in connection with "grain".
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. Numerous atrocious translations in key passages in this translations, passages that are heavily used in official church readings, suggest real problems with this translation effort. This really does cry out for an explanation of what happened. (I'm not blaming you for this!)--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Awkward compound negative in the CBP

Andy, it's amusing that you are chiding the "New American Bible" for its use of an awkward compound negative in Mark 6:4 (Οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ), when the CBP uses exactly the same translation for the parallel verse in Matthew 13:57 (Οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ)! --AugustO 05:18, 18 February 2015 (EST)