Originally posted by lucifershammer
St. Jerome's translation would, no doubt, reflect the way the Church understood those texts at the time.
100% agreement! St Jerome was a mighty scholar and demonstrably meticulous.
Anyone who disagrees with this is a fool.
Does his translation accurately convey the intentions of the authors? I don't know.
I think we can venture that it may not convey it to a certain degree. He will carry with
him about 300 years of Christian experience (heresies, arguments, councils, and so forth).
All of things are going to taint him, lean him in a certain direction of interpretation.
He has no experience with Jesus (of course) or His disciples, or even His disciples' disciples.
The early Christian writers had, to some degree, that. He also doesn't have the advantage
of today's archeological and anthropological studies which can give us insight into the meaning
of a word or phrase.
I would say that St Jerome did the best he could to create the best edition with the texts
he had, but that he, like us all, was a product of his time and was influenced by it. Editors
today are in a better position for three reasons:
1) They have access to history and information unavailable to St Jerome;
2) They have better knowledge of text-critical and redactive techniques which
inform them as to the best way to handle a given passge of translation;
3) There is a greater freedom of peer review (without fear of being burned at
the stake), which allows for discussion and contemplation, rather than the absurd
notion that 'this translation is the never-changing, always perfect' notion.
I would like it if you could elaborate (with a few examples, if possible) why you feel the NAB is the best translation around.
Because it has the Nihil Obstant and Imprimatur!
Just kidding. That's not why.
I find that, if for no other reason than its size, the Roman Church has the most
advanced theological scholarship of any denomination. They have liberal scholars,
conservative scholars, bookworms and mystics, scholars who are pro-institution,
who are anti-establishment. You name it. And, while the Church has tried to
silence some of the radicals, there remains a tremendous outlet for this information,
a sort of 'point-counterpoint.' The NAB is a product of that environment; with only
a few exceptions that I have noticed, the critical notes reflect the positions of a
variety of theological perspectives, the introductions reflect an expression of what
was the best scholarship of that day.
Of course, I supplant any NT biblical study I do with a Greek transliteration and
translation aids (UBS series) and am up-to-date on new theological trends (again,
largely in journals which are appealling to RC audiences), so any objections I have
to an interpretation are often supported by some RC theologian.
The NAB is where I start for the superficial study (a quick glance or reminder about
a passage). My NAB is (unsurprisingly) highly annotated by me where ever I have
reservations in their translation. I'm not wedded to it, and, if you could recommend
another translation that you feel is better, I'm all ears!
Nemesio