NAB chapter and verse re-ordering...

[japhy]

Is there some FAQ or essay I could read somewhere to explain the rationale behind the differences in the chapter and verse numbering and ordering in the NAB as opposed to practically every non-Catholic edition of the Bible I've seen? I recently was in a multi-denominational Bible study group that was reading from Ezekiel, and I was quite worried about the reactions I would have received had I read Ezekiel 10, which has some verses from chapter 11 in it, and has some re-ordering within itself. Proverbs 5 has v 6:22 inserted between vv 19-20; I'm not sure why, since 6:22 makes sense in the context of 6:21. Another example is Ecclesiastes 9:18 in the NAB ("A fly that dies can spoil the perfumer's ointment, and a single slip can ruin much that is good."), which appears in other editions as 10:1. The verse they have in place of 9:18 is something along the lines of "Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much." It appears the two verses have been merged into one.

Now, the NAB I have (Catholic Study Edition) has a couple essays at its front that talk about the process of translating the source languages into English, and they mention the task of dealing with repetitive phrases properly. What I'm looking for is an explanation of these changes. I do not necessarily doubt the translation, nor think there is an "agenda" of some sort, but I would like to know the rationale, if only so that, if challenged, I can provide an answer rather than "uhhhhh, I dunno".

 

[Dolorosa]

Check out the Douay-Rheims Bible online:

http://www.drbo.org/

Yes, there is an agenda, the Bible has been changed to undermine the faith. In fact they changed the Blessed Mother to highly favored one instead of Full of Grace. Big difference!

 

[japhy]

In fact they changed the Blessed Mother to highly favored one instead of Full of Grace. Big difference!

That one, in particular, is due to them reverting to the original Greek, not the Latin Vulgate. The Greek word, κεχαριτωμενη (from charitoo), means to be graced, to be highly favored, to be accepted. The Latin translation rendered it as gratia plenia, "full of grace". The two are not identical. That doesn't mean Mary was not the pure unstained vessel that held Christ, it only means St. Jerome interpreted the Greek in a different way than modern Bible translators do. Perhaps it was the author of the Greek who is to "blame" for not writing plaras karitos, for using one word where two would have conveyed the right meaning.

What it comes down to is that, despite the current translation of the source text which some people believe proves us mistaken, we Catholics believe in the purity, the state of full grace, of Mary as the mother of Jesus.

 

[japhy]

bump

Here's the brief explanation in the NAB about this issue: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm