I'm a fan of the New American Bible. It is not my favourite translation (the NRSV is) but I have no fundamental objections to it. I know a lot of people dislike the NAB and many of them are a lot smarter than me and certainly are better informed about Bible translation.
But fan I may be of the NAB, I still did a double take when I saw this in today's lectionary:
The first thing you will note is that the NAB makes the language considerably more linear. The other two translations feature rhetorical questions. They ask what is the kind of fasting desired by God and then pose a number of rhetorical questions. The NAB gives us a direct command.
That is important because the rhetorical question makes it clear that we are talking about an act that is analogous to fasting. If you want to make yourself worthy of God's presence, this is how you do it. The NAB version makes this sort of action into something more like a commandment. You might say it is the difference between, "this is how you do penance" as compared to "do this or you sin".
That is a big difference.
The next question here has to be where did the "oppressed and the homeless" come from here? They are the "homeless poor" in the NRSV and the "poor wanderer" in the NIV. There is no way all three translations here can be correct. Either the NAB is right and the other two wrong or the NAB is wrong and the other two are right. If the latter, and I suspect it is the latter, then we have a pretty blatant to put a political spin on this verse.
One of the reasons that I am pretty certain this is the case is that the ancient world did not see poverty as a thing with politico-economic causes. That era—correctly if you ask me—understood poverty as an example of evil that is always with us and always will be. The expression "economic oppression" would have made no sense to them. By yoking "oppressed" to "homeless" the NAB makes poverty feel more like something with human causes. And that changes the feeling of everything.
Imagine that there is a small landslide and people need caring for and you volunteer. Think of what your attitude would be if you believed the landslide was just one of those things that happens. Now think of your attitude if you believe it was caused by something you contributed to.
It seems to me that Isaiah is telling us that caring for others who suffer is a habit we should develop in our life and that God is asking us to make this sort of habit as part of our sacrifices to him. The word choices in the NAB lean towards a different interpretation wherein it is our responsibility to make the root causes of evil disappear.
Finally, note how what is rendered as either "flesh and blood" or "kin" in the NRSV and NIV becomes "your own" in the NAB. That opens the filed considerably. Again, what is presented as a way of life in Isaiah ends up feeding a political agenda in the NAB version.
But fan I may be of the NAB, I still did a double take when I saw this in today's lectionary:
Share your bread with the hungry,For comparison, here is how the NRSV handles the same passage:
shelter the oppressed and the homeless;
clothe the naked when you see them,
and do not turn your back on your own.
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,And here is the NIV:
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see them naked, to cover them,
and not to hide yourself from your own kin?
Is it not to share your food with the hungryThe word choices here are very telling. Again, I don't know enough to say about the accuracy as translation but I really do wonder about some of the ways the NAB puts things.
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
The first thing you will note is that the NAB makes the language considerably more linear. The other two translations feature rhetorical questions. They ask what is the kind of fasting desired by God and then pose a number of rhetorical questions. The NAB gives us a direct command.
That is important because the rhetorical question makes it clear that we are talking about an act that is analogous to fasting. If you want to make yourself worthy of God's presence, this is how you do it. The NAB version makes this sort of action into something more like a commandment. You might say it is the difference between, "this is how you do penance" as compared to "do this or you sin".
That is a big difference.
The next question here has to be where did the "oppressed and the homeless" come from here? They are the "homeless poor" in the NRSV and the "poor wanderer" in the NIV. There is no way all three translations here can be correct. Either the NAB is right and the other two wrong or the NAB is wrong and the other two are right. If the latter, and I suspect it is the latter, then we have a pretty blatant to put a political spin on this verse.
One of the reasons that I am pretty certain this is the case is that the ancient world did not see poverty as a thing with politico-economic causes. That era—correctly if you ask me—understood poverty as an example of evil that is always with us and always will be. The expression "economic oppression" would have made no sense to them. By yoking "oppressed" to "homeless" the NAB makes poverty feel more like something with human causes. And that changes the feeling of everything.
Imagine that there is a small landslide and people need caring for and you volunteer. Think of what your attitude would be if you believed the landslide was just one of those things that happens. Now think of your attitude if you believe it was caused by something you contributed to.
It seems to me that Isaiah is telling us that caring for others who suffer is a habit we should develop in our life and that God is asking us to make this sort of habit as part of our sacrifices to him. The word choices in the NAB lean towards a different interpretation wherein it is our responsibility to make the root causes of evil disappear.
Finally, note how what is rendered as either "flesh and blood" or "kin" in the NRSV and NIV becomes "your own" in the NAB. That opens the filed considerably. Again, what is presented as a way of life in Isaiah ends up feeding a political agenda in the NAB version.
No comments:
Post a Comment