what's wrong with this picture?

Manfred · #1 Nov 23, '07, 1:20 pm

My wife was miffed at what she heard read in the Gospel on Thanksgiving Day (Luke 17, 11-19); to wit,

As he was entering a village, ten persons with leprosy met him. (US Lectionary for Mass)

As he was entering a village, ten lepers met him. (RNAB)

As he entered one of the villages, ten men suffering from a virulent skin disease came to meet him. (NJB)

And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers. (RSV)

Surely, the RSV is best here. And, as much as I hate to admit it, the NJB screwed this one up big time, while even the RNAB got it right!

But the "scholars" who edited the US Lectionary took the RNAB rendering and made it "politically-correct".

**estesbob** · #2 Nov 23, '07, 1:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manfred

My wife was miffed at what she heard read in the Gospel on Thanksgiving Day (Luke 17, 11-19); to wit,

As he was entering a village, ten persons with leprosy met him. (US Lectionary for Mass)

As he was entering a village, ten lepers met him. (RNAB)

As he entered one of the villages, ten men suffering from a virulent skin disease came to meet him. (NJB)

And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers. (RSV)

Surely, the RSV is best here. And, as much as I hate to admit it, the NJB screwed this one up big time, while even the RNAB got it right!

But the "scholars" who edited the US Lectionary took the RNAB rendering and made it "politically-correct".

Perhaps they had virulent acne? Kinda disapointing if what Jesus really did was cure zits...............

pigtown · #3 Nov 23, '07, 1:40 pm

Several years ago I read that when leprosy is mentioned in the Bible it could be any skin disease, including psoriasis. Since I have psoriasis I often wonder about which people actually had leprosy and which had psoriasis.

kentuckyliz · #4 Nov 23, '07, 1:47 pm

Or rosacea. Or shingles. Or a rash.

Leopard · #5 Nov 23, '07, 3:28 pm

A person with leprosy is sometimes called a leper. If the two terms are equally good translations of the original, what is the problem?

Manfred · #6 Nov 23, '07, 5:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyliz

Or rosacea. Or shingles. Or a rash.

This isn't meant for you, kentuckyliz, but for the "person" who enquired just what was my problem.

Perhaps I'm just way too distrusting, but it seems to me that when the USCCB lost the battle with the Vatican over the use "as is" of the RNAB and were forced to back off on some excessive inclusive-language renderings, they still carefully managed to substitute others that they deemed "pastorally effective".

Now I've got a rash!

agangbern · #7 Nov 23, '07, 5:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manfred

My wife was miffed at what she heard read in the Gospel on Thanksgiving Day (Luke 17, 11-19); to wit,

As he was entering a village, ten persons with leprosy met him. (US Lectionary for Mass)

As he was entering a village, ten lepers met him. (RNAB)

As he entered one of the villages, ten men suffering from a virulent skin disease came to meet him. (NJB)

And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers. (RSV)

Surely, the RSV is best here. And, as much as I hate to admit it, the NJB screwed this one up big time, while even the RNAB got it right!

But the "scholars" who edited the US Lectionary took the RNAB rendering and made it "politically-correct".

In legal writing, the construction in RNAB above is preferred.

Joe Kelley · #8 Nov 23, '07, 5:49 pm

It is important to note that leprosy is an OT type for sin. It separated one from the community just as sin does. Thus in curing leprosy Jesus was demonstrating His power to forgive sin.

Those who bring in virulent skin disease also tend to describe sin as personal imperfection. I am reminded of a cartoon of two demons dragging a man down to hell. They were saying: "We aren't saying that you were a bad person; just that you made some bad choices."

Manfred · #9 Nov 23, '07, 6:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by agangbern

In legal writing, the construction in RNAB above is preferred.

Why is that?

Ignatius · #10 Nov 23, '07, 7:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigtown

Several years ago I read that when leprosy is mentioned in the Bible it could be any skin disease, including psoriasis. Since I have psoriasis I often wonder about which people actually had leprosy and which had psoriasis.

Whenever someone approaches you, you must announce in a loud voice: UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!

TOME · #11 Nov 23, '07, 9:03 pm

Joe Kelly,
Thank you for pointing out that in the OT leprosy was always associated with sin. I think we can often miss the deeper meaning of the mircles of Christ and this passage is a good example of this. I'm not doubting Jesus healed the men physically but there was a deeper dimension of this desease that was clearly understood by the people of Jesus' time that we might miss if, again, we focus just on the physical.

agangbern · #12 Nov 23, '07, 9:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manfred

Why is that?

For one, it is the shortest sentence among the rest that expresses clearly and definitely what it says.

**lak611** · #13 Nov 23, '07, 9:51 pm

The RSV renders these verses in the most clear and accurate manner. The other translations render the verses either inaccurately or in a verbose manner in the attempt to be "politically correct".

Leopard · #14 Nov 23, '07, 10:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manfred

This isn't meant for you, kentuckyliz, but for the "person" who enquired just what was my problem....

Please go back and read what I wrote again. I did not ask what is your problem. That would be rudely presuming that there is some problem with you, which I have no reason to think is the case. I asked what is the problem with the use of equivalent terms that are both accurate translations of the original word or words used by the Evangelist.

And yes, I am a person. I hope your rash is better.

jcrichton · #15 Nov 24, '07, 12:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leopard

I asked what is the problem with the use of equivalent terms that are both accurate translations of the original word or words used by the Evangelist.

Hi, Leopard!

...I often wonder about the original languages vs. translations (or as some transliterations)... since it is all greek to me (Greek, Arameic, Hebrew)... I keep wondering if there's a Bible which includes the original text and its direct meaning--at least for the most important passages (i.e.: Jesus tells us that He and the Father are One or when He tells us that He dwells within the Father and the Father within Him...)...

But what really gets me is how we get so involved in the "correct" translation or (those who really make me fume) the inclusive (politically correct) translators--I was reading, recently, a Bible that places Jesus reading from... "the Bible."

It seems that in the attempt to be modern or more lucid these people are taking waaaaay too much "poetic" license.... the worst? ...unlike the "trickle-down economy" these abuses tend to hurt more than they help...

Just on this thread alone only one post made a reference to the actual connection of leprosy/leper as experienced by Jesus (Jewish culture); still, the most important part of this passage (St. Luke 17:11-19) was left untouched: Jesus notes, for the benefit of those around Him, that it was a non-Jew who had returned to praise God for curing his decease. I also note that though all were cured of their physical ailments only the Samaritan (foreigner) was also cleaned spiritually (verse 19: ...get up... your faith has saved you).

...here's where I would love to know the exact wording... some translations simply say you are healed or well, while the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the New American Bible (personal study ed.) say you are saved; the latter make sense since all ten were healed/cured and only one came back to give testament to God's prowess and mercy. He is then acclaimed by Jesus as a man of faith and He blesses him again... why would Jesus reheal/recure a man He just recently healed?

God Bless!

Angel'