A Protestant's Question on Translations

[Lutheranische]

Hello! I’m brand new here, just joined today.

I have a question for Catholics:

Which of these two do you prefer: Jerusalem Bible (1966) or the New Jerusalem Bible (1985)?

Particularly, I’m interested in the the literary features and poetic quality of said versions. Which do you perceive to be of better quality in that respect? Thank you for your consideration!

 

[RPRPsych]

Hello! I’m brand new here, just joined today.

I have a question for Catholics:

Which of these two do you prefer: Jerusalem Bible (1966) or the New Jerusalem Bible (1985)?

Particularly, I’m interested in the the literary features and poetic quality of said versions. Which do you perceive to be of better quality in that respect? Thank you for your consideration!

I own both. My personal preference (and the one I’m reading right now!) is the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, for the following reasons:

1. The notes are more conservative / moderate, at least in the New Testament (they accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, and seriously consider the possibility that Matthew was the first Gospel). The New Jerusalem is a bit too “liberal” on such issues.
2. The Jerusalem Bible does not use inclusive language, so texts like Psalm 1, “Man does not live on bread alone”, etc. are all left untouched and sound close to the original. The New Jerusalem’s “Human beings do not live on bread alone” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it
3. The translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Jerusalem Bible (“the maiden is with child”), though not ideal, is better than the New Jerusalem’s “the young woman is with child”.
4. The overall language and flow, at least to me, seem a lot better. There are fewer awkwardnesses in the text than in the New Jerusalem.

 

[PerfectTiming]

I prefer the JB to the NJB. I prefer the style of the JB, it feels more natural whereas the NJB feels more awkward. The style of the JB is more poetic but without being as old-fashioned as some other translations. I’ve been reading the Douay-Rheims (I have the iPieta app) and I just find the wording so antiquated and thus inaccessible.

 

[Nelka]

They are both great.

In schools in England they use the New Jerusalem Bible as it is easier for youngsters to undestand.

 

[johnbres2]

. The Jerusalem Bible does not use inclusive language, so texts like Psalm 1, “Man does not live on bread alone”, etc. are all left untouched and sound close to the original. The New Jerusalem’s “Human beings do not live on bread alone” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it
.

I agree with you on all counts, but that is not Psalm 1.

 

[Lutheranische]

Thank you all for the responses.

I wonder, do any of you know of any leather-bound copies of the Jerusalem Bible(66)?

 

[PerfectTiming]

Thank you all for the responses.

I wonder, do any of you know of any leather-bound copies of the Jerusalem Bible(66)?

There was an earlier topic about buying the JB, apparently on the EWTN site there is a catalogue that has the Jerusalem Bible, you may be able to find one there.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The gender free requirement for the NJB [and other recent bibles] destroys the Messianic prophecies in several places in the OT. Translators who attempt to translate what the passage would have meant in the original writer’s society, miss the fact that the original prophecy often had meanings that the original writer did not understand, but carefully worded it as God instructed him.

 

[garysibio]

Hello! I’m brand new here, just joined today.

I have a question for Catholics:

Which of these two do you prefer: Jerusalem Bible (1966) or the New Jerusalem Bible (1985)?

Particularly, I’m interested in the the literary features and poetic quality of said versions. Which do you perceive to be of better quality in that respect? Thank you for your consideration!

I prefer the NJB. While I am not a language scholar, I have heard that it is the more accurate of the two. I realize it has some inclusive language but it does not beat you over the head with it. It is certainly much better than the NAB or the NRSV.

One point of clarification: I am talking about the biblical text. I wouldn’t give you a nickel for the introductory material.

 

[garysibio]

1. The translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Jerusalem Bible (“the maiden is with child”), though not ideal, is better than the New Jerusalem’s “the young woman is with child”.

The NJB translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The job of the translator is to be faithful to the text, not what you think it should be.

 

[garysibio]

The gender free requirement for the NJB [and other recent bibles] destroys the Messianic prophecies in several places in the OT. Translators who attempt to translate what the passage would have meant in the original writer’s society, miss the fact that the original prophecy often had meanings that the original writer did not understand, but carefully worded it as God instructed him.

WHile I know that this is an issue in the revised Psalms of the NAB, I have not seen this in the NJB. Could you give me an example?

 

[RPRPsych]

The NJB translation is faithful to the Hebrew. The job of the translator is to be faithful to the text, not what you think it should be.

Interesting point. From a scholarly perspective, the word “almah” does not necessarily imply virginity - it is quite similar to the English “maiden”, which carries overtones of virginity without stating them outright, which is why many modern translations (the RSV, NRSV, NAB - all of which I also own and use!) translate it with the neutral “young woman” out of fidelity to the original Hebrew.

However (correct me if I’m wrong here) the sentence also has to be read in its context, which is a messianic prophecy, a promise of a Child who will be “God with us” (Immanuel). The Greek Septuagint translates this word as “parthenos” which literally means “virgin”, and this is the version quoted by St. Matthew in his Gospel (St. Matthew 1:23). “Virgin” is the translation used in the Latin Vulgate in both passages, and this is what the Church has accepted.

I guess the issue is: should a translator stick to a literal translation of the Hebrew, or should he also consider later traditions (like the Septuagint) and, more importantly, the Church’s interpretation and the Vulgate translation? This is especially important because both the JB and the NJB are translations by Catholics. I’d personally prefer “virgin” (or, at a stretch, “maiden”) because it is consistent with the New Testament interpretation as well as with Church tradition.

 

[RPRPsych]

I agree with you on all counts, but that is not Psalm 1.

Oops, sorry, my bad: my commas have made this sentence ambiguous.

What I meant was that certain passages sound better minus the inclusive language - examples being (a) Psalm 1 (“Blessed is the man” vs “How happy are those”, the former having a clearer allegorical reference to Christ), (b) “Man does not live on bread alone” (both in Deuteronomy and in the Gospels). I was quoting both as examples

 

[garysibio]

Interesting point. From a scholarly perspective, the word “almah” does not necessarily imply virginity - it is quite similar to the English “maiden”, which carries overtones of virginity without stating them outright, which is why many modern translations (the RSV, NRSV, NAB - all of which I also own and use!) translate it with the neutral “young woman” out of fidelity to the original Hebrew.

However (correct me if I’m wrong here) the sentence also has to be read in its context, which is a messianic prophecy, a promise of a Child who will be “God with us” (Immanuel). The Greek Septuagint translates this word as “parthenos” which literally means “virgin”, and this is the version quoted by St. Matthew in his Gospel (St. Matthew 1:23). “Virgin” is the translation used in the Latin Vulgate in both passages, and this is what the Church has accepted.

I guess the issue is: should a translator stick to a literal translation of the Hebrew, or should he also consider later traditions (like the Septuagint) and, more importantly, the Church’s interpretation and the Vulgate translation? This is especially important because both the JB and the NJB are translations by Catholics. I’d personally prefer “virgin” (or, at a stretch, “maiden”) because it is consistent with the New Testament interpretation as well as with Church tradition.

That’s why God created footnotes.