Bible Translation Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Truthinator
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Manfred (and whomever would also like to answer),

I have heard many times about the “scholarly” and worthwhile notes to be found in the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). I was tempted to get a copy based on some of the comments in this forum; however, I came across this posting:

bible-researcher.com/new-jerusalem-bible.html

From the conclusion of the referenced review, the following comments are made:

“After fully admitting its good qualities, we must point out that the New Jerusalem Bible is not in fact suitable for Christians who are in need of edification in the faith. One of the “confessional considerations” common to all Christians is the belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. Any commentary on the Bible which is “independent” of this belief cannot be called a Christian commentary, nor can it be wholly acceptable to any Christian. The largely arbitrary critical speculations included in this version, useful as they may be for students who must interact with modern critical scholarship, are likely to have a bad spiritual effect on laymen. This is a Bible suitable only for students who are well established in the faith and capable of using it with discretion.”

Now, based on this comment, it sounds to me that the notes in the NJB may be no better than what are found in the NAB. So, why would I want to bother purchasing it? Is this particular reviewer’s opinion an isolated one? The biggest complaint I’ve heard about the NJB was in regards to gender inclusive language. Until reading this review, I had not heard that the notes may be suspect as well.

Sincerely,
rocketrob
 
Rob,

The notes that people like are in the JB, not the NJB.

Personally I think both translations should be avoided.
 
jwashu said:
If it’s good enough for B16 who is an amazing Biblical Scholar (even before he was Pope), it’s good enough for me 🙂

Joe
Click to expand...
I have only one objection with this otherwise compelling point. The Pope is 80 years old, the RSV is over 50 years old and indeed this version was the best of it’s generation.

However, in this ‘information age’ never before has there been such rapid increases in biblical knowledge, archaelogy, analysis of ancient manuscripts, statistical research on individual books, etc. that even translations made 10 to 20 years ago do not take in the breadth of recent advances.

Let’s not be obscurantists.

I recommend the bible your church uses, in the case of most here the NAB. And if you are at college/seminary the version being used there too. In my case our Catholic secularised university uses the ESV in its Greek lessons. These are my two favourite versions.

The NET Bible and the HCSB are top quality bibles for scholars too. Here’s John 6:57 from the NET:
Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me.

I love this rendering!
 
TheMese said:
…that even translations made 10 to 20 years ago do not take in the breadth of recent advances.
Click to expand...
Name one verse that would be translated differently now, fundementally, than it would have been 10 years ago - due to “advances”.
 
Thanks for asking. I could go on for hours but I’ll offer this to start with from the NET Bible First Edition:

Roman 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction,

Here is the NET’s textual note:
tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.
Click to expand...
To put it succintly, modern scholarship is moving away from the ‘faith in Christ’ rendering which could/might support the Protestant doctrine of ‘faith alone’. The ‘faithfulness of Jesus Christ’ rendering is about what He did: ‘faith in Christ’ is about what we do and reeks a lot of Protestant ‘fiducial faith’.

Furthermore, if you are not using a very recent translation your translation will not be in accordance with the latest critical Greek text: The Novum Testamentum Graece is in its 27th edition. If you argue that your 50 year old “technology” is as good as the best recent scholarship then perhaps ‘nostalgia’ is causing you to lose out 5-10%.
 
I just love my New Jerusalem Bible. I find the notes amazingly good. I still like my NRSV a lot but don’t trust the translation quite as much. I’ve never read the Douay-Rheims version. I’m not so much for the arcaic language.
Click to expand...
I love my Spanish language New Bible of Jerusalem, and the notes in all languages comes from the Ecole Biblique de Jerusalem. Fr Raymond Brown was one of the commentators so they will be a bit unconfortable to many. But as some one that comes from agnosticism, deism they are very heplfull for undertanding the Bible, and making the case for divine inspiration.
A literal fundamentalist reading or even a conservative catholic reading will not do for me. And will not do for secularized societies like Europe.
I remember reading some very popular fundamentalist Study Bible and I felt that my IQ feel throught the floor.
Some people decry the new comentaries but in my opinion they are the only tools to evangelize a secularized world.
 
TheMese said:
Thanks for asking. I could go on for hours but I’ll offer this to start with from the NET Bible First Edition:

Roman 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction,
Click to expand...
Jesus has “faith”? Wow. Yes, that is an “advance”… an advance away from any understanding of Christ’s being that I’ve ever heard.
Where in the Catechism does it say that Jesus has, or needs, “Faith”?
 
The contrast is between the ‘faith in Christ’ traditional translation and the best current translation which is the ‘faithfulness of Christ’.

The latter isn’t about Jesus’ faith but rather speaks of him being the One faithful Israelite. The one who took the place of unfaithful Israel.

Yes, that is an advance (for us) because it weakens the scriptural case for the Protestant ‘faith alone’ doctrine. It has real apologetic value!
 
What’s the difference, by the way, between the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition and the Revised Standard-Catholic Edition 2nd Edition?

The Bible I was looking at on one site called itself an “Ignatius Bible” but had the RSV-CE 2.0’s cover (which I like better than the ugly Ignatius Bible covering). It says in a Wikipedia article concerning the 2nd Edition RSV-CE that,
ome readers have pointed out that the revision of the marginal notes was not very thorough, and that there are several misspelled words in the text.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand the difference between these two editions.
 
The_Truthinator said:
What’s the difference, by the way, between the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition and the Revised Standard-Catholic Edition 2nd Edition?..
I don’t understand the difference between these two editions.
Click to expand...
The main difference is the Thees and Thous and Thines of the original edition have been removed in the Second Edition, i.e. to you and your.

In addtion, the Second Edition has been beautifully digitally typeset whereas editions of the Ignatius Bible RSVCE1 have horrible facsimile-style printing.

There are also less obvious but significant textual changes which warrant indepth discussion and debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top