Is the New Jerusalem Bible a good choice for me?

[007]

It seems that most conservative Catholics prefer the Douay-Rheims and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition over the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Here is how I feel about each version:

Douay-Rheims:
I feel that this translation isn’t for me because it’s a translation of a translation, and I feel that using a Bible that translates directly from its original source should logically be superior.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition
I’ve read on these forums that this is what the Pope himself uses (correct me if I’m wrong), and I’ve read that the Revised Standard Version is a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible which was translated directly from the original Aramaic and Greek text. I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English.

This leaves me between the choices of The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. I know that a lot of people criticize these versions for using inclusive language, but after reading some examples, I do not think that this compromises the message of the Bible.

The example used on Wikipedia for the New Jerusalem Bible was “You shall not set your heart on your neighbor’s spouse,” rather than “neighbor’s wife”. The translation is more liberal, but the original text obviously meant both men and women since a sin for a man is also a sin for a woman.

Out of the two, I’ve decided to go with the New Jerusalem Bible since it looks a lot easier to read, and I like the fact that God’s name Yahweh is rendered. I believe God’s name is very sacred, but I don’t think he ever intended his name to be hidden. Otherwise, the tetragrammaton would never have existed.

I know that the New Jerusalem Bible is an accepted Catholic Bible, but with so many choices, I feel that I should hear a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is be arrogant when there a lot more people that for sure know more than I do. Moreover, I could order a second Bible since I don’t have to be restricted to only one.

Thank you for your time, and God bless.

 

[Omyo12]

Welcome to Catholic Answers!!!

It seems that most conservative Catholics prefer the Douay-Rheims and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition over the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Yup

Here is how I feel about each version:

Douay-Rheims:
I feel that this translation isn’t for me because it’s a translation of a translation, and I feel that using a Bible that translates directly from its original source should logically be superior.

Well remember that the “original sources” are long gone. The oldest Hebrew manuscript available is from around 900AD and is missing the Catholic Deuterocanon (Tobit, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel 13, Daniel 14, and parts of Esther). For the Book of Sirach, the Hebrew version is long gone and all we have today is the Greek translation. Also, the oldest Greek OT is from 300 AD. The oldest Latin manuscripts are just as old as the Hebrew. Catholics have preserved the Vulgate over the course of 1700 years and Pope Pius XII declared it free of any errors in morals and faith in 1947. I’m not boasting Douay-Rheims onlyism though… hehe

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition
I’ve read on these forums that this is what the Pope himself uses (correct me if I’m wrong), and I’ve read that the Revised Standard Version is a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible which was translated directly from the original Aramaic and Greek text. I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English.

The Pope himself doesn’t use it, he uses the** Nova Vulgata** and probably a German translation for personal devotion (since his native tongue is German). However, in translating Vatican documents, Papal Letters, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church into English, the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE are used. Its also the one most Catholic apologists prefer along with the NAB.

The RSV-2CE is a modernized version of the RSV-CE. It changes archaic language of it but keeps the elegance in its structure.

^ I recommend this one

This leaves me between the choices of The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. I know that a lot of people criticize these versions for using inclusive language, but after reading some examples, I do not think that this compromises the message of the Bible.

The example used on Wikipedia for the New Jerusalem Bible was “You shall not set your heart on your neighbor’s spouse,” rather than “neighbor’s wife”. The translation is more liberal, but the original text obviously meant both men and women since a sin for a man is also a sin for a woman.

Out of the two, I’ve decided to go with the New Jerusalem Bible since it looks a lot easier to read, and I like the fact that God’s name Yahweh is rendered. I believe God’s name is very sacred, but I don’t think he ever intended his name to be hidden. Otherwise, the tetragrammaton would never have existed.

I know that the New Jerusalem Bible is an accepted Catholic Bible, but with so many choices, I feel that I should hear a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is be arrogant when there a lot more people that for sure know more than I do. Moreover, I could order a second Bible since I don’t have to be restricted to only one.

Thank you for your time, and God bless.

I think the NJB is a great Bible to have.

I personally prefer LORD over Yahweh since “Yahweh” is only a guess on how to pronounce the Name. The Tetragrammation at best translates JHVH into English since it contains no vowel markings in Hebrew. Can it be uttered by human tongues today? who knows. God told Moses His name is “I AM” and that is the best translation of the Divine Name.

For now I recommend the RSV-2CE since it is in modern English and a really good translation.

However, you also have the choice of the NRSV-CE, its easy to read and a lot of people seems to like it.

The Catholic Bible I least recommend at the moment is the NAB simply because there is a new edition in the works (the OT is being revised) and will be published by mid-2010.
If it is anything like the revised NT, I may make it my main Bible.

All-in-all, I recommend you get a few of Bibles.

I myself own:

The Ignatius Bible: Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition (Leather Bound)

The Holy Bible: Douay-Rheims Version- Challoner Revision (Bonded Leather)

New American Bible: Gift and Study Bible (Leatherflex)

God Bless

 

[007]

You’ve just convinced me to get RSV-2CE.

Also, thanks for the heads up on the new revision of the NAB that’s in the works. I’m looking forward to it.

 

[Canto]

Douay-Rheims:
I feel that this translation isn’t for me because it’s a translation of a translation, and I feel that using a Bible that translates directly from its original source should logically be superior.

The original 1582 version which I use (along with others trans’), used the Latin as its base text and corrected in light of the best available Hebrew and Greek texts. When the Revised Version updated the King James many of the changes agreed with the Douay Rheims. It is a very festidious translation and well worth having in your collection.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition
I’ve read on these forums that this is what the Pope himself uses (correct me if I’m wrong), and I’ve read that the Revised Standard Version is a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible which was translated directly from the original Aramaic and Greek text. I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English…

The RSV is based on the S/RV which is based on the King James which is based on the Bishop’s Bible.

As noted the Pope would likely use the Latin, a German (his native tongue) or perhaps an Italian Bible. The RSV is used for Church docs as it is the only translation in modern english that is literal and approved by the Church. The NAB isn’t quiet as literal and has inclusive language.

This leaves me between the choices of The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. I know that a lot of people criticize these versions for using inclusive language, but after reading some examples, I do not think that this compromises the message of the Bible.

Out of the two, I’ve decided to go with the New Jerusalem Bible since it looks a lot easier to read, and I like the fact that God’s name Yahweh is rendered. I believe God’s name is very sacred, but I don’t think he ever intended his name to be hidden. Otherwise, the tetragrammaton would never have existed…

The NJBs inclusive language is very tame compared to other versions such as the obsessive NRSV.

I like the original JB but many do like the NJB. The NJB as with the JB it not as literal as other translations, yet as you say it is easier to read, without being completly dull like some dynamic translations. Personally I actually prefer the LORD for God’s name as for me its to sacred to say (I don’t call my dad by his first name) and we can’t be 100% sure what His Name is.

Sometimes I often refer the the JB or NJB but I like the Douay when I want something truly literal or doctrinally precise.

The RSV-CE2 removes the archaic language of the previous edition and unlike the NAB or NJB, NRSV etc, ‘correctly’ translates Luke 1:28

Wether you end up getting the NJB or RSV-CE2 or both, you will enjoy them and get a lot out of them. Happy reading

 

[Pani_Rose]

I like the Jerusalem Bible, but not the new one. The ones printed in the '60s are the best. The wording was changed too much in the so called ‘new’ version. You can buy the old one from EWTN, Mother got permission to reprint it.

With a cover like hers had ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/JERUSALEM+BIBLE+WITH+WORD+OF+GOD+BIBLE+COVER/cid=15/page_no=1/edp_no=3153/shop.axd/ProductDetails

Also, the NAVARRE NEW TESTAMENT ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/

If you go to ebay, you can get an older copy of the sixties version of the Jerusalem Bible in paperback for $5 to $10. I just buy them to give away, you can’t find a better price on them anywhere.

 

[007]

Wether you end up getting the NJB or RSV-CE2 or both, you will enjoy them and get a lot out of them. Happy reading

I will getting both of those for sure. This way I’ll have one book that is literal and one that is not literal for easy reading.

 

[Corki]

Question: are you looking to use this Bible for devotional reading (ie Lectio Divina) or more academic Scripture study?

I like the JB (not the NJB) best for just reading and for LD but I think the DR or the NRSV-CE are better for more serious study. Most prepared Bible studies seem to use either the NRSV-CE or the NAB.

 

[007]

Question: are you looking to use this Bible for devotional reading (ie Lectio Divina) or more academic Scripture study?

I like the JB (not the NJB) best for just reading and for LD but I think the DR or the NRSV-CE are better for more serious study. Most prepared Bible studies seem to use either the NRSV-CE or the NAB.

Devotional reading.

 

[Manfred]

It seems that most conservative Catholics prefer the Douay-Rheims and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition over the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Here is how I feel about each version:

Douay-Rheims:
I feel that this translation isn’t for me because it’s a translation of a translation, and I feel that using a Bible that translates directly from its original source should logically be superior.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition
I’ve read on these forums that this is what the Pope himself uses (correct me if I’m wrong), and I’ve read that the Revised Standard Version is a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible which was translated directly from the original Aramaic and Greek text. I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English.

This leaves me between the choices of The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. I know that a lot of people criticize these versions for using inclusive language, but after reading some examples, I do not think that this compromises the message of the Bible.

The example used on Wikipedia for the New Jerusalem Bible was “You shall not set your heart on your neighbor’s spouse,” rather than “neighbor’s wife”. The translation is more liberal, but the original text obviously meant both men and women since a sin for a man is also a sin for a woman.

Out of the two, I’ve decided to go with the New Jerusalem Bible since it looks a lot easier to read, and I like the fact that God’s name Yahweh is rendered. I believe God’s name is very sacred, but I don’t think he ever intended his name to be hidden. Otherwise, the tetragrammaton would never have existed.

I know that the New Jerusalem Bible is an accepted Catholic Bible, but with so many choices, I feel that I should hear a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is be arrogant when there a lot more people that for sure know more than I do. Moreover, I could order a second Bible since I don’t have to be restricted to only one.

Thank you for your time, and God bless.

Good for you, choosing the NJB!!

The original 1966 JB was way too dynamic and imprecise for any serious bible study. The NJB corrects a lot of the latter’s shoddy renderings.

The inclusive language in the NJB is quite restrained when compared to the RNAB or the NRSV. Further, it’s never vertical (directed towards the Trinity), only horizontal (towards man). I recommend steering clear of the RNAB and the NRSV.

The RSV-2CE is a work-in-progress. It claims to conform to Liturgiam Authenticam but doesn’t go far enough. In abandoning the thee/thou/thine usage, it got clumsy in the Psalms. The original RSV-CE (1965-66) is a better choice.

Oh, and just because a particular version is suitable for the Lectionary doesn’t make it a good translation.

Your DR, NJB, and, if you choose, RSV-CE will serve you well.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Manfred: how good a translation would the New Jerusalem Bible be if all inclusive language in it was eliminated?

 

[Manfred]

Manfred: how good a translation would the New Jerusalem Bible be if all inclusive language in it was eliminated?

Jerry,

I thought I responded to you yesterday, but I’m not seeing my post.

There’s really no great need to eliminate all the inclusive language in the NJB. What’s there is, for the most part, quite restrained compared to what’s in either the RNAB or the NRSV. The NJB limits itself to horizontal inclusive language (references to “man”), never vertical (references to God).

E.g., in the NRSV, Ezekiel is addressed by The Almighty as “Mortal”, instead of “Son of man”. In the RNAB, there are references to “the one, Christ Jesus”, instead of “the Man, Christ Jesus”. The NJB got both of these right. Of course, both the NRSV and RNAB are approved by bishops’ conferences for Lectionary use, so they must be better - right?

The NJB is NOT the D-R, of course, but its study aids are quite impressive, especially the cross-references and book sub-headings.

And it’s more careful in its scholarship than the highly-vaunted 1966 JB.

 

[Omyo12]

In the RNAB, there are references to “the one, Christ Jesus”, instead of “the Man, Christ Jesus”.

Interesting, which verses are these?

 

[Manfred]

Interesting, which verses are these?

Romans 5:17

RNAB:
For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ.

NJB:
It was by one man’s offence that death came to reign over all, but how much greater the reign in life of those who receive the fullness of grace and the gift of saving justice, through the one man, Jesus Christ.

OK?

 

[RobbyS]

It seems that most conservative Catholics prefer the Douay-Rheims and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition over the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Here is how I feel about each version:

Douay-Rheims:
I feel that this translation isn’t for me because it’s a translation of a translation, and I feel that using a Bible that translates directly from its original source should logically be superior.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition
I’ve read on these forums that this is what the Pope himself uses (correct me if I’m wrong), and I’ve read that the Revised Standard Version is a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible which was translated directly from the original Aramaic and Greek text. I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English.

This leaves me between the choices of The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. I know that a lot of people criticize these versions for using inclusive language, but after reading some examples, I do not think that this compromises the message of the Bible.

The example used on Wikipedia for the New Jerusalem Bible was “You shall not set your heart on your neighbor’s spouse,” rather than “neighbor’s wife”. The translation is more liberal, but the original text obviously meant both men and women since a sin for a man is also a sin for a woman.

Out of the two, I’ve decided to go with the New Jerusalem Bible since it looks a lot easier to read, and I like the fact that God’s name Yahweh is rendered. I believe God’s name is very sacred, but I don’t think he ever intended his name to be hidden. Otherwise, the tetragrammaton would never have existed.

I know that the New Jerusalem Bible is an accepted Catholic Bible, but with so many choices, I feel that I should hear a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is be arrogant when there a lot more people that for sure know more than I do. Moreover, I could order a second Bible since I don’t have to be restricted to only one.

Thank you for your time, and God bless.

One thing to remember is that the Vulgate, or at least the part of it by St. Jerome, is based on Greek documents older than the oldest we have and certainly older than those available to Erasmus.

 

[Tyuiop411]

Like a previous poster said buy more than one Bible it’s good to compare and as for the New Jerusalem Bible i find no problem with it except for rendering God’s name Yahweh instead of LORD and the RSV has been updated since then and theres also the ESV which is similar to the RSV but if i recall it’s not a approved bible. Overall it’s all on personal preference i myself love the Douay-Rheims but to each his own. Overall I don’t see any reason not to get the NJB since you don’t have a problem with YHWH instead of LORD so in my opinion go for it.

God Bless

-Tyler

 

[Omyo12]

Romans 5:17

RNAB:
For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ.

NJB:
It was by one man’s offence that death came to reign over all, but how much greater the reign in life of those who receive the fullness of grace and the gift of saving justice, through the one man, Jesus Christ.

OK?

After doing a bit of research on this, in Romans 5:17 the Greek reads “heis” which literally means “one” and while the word itself is masculine, it does not necessarily imply masculinity.

Iono what you mean by “NJB got it right” since the Greek just says “one”

However, I am disappointed the NAB has “person” since “heis” is referring to Christ who of course is a man…

Also, you seem to have no problem with

Isaiah 7:14 (NJB)
14 The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

and

Luke 1:28 (NJB)
28 He went in and said to her, ‘Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour! The Lord is with you.’

Now, I’m not defending the NAB NT when it comes to Luke 1:28, but I say when discussing Bibles, focus on doctrine first, then on inclusive language.

When it comes to the RSV2CE, while it didn’t go far enough as we all hope, it did make a changes based on the Liturgiam Authenticam…

Manfred:

The original RSV-CE (1965-66) is a better choice.

While I do think the original RSVCE is great, how it a “better” choice?

 

[Manfred]

Iono what you mean by “NJB got it right” since the Greek just says “one”

What’s that first word at the start of your sentence above? Did you intend to write “I don’t know…”?

When it comes to the RSV2CE, while it didn’t go far enough as we all hope, it did make a changes based on the Liturgiam Authenticam…

It missed the boat on “Amen, amen, I say to you…”

It needs more work; until said work is complete, I’ll refer to it as “a work-in-progress”.

While I do think the original RSVCE is great, how it a “better” choice?

It didn’t ruin the cadence of the Psalms by eliminating the thee/thou/thine form as the celebrated RSV-2CE did.

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

007

What is it that you are trying to, or what do you want from a given Bible version?

I’ve been studying the Bible since 1979, am translating my own Greek MS to English so I’ve formed some insights into the different versions. The biggest problem with all translations is that so often there isn’t an English word that matches a given Greek word. As to the NJB New Testament I think it is second to none in authenticity and objective adherence to the original Greek MS. The annotated version is the one [of 15 others] I have as it contains excellent reference material. Also the New Jerome is a very good companion volume.

Simeon :compcoff:

It seems that most conservative Catholics prefer the Douay-Rheims and the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition over the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Here is how I feel about each version:

Douay-Rheims:
I feel that this translation isn’t for me because it’s a translation of a translation, and I feel that using a Bible that translates directly from its original source should logically be superior.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition
I’ve read on these forums that this is what the Pope himself uses (correct me if I’m wrong), and I’ve read that the Revised Standard Version is a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible which was translated directly from the original Aramaic and Greek text. I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English.

This leaves me between the choices of The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. I know that a lot of people criticize these versions for using inclusive language, but after reading some examples, I do not think that this compromises the message of the Bible.

The example used on Wikipedia for the New Jerusalem Bible was “You shall not set your heart on your neighbor’s spouse,” rather than “neighbor’s wife”. The translation is more liberal, but the original text obviously meant both men and women since a sin for a man is also a sin for a woman.

Out of the two, I’ve decided to go with the New Jerusalem Bible since it looks a lot easier to read, and I like the fact that God’s name Yahweh is rendered. I believe God’s name is very sacred, but I don’t think he ever intended his name to be hidden. Otherwise, the tetragrammaton would never have existed.

I know that the New Jerusalem Bible is an accepted Catholic Bible, but with so many choices, I feel that I should hear a second opinion. The last thing I want to do is be arrogant when there a lot more people that for sure know more than I do. Moreover, I could order a second Bible since I don’t have to be restricted to only one.

Thank you for your time, and God bless.

 

[Omyo12]

What’s that first word at the start of your sentence above? Did you intend to write “I don’t know…”?

wow, resorting to insults now?.. whatever… :ehh:


anyways…

It missed the boat on “Amen, amen, I say to you…”

It needs more work; until said work is complete, I’ll refer to it as “a work-in-progress”.

Yes it is a work-in-progress. But by your logic every Bible is a work-in-progress aside from the Douay Rheims in Catholic phraseology.

However, the RSV2CE is closer than the NAB, JB and NJB

“Amen” is a Hebrew word that means “Truly” or “Let it be”

So translating Luke 1:28 as “you who enjoy God’s favour” or Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” which kind of interfere with Catholic doctrine is perfectly fine for the NJB but not for the RSV2CE to translate the Hebrew word for “truly” as “truly”???

The NJB itself translates it “In truth”

Would I like Ignatius Press to release another revision with “Amen” instead of “Truly” and a few other changes? of course!

It didn’t ruin the cadence of the Psalms by eliminating the thee/thou/thine form as the celebrated RSV-2CE did.

That’s only a matter of your own personal taste. The OP asked for a Bible without the thee/thou/thine.

I’m capable of reading older English, but I would feel more comfortable in reading a Bible that translates to a more modernized English.

Read what the OP asks for before making suggestions…

The RSV2CE is closer than the RSVCE to the Liturgiam Authenticam and it’s (for the most part) updated into modern English.

 

[CalCatholic]

The RSV2CE is closer than the RSVCE to the Liturgiam Authenticam and it’s (for the most part) updated into modern English.

I agree. I think it is the closest translation to the rquirements of Liturgiam Authenticam.

I took a class on the Gospel of John this summer and we had a required commentary book that referred to the Greek continually. I used NAB, the NRSV, the RSV-2CE and the REB for the homework reading, I found my self using the RSV-2CE the majority of the time because it apperaed to match up with the Greek the majority of the time.