J
JonathanAquino
Guest
Some more interesting comparisons of JB and NJB, from actual books:
Choosing a Bible Translation, by John Pilch
“Anyone comparing the New Jerusalem Bible with its predecessor will immediately see the improvements. The introductions and footnotes are quite obviously different and have been updated with scholarly insights gained since 1973. In the biblical text itself, paraphrase has been more rigorously avoided, and a commendable effort to avoid the inbuilt sexism of the English language has greatly improved the translation. Even so, it has retained the impressive poetic character of the 1966 English translation.”
books.google.com/books?id=vZZXBTJAxSkC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%2B%22new+jerusalem+bible%22+%2Bjb+%2BWansbrough&source=bl&ots=wVKO0a2UQ_&sig=Tk9yKfdmcdMiQ3uumOAdWzRelks&hl=en&ei=cqZ4S-qbFoGyswOqleDLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=%2B%22new%20jerusalem%20bible%22%20%2Bjb%20%2BWansbrough&f=false
An Introductory Bibliography for the Study of Scripture, by Joseph Fitzmyer
“The New Jerusalem Bible…is the successor to The Jerusalem Bible (ed. A. Jones, 1966), which retained the excellent notes of the one-volume French SBJ (189), but the translation of the biblical text itself in the JB, often quite readable, was at times miserable; most of the Pauline letters were a paraphrase rather than a translation, and crucial phrases were often badly rendered (e.g., 1 Cor 7:2; Luke 1:34)”
books.google.com/books?id=tHQnZHhKtdIC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=%2B%22new+jerusalem+bible%22+%2Bjb+%2BWansbrough&source=bl&ots=Pfy74icupb&sig=EJRgelaSccoi1TizaSvSRyWfWx8&hl=en&ei=_6h4S5CAKYvisQPptPDKCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwADg8#v=onepage&q=%2B%22new%20jerusalem%20bible%22%20%2Bjb%20%2BWansbrough&f=false
The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation, by Peter France
“Jerusalem Bible (1966), a new Catholic translation based on the French Bible de Jerusalem: stylistically elegant, and widely used by Protestant readers. A New Jerusalem Bible (1985), following a new edition of the Bible de Jerusalem in 1973, is the work of Henry Wansbrough, with an even more readable style than its predecessor, and making significant steps toward inclusive language”
books.google.com/books?id=Zlcg29QYnqMC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=%2B%22new+jerusalem+bible%22+%2Bjb+%2BWansbrough&source=bl&ots=tHgUmK7-vQ&sig=RLLBWUaZNR2FoGBkvhx3QvTasx4&hl=en&ei=Nql4S-P-DpPwsQOS4o29Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAThk#v=onepage&q=%2B%22new%20jerusalem%20bible%22%20%2Bjb%20%2BWansbrough&f=false
Sigh. Like Paul, I feel “tossed one way and another and carried along by every wind of doctrine” (or perhaps that should be “tossed one way and another, and carried hither and thither by every new gust of teaching”).
Choosing a Bible Translation, by John Pilch
“Anyone comparing the New Jerusalem Bible with its predecessor will immediately see the improvements. The introductions and footnotes are quite obviously different and have been updated with scholarly insights gained since 1973. In the biblical text itself, paraphrase has been more rigorously avoided, and a commendable effort to avoid the inbuilt sexism of the English language has greatly improved the translation. Even so, it has retained the impressive poetic character of the 1966 English translation.”
books.google.com/books?id=vZZXBTJAxSkC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%2B%22new+jerusalem+bible%22+%2Bjb+%2BWansbrough&source=bl&ots=wVKO0a2UQ_&sig=Tk9yKfdmcdMiQ3uumOAdWzRelks&hl=en&ei=cqZ4S-qbFoGyswOqleDLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=%2B%22new%20jerusalem%20bible%22%20%2Bjb%20%2BWansbrough&f=false
An Introductory Bibliography for the Study of Scripture, by Joseph Fitzmyer
“The New Jerusalem Bible…is the successor to The Jerusalem Bible (ed. A. Jones, 1966), which retained the excellent notes of the one-volume French SBJ (189), but the translation of the biblical text itself in the JB, often quite readable, was at times miserable; most of the Pauline letters were a paraphrase rather than a translation, and crucial phrases were often badly rendered (e.g., 1 Cor 7:2; Luke 1:34)”
books.google.com/books?id=tHQnZHhKtdIC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=%2B%22new+jerusalem+bible%22+%2Bjb+%2BWansbrough&source=bl&ots=Pfy74icupb&sig=EJRgelaSccoi1TizaSvSRyWfWx8&hl=en&ei=_6h4S5CAKYvisQPptPDKCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwADg8#v=onepage&q=%2B%22new%20jerusalem%20bible%22%20%2Bjb%20%2BWansbrough&f=false
The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation, by Peter France
“Jerusalem Bible (1966), a new Catholic translation based on the French Bible de Jerusalem: stylistically elegant, and widely used by Protestant readers. A New Jerusalem Bible (1985), following a new edition of the Bible de Jerusalem in 1973, is the work of Henry Wansbrough, with an even more readable style than its predecessor, and making significant steps toward inclusive language”
books.google.com/books?id=Zlcg29QYnqMC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=%2B%22new+jerusalem+bible%22+%2Bjb+%2BWansbrough&source=bl&ots=tHgUmK7-vQ&sig=RLLBWUaZNR2FoGBkvhx3QvTasx4&hl=en&ei=Nql4S-P-DpPwsQOS4o29Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAThk#v=onepage&q=%2B%22new%20jerusalem%20bible%22%20%2Bjb%20%2BWansbrough&f=false
Sigh. Like Paul, I feel “tossed one way and another and carried along by every wind of doctrine” (or perhaps that should be “tossed one way and another, and carried hither and thither by every new gust of teaching”).