Jerusalem Bible

[juliamajor]

Jerusalem bible was originally in French .The NJB had27 english scholars but it still relied on the French. In the history of DRV the Challoner Revision which we use was heavily influenced by the KJV because Challoner was a convert from Protestantism.DRV is a Translation of a translation.Jerome turn the greek hebrew and aramaic into Latin. The DRV translates that to English.Whose version is correct who knows.-it’s really a hodgepodge…your dealing with words written in a specific time, space and cultural atmosphere .remember it’s not any easy job. Always remember there are no originals of any of the books of the Bible… So translators are translating copies which have been translated before. It’s kinda like playing telephone. best answer to this dilemma is to go to the best source material available.

 

[Manfred]

Where is it used in English masses? I believe the NAB is used in the USA. Were are you?
The 1966 Jerusalem bible is more suitable for scholarly study with its notes.

Check out the link below.

usccb.org/liturgy/page1.shtml

The 1985 NJB is probably more “suitable for scholarly study with its notes,” particularly because it is less paraphrastic than its 1966 predecessor.

 

[Manfred]

Jerusalem bible was originally in French .The NJB had27 english scholars but it still relied on the French. In the history of DRV the Challoner Revision which we use was heavily influenced by the KJV because Challoner was a convert from Protestantism.DRV is a Translation of a translation.Jerome turn the greek hebrew and aramaic into Latin. The DRV translates that to English.Whose version is correct who knows.-it’s really a hodgepodge…your dealing with words written in a specific time, space and cultural atmosphere .remember it’s not any easy job. Always remember there are no originals of any of the books of the Bible… So translators are translating copies which have been translated before. It’s kinda like playing telephone. best answer to this dilemma is to go to the best source material available.

La Bible de Jerusalem (1956) was the original French edition.

An English edition, borrowing pretty much all of the notes and other study material, but not the text itself (which was mostly from the originals), was published in 1966 and is the work of a number of scholars, among them, J.R.R. Tolkien.

The French then published a revision in 1973.

The (English) New Jerusalem Bible appeared in 1985. I don’t believe any of the original scholars, save for Alan Neame, worked on this edition.

Recently, the French were reported to have issued yet a third edition.

 

[Manfred]

for the last time I am not condemning or recommending any translation. I am objecting to self-appointed scripture experts declaring which bible translations are or are not approved for liturgical, study or devotional use by the Catholic Church. the first poster who replied to OP claimed, without any citation or reference, that the NJB is “not a Catholic Bible”. I challenged his assertion, and he responded with remarks about certain bible scholars who did not even work on the NJB, which is off topic. I am asking can we stay on OPs topic, and that those who have objections to this translation on the basis of the way certain words and phrases are rendered demonstrate their competence to do so.

Not many of us here are “Scripture scholars” in the sense of having a licentiate in Sacred Scripture from some prestigious Roman university.

But we DO have a flair for beauty and clarity in renderings, and maybe even a slight sense of which word or phrase is better representative of the original.

After all, we’ve had to put up with the NAB at Mass since the late 60s!

And a good number of us are pretty steamed that our beloved shepherds banned all translations other than the NAB from the liturgy in the USA. Perhaps the 1966 JB might sound a bit off-key to a US congregation, but certainly not the RSV-CE, which is far more traditional than the pedestrian NAB.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Manfred: Which do you think is less bad–The original Jerusalem Bible or the original NAB bible?

 

[puzzleannie]

My “competence” is that I am a native speaker of English, and this is a bible in English.

Didn’t the thread starter ask for a discussion and opinions on the NJB? I don’t remember him asking for only Bishops to respond.

. Instead you prefer acting like a petulant gatekeeper.

I am often petulant but I am not a gatekeeper to bible translations, neither are you, so neither of us has a right to state that this or that translation “is not a Catholic bible” only the Church can make that statement. I have my share of problems will all English translations currently in use, but they are not relevant to OP’s question, and since I am not a scripture scholar, althought I have a fair command of English, I do not presume to dictate to others on this forum what bible they should read. I state my personal preferences as such, with reasons, I don’t, or should not say “it is NOT a Catholic bible” as you did.

No OP did not ask for a bishop to respond, so neither of us should presume to speak for the bishops. If OP is still interested in my opinion, which he did solicit, on the NJB, I love the NT, esp. the gospel of John, for devotional use, but for study use I prefer to consult, side by side, the Oxford NAB and the RSV-CE.

 

[richwmiller]

Manfred: Which do you think is less bad-The original Jerusalem Bible or the original NAB bible?

It just dawned on me your NAB may mean a different bible I mean New American Bible ( an official catholic bible)
They are not in the same category.
You should have several bibles for various purposes
The NAB is for listening/meditating/ reading aloud(as in mass)
The 1966 Jerusalem is for studying.

 

[Manfred]

Manfred: Which do you think is less bad–The original Jerusalem Bible or the original NAB bible?

Jerry-Jet,

It’s “six of one, half-a-dozen of the other”; by that I mean both were translated with that post-Vatican II dynamic-equivalent mentality of getting as far away from “traditional” renderings as possible.

The Psalms in the original (1970) NAB are its one redeeming feature.

Mother Angelica loved the 1966 JB, though I never fully concurred. It DID flow rather smoothly when they were allowed to use it for EWTN’s daily Mass.

This is the order in which I would choose among the four:

1. NJB (restrained use of inclusive language compared to RNAB or NRSV, and more consistent in translation than its 1966 predecessor);
2. 1970 NAB (no inclusive langauge);
3. 1966 JB (no inclusive language but more dynamic-equivalent than the 1970 NAB);
4. RNAB (NT and Psalms ruined by use of inclusive language, making these books inconsistent with the books carried over from the 1970 NAB).

Over all four? The RSV-CE.

And, at the top? THE DOUAY-RHEIMS.

Thanks for asking!

 

[lak611]

Jerry-Jet,

It’s “six of one, half-a-dozen of the other”; by that I mean both were translated with that post-Vatican II dynamic-equivalent mentality of getting as far away from “traditional” renderings as possible.

The Psalms in the original (1970) NAB are its one redeeming feature.

Mother Angelica loved the 1966 JB, though I never fully concurred. It DID flow rather smoothly when they were allowed to use it for EWTN’s daily Mass.

This is the order in which I would choose among the four:

1. NJB (restrained use of inclusive language compared to RNAB or NRSV, and more consistent in translation than its 1966 predecessor);
2. 1970 NAB (no inclusive langauge);
3. 1966 JB (no inclusive language but more dynamic-equivalent than the 1970 NAB);
4. RNAB (NT and Psalms ruined by use of inclusive language, making these books inconsistent with the books carried over from the 1970 NAB).

Over all four? The RSV-CE.

And, at the top? THE DOUAY-RHEIMS.

Thanks for asking!

I think the Confraternity New Testament is a good translation also.

 

[Mattjolley]

Where is it used in English masses? I believe the NAB is used in the USA. Were are you?
The 1966 Jerusalem bible is more suitable for scholarly study with its notes.

Im in A Town called Warrington, in the north-west of England. We use the jerusalem bible in our liturgy and its in the missal. its standard in england and wales (I think?) My cathedral is the metropolital cathedral of Christ the king in Liverpool, around 15 miles up the road from me. look it up, lovely building.

 

[Mattjolley]

I fell in love with the NJB as a young girl because it was easily readable and yet maintained a tone of reverence, a combination which seemed difficult to find in other translations I was exposed to. Unable to put it down, I’d pore over it for hours completely engrossed.

Even if some of the shortcomings pointed out here are valid, it seems to me that if Scripture is read and interpreted under the guidance of the Magesterium of the Church, we are not placed at risk of error. So even if the NJB doesn’t refer to the Blessed Mother as “virgin”, I have the Church to teach me that.

Consequently, I don’t see a problem with its use unless there’s some official Church position stating otherwise.

that’s how i feel about the NJB! now it feels like i opened a can of worms with this thread!

 

[lanceg]

Im in A Town called Warrington, in the north-west of England. We use the jerusalem bible in our liturgy and its in the missal. its standard in england and wales (I think?) My cathedral is the metropolital cathedral of Christ the king in Liverpool, around 15 miles up the road from me. look it up, lovely building.

My understanding is that for English-speaking Roman Rite Liturgies, the Jerusalem Bible is the translation most often used outside of the U.S. In the U.S., of course, it is the NAB.

By the way, one can still purchase the full 1966 JB study edition with all of the comprehensive notes, rather inexpensively, from the Philippines Bible Society:

bible.org.ph/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,shop.flypage_english/product_id,28/category_id,16/manufacturer_id,0/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,66/

Shipping is the greatest cost; in US Money, it is only about $8 probably about only 4-5 English pounds.

 

[seekerz]

that’s how i feel about the NJB! now it feels like i opened a can of worms with this thread!

Maybe we can turn it around.

At the back of my tattered NJB, I’ve copied some of my favorite verses/passages. Here are two:
*
Until your old age I shall be the same
until your hair is grey I shall carry you
As I have done, so shall I support you
I myself shall carry you and shall save you
Is 46:4*

I myself taught Ephraim to walk
I myself took them by the arm
but they did not know that I was
the one caring for them, that I was
leading them with human ties
with leading-strings of love,
that, with them, I was like someone
lifting an infant to his cheek,
and that I bent down to feed him.
Hos 11: 3-4a

Do you have any you’d like to share?

 

[Manfred]

Hi,

I’d like to see, and take part in, a discussion based round the Jerusalem Bibles.

…whilst at my cathedral yesterday I finally found the Original Jerusalem Bible, which is used in English masses. My post aims to see what people think of the Original Jerusalem Bible and the NJB, and what differences they have found between the two.

I know there are posts like this on the RSV CE so i thought i’d get one going for the Jerusalem editions. Any comments on how you feel that these editions carry the imprimatur despite lack of trad.catholic phrases and so on would be welcomed, as well as what you think these translations posess as far as strengths and weakneses go.

Thanks,
Matt

Matt,

I want to apologize here for getting in my two-cents on side issues instead of addressing your concerns with the 1966 JB.

Anyway, I had no intention of ever owning one, since I’d had an NJB for over 10 years, and had been reading the RSV-CE for the past six, when the following article appeared in November 2000 in Adoremus Bulletin:

adoremus.org/11-00-Infelicities.html

I quickly ordered a used full-size edition from an online bookstore. I read it for the first day or two after it arrived, then put it aside, as I just couldn’t bring myself to continue to read it such a free-style translation instead of the more literal RSV-CE.

These are some of my impressions, off the top of my head, in no particular order of importance; there’d probably be more if I’d spent time reading the rest of it.

• in the Prophets:
  D-R: “thus saith the Lord”
  RSV: “thus says the LORD”
  NJB: “Yahweh says this”
  JB: “it is Yahweh who speaks”
  I just don’t like the JB’s style here
• in the Psalms:
  D-R: “his mercy endureth forever”
  RSV: “his steadfast love endures forever”
  NJB: “his faithful love endures forever”
  JB: “his love is everlasting”
  as I understand it, the Hebrew word is “hesed”; NJB probably comes the closest here
• in Genesis 37:2
  RSV: “the generations of Jacob”
  NJB, JB: “the story of Joseph”
  clearer than the RSV, but not a translation of the original Hebrew
• Job 31:35
  “I have had my say, from A to Z”
  “A” and “Z” are not Hebrew letters, and Job didn’t know about Roman alphabetic characters
• Tobit, chapter 2:12
  “on March the seventh”
  March was not known as a month back then; this is carrying dynamic equivalence too far, in the direction of the Living Bible!
• in Matthew 5, the Beatitudes:
  “Happy” instead of “Blessed”
  matter of personal taste here
• Matthew 16:17
  “Simon, son of Jonah, you are a happy man!” instead of “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona.”
  huh??
• Matthew 26:29 and parallels
  “wine” instead of “fruit of the vine”
  glaring example of loss of sense of the poetic in the interests of “dynamic equivalence”
• John 2:3-4
  "When they ran out of wine, *since the wine provided for the wedding was all finished, *the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ Jesus said, ‘Woman, why turn to me?’
  first of the two italicized phrases adds nothing, is not needed, is not found in other versions;
  second phrase is just a really poor rendering;
• 1 Cor. 7:2
  “…but since sex is always a danger…”
  a truly horrible and erroneous rendering!!!
• 1 Cor 16:2
  “Every Sunday…”
  the first day of the week was not called “Sunday” back then

My copy of the JB has all the book intros, study notes, chapter sub-headings, etc. characteristic of the full-size edition (no longer in print). The “Reader’s Edition” lacks most of these. To me, the latter is a waste of money, since you don’t even have what i consider a trustworthy text, let alone the wealth of study material.

My opinion of the NJB is better, but not compared to that of the RSV-CE or of the Douay-Rheims.

 

[Cranch]

La Bible de Jerusalem (1956) was the original French edition.

An English edition, borrowing pretty much all of the notes and other study material, but not the text itself (which was mostly from the originals), was published in 1966 and is the work of a number of scholars, among them, J.R.R. Tolkien.

Personally I wouldn’t know, but your statement seems a different take from Michael Marlowe’s, whose reviews of various translations I enjoy:The annotations of the French edition were remarkably full and helpful, and the idea of the English Jerusalem Bible was to turn the French version, together with all of its annotations, into English, with constant reference to the Hebrew and Greek. And so the translation is based upon the Hebrew and Greek as interpreted by the French version.

 

[mccorm45]

I have always been interested in the continual debate about which Catholic Bible to use. So, after reading a number of the posts, most of which I think have been quite good, I think I will make a few remarks (some of which have been touched upon):

1. There is no perfect translation! If you want to know exactly what is being said, then you need to learn Greek and Hebrew, and a little Aramaic. Each translation has its positives and negatives. I can point out some places where the NJB does a great job, but where the RSV or the DR are off…and vice-versa. Each translation has a particular philosophy it follows, what is important is for the reader to know that going in. Some will be more literal (although none is actually “literal”) while others will follow a more dynamic approach. Either way is a legitimate way of translating the Bible. (Avoid the paraphrases however!)
2. All of the following translations have been approved for Catholic readers and can be trusted by the faithful: Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Revised Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard Version. Any one who says that either of these aren’t, they simply are just ignorant. If someone likes to read the Douay-Rheims because of its language and history, that is great! However, there is nothing wrong with reading anyother Catholic translation, including the NRSV. And while some of them are not used at Holy Mass, this does not mean that they cannot be trusted for private study or devotional reading.
3. The notes that come with each of these translations certainly very in quality. I find that the NJB has the best notes currently for a one volume study Bible. They have a nice mix of textual scholarship, along with Catholic teachings. The JB is also very good. What gives added depth to the NJB, and JB, is the wonderful array of cross-references. Clearly one of the best out there for any Bible translation! Certainly, the NAB has some curious notes, mixed in with some helpful ones as well. However, I find the OT to be lacking in quality notes. Whenever the RSV Ignatius Study Bible is produced, I am sure that will become the Gold standard for Catholics. I eagerly await that publication
4. As for inclusive language, if you truly hate it, then you should go with the RSV or JB. However, I think the NJB does the best job at incorporating it moderately, far better than the NAB or NRSV.
5. Comparing the JB with the NJB, I think you will find that the NJB is more literal than the JB, but perhaps less poetic than the JB. Each of them are solid Bibles, just make sure to find one with all the notes.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If you want to be free from error in Catholic Doctrine go Douay Rheims because it is closer to the Vulgate than any of the others.

All others are questionable in always supporting Catholic doctrine and in being suitable for disputations concerning Catholic Doctrine.

If you don’t believe me–go ask the Council of Trent!

 

[mccorm45]

The Douay-Rheims is a fine translation, but all the others that have been approved by the Catholic Bishops over the past 60 years, and discussed in this thread, are also good and useful for learning about and strengthening the faith. They all have their strenghts and weaknesses, including the D-R. We need to keep in mind documents like Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum.

In addition, all or at least 99% of all Catholic scripture scholars and theologians, including orthodox ones, will refer primarily to more literal/modern translations like the RSV. Look at what the CCC uses as well as the translated writings of Pope Benedict and Scott Hahn. Also keep in mind that the Navarre Bible, which is outstanding and thoroughly Catholic, uses the RSV and the New Vulgate.

 

[porthos11]

I was just talking about this in another thread… the New Jerusalem Bible is not a catholic bible. Its OT translation is not even christian. Genesis 1:2 is rendered as “divine wind” instead of Spirit of God. Psalm 22:16 as “hack off my hands and feet” instead of “pierce my hands and feet”. Isaiah 7:14 is “young woman” instead of virgin.

Oh puh-leeze.

As for competences, since you are a native English speaker, now please present your Hebrew and Greek credentials as well.

THEN we can talk competencies and declare which Bible is Catholic or not.

 

[demerzel85]

The Hebrew word “ruah” can mean either “wind”, “breath”, or “spirit”. So, both “divine wind” (wind of God) or “Spirit of God” are possible.

Hmm… it really is one thing that different renderings from the original languages are possible. It is quite another in terms of what the Church Fathers understood it as. And surely St Jerome was in a far better position to translate than any modern day ‘scholars’. Personally, I prefer translations of the Latin Vulgate (and hence the Septuagint) to that of the Masoretic Text.

Yet in terms of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I heard of differences between it and the Masoretic Text. In terms of scripture in Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls are more ancient.