Jerusalem Bible

[Mattjolley]

Hi,

I’d like to see, and take part in, a discussion based round the Jerusalem Bibles, I know these exist for the RSV-CE’s, so i’ll describe my development with scripture as far as I feel is necessary, apologies in advance for the length!:

I used the New Jerusalem Bible in my A-Level studies a few years back, and grew quite attatched to this translation. Also, it carries an imprimatur, which is always good, depsite it not having traditional renderings such as ‘full of grace’ in Luke 1:28. By now i was around 18.

But once I immersed myself back into the faith around a year ago, which i was so happy about, I delved into the various catholic bibles around. I have grown towards the Douay Rheims and the RSV-CE2. So now I have all these bibles plus the NRSV Catholic Edition. (which i find quite weak as a catholic translation for reasons i wont go into here)

I’d say I use the NJB for my main reading and the others to cross reference it, since it doesn’t have those ageless passages like the DR has (by this i again mean things like Luke 1:28 that adhere to catholic tradition)

I try to use the Douay Rheims but often passages throw me so much I end up reaching for another translation to get a better hold of whats being said.
I guess its quite healthy to take in passages from a broad array of sources to determine your own feel for it, but on the other hand it could be argued that the use of one, authoritative bible has its rewards too.

Anyhow 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.

Sorry to take so long to get to my point!

Thanks,
Matt

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

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.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

I forgot another special gem in the NJB:

Luke 1:28
“Rejoice, so highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Mary is merely “highly favored”? Weren’t a lot of people in the bible “highly favored”? Is the greek word that’s traditionally translated as “full of grace” used to describe anyone else?

You’ll also notice that the angel is no longer offering her a type of allegiance (“Hail!”). He’s no longer subserviant in tone in the NJB translation.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

Catholic scholars were part of the team that translated the original Jerusalem bible, and both old and new have been approved for liturgy in some countries and dioceses, so unless you are the person in charge of saying what translations are approved by the church, best to confine your remarks to criticisms such as in your post, and leave of the proclamations to the Church officials appoitned to decide such matters. Unless you are also an expert in both the ancient biblical language and in the art of translation to modern languages, it is also best to leave such criticisms to those who are experts.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Well, if you look at the few examples I have posted, and then you look at your Catechism of the Catholic Church, I think it’s impossible to reconcile the two.

Also, someone like John Crossan is considered a “catholic scholar”. Do you want the Jesus Seminar explaining the faith to your kids? I don’t. So let’s avoid useless labels like “catholic scholar”. Father Brown was the head of the NAB team, and another “catholic scholar”. Have you read any of his writings? They might shock you.

 

[Zooey]

It’s the original Jerusalem Bible that I think OP is speaking of here. I have it, and like it very much. It is very different from the New Jerusalem Bible, which, like a lot of other recent Bible translations, has succumbed to “political correctness”…

I prefer the Douay myself, but I grew up on the King James, & the older usage doesn’t bother me. For a modern language Bible, I think the Jerusalem Bible is a good choice…I believe that it is readily available from EWTN, as it is Mother Angelica’s preferred translation.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Edit: His name is Clifford, not Brown.

At least the JB has “God’s spirit” in Genesis 1:2.

 

[puzzleannie]

Well, if you look at the few examples I have posted, and then you look at your Catechism of the Catholic Church, I think it’s impossible to reconcile the two.

Also, someone like John Crossan is considered a “catholic scholar”. Do you want the Jesus Seminar explaining the faith to your kids? I don’t. So let’s avoid useless labels like “catholic scholar”. Father Brown was the head of the NAB team, and another “catholic scholar”. Have you read any of his writings? They might shock you.

do you have a list of scholars who worked on the JB translation? Is John Dominic Crossan on that list? Yes I have studied Fr. Raymond Brown extensively on the graduate level. If you want to discuss his work, why not start another forum. this forum is about the New Jerusalem Bible, not the NAB

OP would be well advised to ditch the current discussion, refer to old threads on the NJB, and the stickies at the top of this forum which have links on bible recommendations.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

I am discussing the NJB. Instead of getting angry and “ditching the current discussion” just because you don’t agree with me, why don’t you explain why you believe the NJB is in line with the faith as presented in the CCC? Maybe you can convince me.

Does “divine wind” carry the same theological meaning as “Spirit of God”? I don’t think these are tough comparisions to do, and I don’t think you need a PHd in aramaic to do them.

 

[juliamajor]

DRVonly is just as bad as KJV only- biblealotry .Rsv is Standard with many scholars including scott hahn. DRV is a descendant of the LXX while most jewish texts are based on the nmasoretic text . Both have their place.Most Scholars including catholics prefer the MT-It is believed to be the most accurate. DRV using LXX (greek) translates the word parthenos correctly as virgin. In Hebrew the word is"almah" which means young woman- it doesn’t negate the possibility of virginity. the Hebrew is not as precise as the Greek . That is the problem with hebrew translation-somethings are vague because you don’t vowels. But Translation from any ancient language is difficult because words can and do change meanings over the centuries.Language is not static and neither should translations be. Every time an archaeologist or a sheep herder finds a piece of papyri,or manuscript or codex- it can change the way we translate.That goes for any ancient language that is translated-just like English it is fluid with each era or time

 

[puzzleannie]

I am discussing the NJB. Instead of getting angry and “ditching the current discussion” just because you don’t agree with me, why don’t you explain why you believe the NJB is in line with the faith as presented in the CCC? Maybe you can convince me.

.

I am not arguing for or against a particular translation, I am arguing against a style of discussion that presents non sequiters as evidence. OP wants to discuss the NJB, so discussion should stick to that topic.

 

[Manfred]

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.

The Hebrew word “ruah” can mean either “wind”, “breath”, or “spirit”. So, both “divine wind” (wind of God) or “Spirit of God” are possible. This should give you some idea of what it must be like to translate the OT, especially from Hebrew manuscripts which don’t even have vowels.

There is a school of thought which claims that, for Jewish copyists, precision and faithfulness in copying the Psalms was not as critical as the rest of the OT. And for those Psalms which had distinctly clear Messianic implications the (Hebrew) texts were altered.

The Hebrew word “almah” means “young woman”; it can indicate a virgin, but not necessarily so. “Problem” texts such as these make recourse to the Septuagint or other ancient versions invaluable.

The Vulgate of St Jerome has been called an “excellent interpretation” of the originals.

 

[Manfred]

I forgot another special gem in the NJB:

Mary is merely “highly favored”? Weren’t a lot of people in the bible “highly favored”? Is the greek word that’s traditionally translated as “full of grace” used to describe anyone else?

You’ll also notice that the angel is no longer offering her a type of allegiance (“Hail!”). He’s no longer subserviant in tone in the NJB translation.

Easy, Joel.

The 1966 Jerusalem Bible has “Rejoice, so highly favoured.”

The 1985 New Jerusalem Bible has “Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour.”

Scholars have been debating the Greek “chaire, kecharitomene” for several years now.

Jerome rendered it “Hail, full of grace.”

Benedict XVI recently issued a statement that was quite receptive to the use of “rejoice” as well as “hail”.

 

[Manfred]

Catholic scholars were part of the team that translated the original Jerusalem bible, and both old and new have been approved for liturgy in some countries and dioceses, so unless you are the person in charge of saying what translations are approved by the church, best to confine your remarks to criticisms such as in your post, and leave of the proclamations to the Church officials appoitned to decide such matters. Unless you are also an expert in both the ancient biblical language and in the art of translation to modern languages, it is also best to leave such criticisms to those who are experts.

As much as I admire the New Jerusalem Bible for its format and extensive study material, as well as for its being the least offensive in its use of inclusive language (compared to the beloved NAB or NRSV), I don’t believe it was ever approved for liturgical use in any English-speaking nation.

 

[Manfred]

do you have a list of scholars who worked on the JB translation? Is John Dominic Crossan on that list? Yes I have studied Fr. Raymond Brown extensively on the graduate level. If you want to discuss his work, why not start another forum. this forum is about the New Jerusalem Bible, not the NAB

OP would be well advised to ditch the current discussion, refer to old threads on the NJB, and the stickies at the top of this forum which have links on bible recommendations.

puzzleannie,

It would seem if you had your way, posters to any of these threads who discuss and criticize renderings of, and/or approvals accorded to, certain biblical translations should just cease whining and go use the NAB.

No.

I, for one, will continue to post.

 

[puzzleannie]

puzzleannie,

It would seem if you had your way, posters to any of these threads who discuss and criticize renderings of, and/or approvals accorded to, certain biblical translations should just cease whining and go use the NAB.

No.

I, for one, will continue to post.

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.

 

[seekerz]

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.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…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.

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.

My post had a thesis (this bible is not consistent with catholic teaching), and then presented the specific scripture references to back that up. I notice you have yet to respond to a single one of those references. Instead you prefer acting like a petulant gatekeeper.

 

[richwmiller]

Anyhow whilst at my cathedral yesterday I finally found the Original Jerusalem Bible, which is used in English masses.

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.

 

[lanceg]

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.

I disagree, the NJB is a very Catholic bible.

Divine Wind is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew (Ruah).

Also, young woman is the legitimate translation from Hebrew (almah). It is the Greek Septuagint that gives us Virgin (Parthenos).

This is no problem, for the ancient Christians considered the Septuagint inspired in its own right. Many passages of Christological import depend on the Septuagint.

I use to be very cavalier about bible translations, thinking only the Douay Bible and the Catholic RSV were reliable. I have posted on this very forum sentiments to that effect.

I no longer think that. I have been through some very hard times recently, and have found God at my side. I have learned to let go of lesser issues. I have also seen others suffer, and I have seen how different Christians have responded to the needs of others, both in good and bad ways. I have found that the things people argue about are worthless.

I still prefer the traditional translations. The Confraternity Bible has been my favorite as of late, the one I am using the most often.

But the fact is, that all of the contemporary Bibles have something to offer Catholic readers of the Bible- the NAB, JB, NJB, Confraternity, NRSV, NEB, REB- all have strengths and weaknesses. The Douay Bible is great. But it has weaknesses, particularly that it is difficult to read, and is not ever going to recapture the position it once had. I am glad I have one, and would encourage all Catholics to have one, but by all means, have a good modern translation.