Just ordered the New Jerusalem Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter MiserereMei25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dougp said:
I understand your position. But, one problem in moving from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic into English is those languages are gendered, while English is not.
Example: Ps 115:16, An American Translation, “The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, but the earth has he given to mankind.”
Same, NJB, “Heaven belongs to Yahweh, but earth he has given to the children of Adam.”

I don’t know the underlying Hebrew, but I can’t argue with the more inclusive NJB. “Mankind” doesn’t have children without womankind. Or so I’m told. 🙂 Many scriptures use son or sons where the context clearly indicates children is also correct.
Counterexample: Remember those pretty female Hallmark angels with their perfect makeup and flowing robes? Sorry, folks, but “angel” is always masculine in the original languages.
Click to expand...
In the Hebrew it is adam liḇ·nê “of men to the sons”.
’ā·ḏām: man, mankind

liḇ·nê (root ben): son
Click to expand...
 
I have a “Saints Devotional Edition” of the NJB. Bought it from Books-a-Million, IIRC, years ago. This edition has commentaries by Catholic saints on numerous passages. It’s quite a nice volume.

The only jarring thing for me is the use of “Yahweh” for “Lord” in numerous places in the Old Testament, especially since the ruling a few years ago that “Yahweh” is not to be used in the liturgy.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but not on its surface. That’s why I agree with the NJB rendering.
 
Vico said:
In the Hebrew it is adam liḇ·nê “of men to the sons”.
’ā·ḏām: man, mankind

liḇ·nê (root ben): son
Click to expand...
’ā·ḏām: Adam
liḇ·nê (root ben): born of, descendant

KJV translates this as “children of men.” “Children of Adam” is better because it suggests “children of the mud,” another possible translation. In context, the heavens belong to God while the earth belongs to the “children of the earth” an unlikely but possible translation. Adam is also more universal than men, which could mean ‘some men.’

Just because your Hebrew English dictionary says son and mankind, it does not mean a mechanistic insertion is the best translation. I think adam=mankind probably originated as a contraction of this phrase.
Click to expand...
 
The Jerusalem Bible is a product of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, founded by Pere Lagrange. He was the pioneer in Catholic Biblical studies, advancing our understanding and laying the groundwork for the rediscovery of Scripture by Catholics.

The link is to a prayer for the beatification and canonization of this great love of God’s Word.
 
The “Fifth Gospel” refers to visiting or studying the places Jesus lived and served in.

By studying the places of his ministry, we can discover much more detail about His life.

Deacon Christopher
 
No.

(Okay, I’m not really being very earnest.)

Mother Angelica loved the Jerusalem Bible. And she’s a saint.

Read that bible prayerfully daily and you will have made an excellent purchase!
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
The heavens belong to God while the earth belongs to the “children of the earth” an unlikely but possible translation.
Click to expand...
Ps 115:16, NJB. “Heaven belongs to Yahweh, but earth he has given to the children of Adam.”
Please note:
  1. heaven belongs to Yahweh because he created it. Gen 1:1
  2. earth belongs to us because he gave it to us. Isa 45:18
  3. we’re all children of Adam. Lu 3:23-38
So, why “unlikely”?
BTW my study Bible has these cross references at “men”: Gen 1:28; De 32:8; Ps 37:29; Isa 45:18; Jer 27:5; Acts 17:26. All of them should reinforce or expand on the idea ‘to men’. What do you think?

Also, a footnote at “sons of man” offers: Or, “earthling man”. Heb. 'a-dham.
 
Thank you. I understand.
Just tonight our Bible study group finished the book of Acts. The last several chapters, as you know, cover travels on Paul’s first visit to Rome. We were amazed at the level of detail in and the accuracy of Luke’s account. Strengthens our faith in the reliability of scripture, doesn’t it?
 
Lord or LORD is a title, not a personal name.
Yahweh is a personal name, like Jesus or Moses.
If someone removes it from the Bible they are substituting, not translating.

At John 17:3 Jesus says that knowing God and himself is essential to obtaining everlasting life, something we all want. How can we claim to know someone if we’re ignorant of his name? Isn’t that the first thing we learn on being introduced to a new person?
MrZoom said:
The only jarring thing for me is the use of “Yahweh” for “Lord” in numerous places in the Old Testament,
Click to expand...
Numerous? In the Hebrew Bible God’s name is found almost 7,000 times, far more than any other. In Exodus Yahweh says he wants that to be his ‘memorial’ name forever. Who are we or any other men to go against that?

It didn’t “jar” Moses. It didn’t “jar” Jesus. He prayed to Yahweh that his name would continue to be “made known”. John 17:6,26. Can anyone work against that prayer of Christ and yet be called Christian?
 
dougp said:
Lord or LORD is a title, not a personal name.
Yahweh is a personal name, like Jesus or Moses.
If someone removes it from the Bible they are substituting, not translating.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear. The post-exilic Jews initiated a substitution by pronouncing “Adonai” when reading JHVH, but the latter was and still is in the text.

D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top