New Jerusalem Bible Needs Corrections

[Jerry-Jet]

The reason the Old Testament RSV is less problematic for me than the RSV New Testament is even though many Old Testament references to Christ are dumbed down and diluted --in the New Testament you have Catholic renderings nullified by Protestant ones.

So while the OT may be more pro-Jewish and anti-Christ in regards to prophecy–at least it is not pro-Protestant and anti-Catholic as the RSV New Testament is.

That’s why I say that the Confraternity New Testament is the easiest to read near accurate Vulgate New Testament one can get and the RSV Old Testament is not way off the mark versus Catholic doctrines.

For that reason I like the RSV Old Testament better than the NAB because it is a much closer literal translation than the NAB.

The Douay Rheims is hard to read sometimes in the Old Testament and really does need some updating due to some discoveries in ancient texts that even the most conservative Catholic scholars would recommend.

I don’t know Latin but I wonder if the Nova Vulgata varies much from the Douay Rheims in the Old Testament?

While I don’t think the Jerusalem Bible is acurate I think the writing and style of it is better than most all bibles.

I wonder how much difference people like Tolkien made in that regard?

 

[SFH]

Here we go again, brothers and sisters.

• The New Jerusalem Bible (1985) is a revision of the original (1966) Jerusalem Bible. Though the former is less of a dynamic-equivalent than the latter, some of us feel its use of inclusive language, though far more restrained that that of either the RNAB or NRSV, marred an otherwise fine translation.
• While the RNAB and the NRSV are being used in Lectionaries in the USA and Canada, respectively, I know of no English-speaking country where the NJB was even considered for Lectionary use. By moderation of even more of its inclusive language and by substitution of the changes suggested below, perhaps the NJB could become a worthy translation for Lectionary use.
• The following covers some of the same ground as my earlier thread, “RSV-VE Needs Corrections”, plus many infelicities unique to the NJB, and is by no means exhaustive. It is my hope that many of you who have some familiarity with the NJB will jump in and contribute your own suggestions for improvement.

Texts of the NJB and Some Suggested Corrections

Genesis 1:2 text “a divine wind”; better “the Spirit of God”

Genesis 1:5 text “the first day”; better “one day”

Genesis 4:1, 4:17 text “had intercourse with”; better “knew”

Genesis 6:5 text “human wickedness”; better “wickedness of man”

Genesis 14:13 text “A survivor came to tell Abram; and Aner the Hebrew, who was living at the Oak of the Amorite Mamre, the brother of Eshcol; these were allies of Abram”; better "“A survivor came to tell Abram the Hebrew, who was living at the Oak of the Amorite Mamre, the brother of Eshcol and of Aner; these were allies of Abram”

Genesis 34:3 text “and forced her to sleep with him”; better “and lay with her and humbled her”

Genesis 37:2 text “story of Joseph”; better “generations of Jacob”

Exodus 20:17 text “neighbor’s spouse”; better “neighbor’s wife”

Leviticus 20:17 text “marries…if they have intercourse together”; better “takes…and sees her nakedness”

Isaiah 5:1 text “Let me sing my beloved”; better “Let me sing to my beloved”

Isaiah 7:14 text “young woman”; footnote “virgin”

Isaiah 26:3 text “This is the plan decreed: you will guarantee peace, the peace entrusted to you”; better ???

Malachi 1:11 text “from farthest east to farthest west”; better “from the rising of the sun to its setting”

Throughout all four Gospels text “In truth I tell you” or “In all truth I tell you”; better “Amen, I say to you” or Amen, amen I say to you"

Note: texts of all parallel NT passages have not been included herein.

Matthew 16:17 text “no human agency”; footnote “flesh and blood”

Matthew 16:18 text “gates of the underworld”; better “gates of hell”

Matthew 16:26 text “life”; better “soul”

Matthew 20:15 text “Why should you be envious because I am generous?”; better “Is your eye evil because I am good?”

Matthew 26:29 text “wine”; better “fruit of the vine”

Luke 1:28 text “rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour”; better “Hail, full of grace”

Luke 1:34 text “How can this come about, since I have no knowledge of man?”; better “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”

John 2:4 text “what do you want from me?”; better “what to you and to me?”

John 19:5 text “Here is the man!”; better “Behold, the man!”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “the sexually immoral”; better “fornicators”

1 Corinthians 6:9 text “self-indulgent”; better “effeminate”

1 Corinthians 7:9 text “cannot”; better “do not”

1 Corinthians 9:5 text “a Christian wife”; better “a woman, a sister”

Revelation 3:15 text “I will spit you out of my mouth.”; better “I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.”

Revelation 3:20 text “If one of you hears me calling”; text “If any one hears me calling”

Translating the most recent French edition of the Jerusalem Bible into English, you’d find that it uses “knew/know” throughout to denote “had intercourse with,” including in St. Luke, where Our Blessed Mother replies to St. Gabriel.

Instead of a “wind of God” in the opening passage of Genesis, it’s “the breath of God.”

The Angelic Greeting is “Rejoice, full of grace.”

“The gates of Hades” will not prevail against Christ’s Church.

And the “Word was made flesh and camped among us” (not a perfect translation of the Greek, but better than most).

Generally, the French translation is a much more literal translation of the Hebrew/Greek texts than the English version (original or new).

Needless to say, I’m a big fan of the French version and wish the English translators had followed it a bit more closely when they chose how to render a phrase into English.

Incidentally, the French translation refers to “Revelation” as the “Apocalypse,” which is the traditional Catholic name for the last book in the Bible.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I thought they used the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 in the Liturgy in Australia.

 

[SFH]

The reason the Old Testament RSV is less problematic for me than the RSV New Testament is even though many Old Testament references to Christ are dumbed down and diluted --in the New Testament you have Catholic renderings nullified by Protestant ones.

So while the OT may be more pro-Jewish and anti-Christ in regards to prophecy–at least it is not pro-Protestant and anti-Catholic as the RSV New Testament is.

That’s why I say that the Confraternity New Testament is the easiest to read near accurate Vulgate New Testament one can get and the RSV Old Testament is not way off the mark versus Catholic doctrines.

For that reason I like the RSV Old Testament better than the NAB because it is a much closer literal translation than the NAB.

The Douay Rheims is hard to read sometimes in the Old Testament and really does need some updating due to some discoveries in ancient texts that even the most conservative Catholic scholars would recommend.

I don’t know Latin but I wonder if the Nova Vulgata varies much from the Douay Rheims in the Old Testament?

While I don’t think the Jerusalem Bible is acurate I think the writing and style of it is better than most all bibles.

I wonder how much difference people like Tolkien made in that regard?

Jerry,

In response to your questions, the Nova Vulgata varies considerably from the Vulgate (and by translation the Douay Rheims). In practically every case, the changes are for the better. Just looking at the first two chapters of Genesis, the Nova Vulgata has God planting a paradise in Eden in the East. The Vulgate (and by translation the Douay Rheims) has God planting a paradise of pleasure from the beginning. (The name Eden derives from the root word “pleasure” or “delight.”) “Ipsum,” or “he” crushes the serpent’s head rather than “ipsa,” or “she” crushes the serpent’s head is probably my only disappointment.

The most significant changes are in Tobias and some of the other deuterocanonical books where St. Jerome didn’t translate the Greek text, but adopted some other translation. Since the Greek text is the canonical version, the Nova Vulgata goes back to the Old Latin translation (pre-dating St. Jerome) of those books and updates it. Again, the changes are generally for the better.

Tolkien had very little (name removed by moderator)ut in the Jerusalem Bible. He just made a couple of edits to the Book of Job.

 

[SFH]

Hi Manfred,

You would have to bring proof that in each case your suggestions are “better”.

The old tendency was to translate taking into account other passages of the bible and subsequent doctrine.The modern tendency in translation is to translate the way that the people for whom it was written understood it. A good example is the “wind” in Genesis. From what we know today, it is not “wrong” (doctrinally) to translate “spirit”, but it is not a correct translation, as to the obvious meaning to those originally reading it.

It’s sort of like the guy in Ben Hur wearing a watch.

Verbum

I don’t think “a mighty wind” or “the wind of God” are good translations of that passage. Keep in mind that the Hebrew verb in the sentence literally reads “hovering.” There’s a certain amount of anthropomorphic flavor in the opening lines of Genesis. Is it a “wind” brooding/hovering over the waters or is it a “spirit” or “breath?”

The Latin renders the verb as “ferabatur” or “borne.” In Hebrew tradition, God was being borne in His throne above the waters from whence He issued the commands. Again, I think “spirit” or “breath” is a better reflection of that tradition.

Interestingly, the newest French version of the Jerusalem Bible has changed from “wind of God” to “breath of God,” restoring a certain amount of anthropomorphic flavor to the passage.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

SFH: Do you think you can do a pretty good job of translating the Nova Vulgata into English?

I don’t know you personally but when you’re ever finished I would pay for a copy.

I don’t know why it seems like the most impossible thing to do in all of Biblical Translation is to translate the Nova Vulgata into English.

What is so hard about that?

What is the Real reason we don’t have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata?

If the translation was a great effort at being as accurate as possible–why would the Holy See have any problem with it?

Would the USCCB have a problem with it?

 

[Markway]

The NJB did improve upon the JB in one respect; it corrected a few errors and made some changes that reflected changing scholarship.

The mistake that was made was to bow to those who want a Bible to sound “Biblical”, and to those who believe that a “literal” translation is possible or even desireable.

If you have read the bible in the Greek, (no Hebrew here), you appreciate how laughable the idea of a “literal” translation really is. The grammar alone is so bizarre that it’s almost incomprehensible.

Every translation is a paraphrase to some degree. The challenge is to remain faithful to the meaning while keeping the text readable. The best attempts at this in recent times, (20/21st century), are I believe, the JB, the New English Bible, The Amplified New Testament and the new NET, (the net) bible. The letters of Paul are especially good in the New English, while the JB is the best over all study bible. It is less comprehensive than the NET Bible, but includes literary commentary on textual origins etc that the NET does not. As a reading bible, The New Living Bible is very good, but is not appropriate for study.

 

[mmortal03]

The NJB did improve upon the JB in one respect; it corrected a few errors and made some changes that reflected changing scholarship.

The mistake that was made was to bow to those who want a Bible to sound “Biblical”, and to those who believe that a “literal” translation is possible or even desireable.

If you have read the bible in the Greek, (no Hebrew here), you appreciate how laughable the idea of a “literal” translation really is. The grammar alone is so bizarre that it’s almost incomprehensible.

Every translation is a paraphrase to some degree. The challenge is to remain faithful to the meaning while keeping the text readable. The best attempts at this in recent times, (20/21st century), are I believe, the JB, the New English Bible, The Amplified New Testament and the new NET, (the net) bible. The letters of Paul are especially good in the New English, while the JB is the best over all study bible. It is less comprehensive than the NET Bible, but includes literary commentary on textual origins etc that the NET does not. As a reading bible, The New Living Bible is very good, but is not appropriate for study.

You sure like your dynamically “equivalent” translations.

 

[Epistemes]

You sure like your dynamically “equivalent” translations.

I know, right? I never thought I’d see the day when the JB was heralded as the best translation for study, etc.

 

[mmortal03]

I know, right? I never thought I’d see the day when the JB was heralded as the best translation for study, etc.

Is there some way we could make this more clear to our newly joined member Markway of what you and I are REALLY saying WITHOUT the sarcasm, though?

 

[Manfred]

Translating the most recent French edition of the Jerusalem Bible into English, you’d find that it uses “knew/know” throughout to denote “had intercourse with,” including in St. Luke, where Our Blessed Mother replies to St. Gabriel.

Instead of a “wind of God” in the opening passage of Genesis, it’s “the breath of God.”

The Angelic Greeting is “Rejoice, full of grace.”

“The gates of Hades” will not prevail against Christ’s Church.

And the “Word was made flesh and camped among us” (not a perfect translation of the Greek, but better than most).

Generally, the French translation is a much more literal translation of the Hebrew/Greek texts than the English version (original or new).

Needless to say, I’m a big fan of the French version and wish the English translators had followed it a bit more closely when they chose how to render a phrase into English.

Incidentally, the French translation refers to “Revelation” as the “Apocalypse,” which is the traditional Catholic name for the last book in the Bible.

Now doesn’t this just take the cake!

The 1966 JB was criticized for following its French counterpart; some didn’t even want to consider the JB, therefore, as being a translation from the original languages because of its reliance on the French.

Well, given the way the 3rd French JB has rendered the above, it would be a blessing if a 3rd English JB follows the French!

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

 

[Manfred]

The Confraternity New Testament is the least bad New Testament because the Vulgate is much more precise on doctrinal matters and it reads better than the Douay Rheims Challoner.

Compare the Confraternity to the Clementine Vulgate sometime; the D-R definitely followed the Latin much more closely than did the Confraternity.

I think if you could take the Jerusalem Bible of 1966’s lack of Inclusive language–the New Jerusalem’s more accurate renderings without inclusive language–and throw out all the biased footnotes that that sort of Jerusalem bible would not be that bad.

A major undertaking. Good suggestion, but you know no one is even listening, let alone interested in going down either this road, or the one that renders the Nova Vulgata into English in a formal-equivalent manner and without inclusive language.

 

[Manfred]

What is the Real reason we don’t have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata?

If the translation was a great effort at being as accurate as possible–why would the Holy See have any problem with it?

Amazing, huh? Liturgiam Authenticam insists that translations of Scripture for liturgical use must be from the original-language texts, yet also wants the choice of source texts and their vernacular renderings to agree with the Nova Vulgata!

Would the USCCB have a problem with it?

Repeat after me: NOT INVENTED HERE!

 

[Manfred]

I know, right? I never thought I’d see the day when the JB was heralded as the best translation for study, etc.

The only thing the 1966 JB and the 1970 New English Bible (NEB) have in common is that both are dynamic-equivalent works from British scholars. Other than that, I don’t like grouping the JB with the NEB. Catholics were mere “observers” for the latter with no (name removed by moderator)ut.

And compared to the New Living or any of the other paraphrases, the JB would be a decent study bible. But, no, not the best.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Manfred: alot of times when I read what you say about the Vulgate and various other Catholic translations I am persuaded more and more to just stick with the Douay Rheims regardless of its faults.

For me it’s not a matter of the perfect translation cause there isn’t one–I just try to figure out which translation is the least bad.

That’s hard to do when you have different bads.

 

[Markway]

You sure like your dynamically “equivalent” translations.

I’ll take that as a compliment! My wife thinks my many translations are a form of mental illness. She could be right:shrug:

 

[Epistemes]

The amount to which this thread is actually about “New Jerusalem Bible Needs Corrections” is really quite funny!

Of course, I can understand why: the JB and the NJB have a distinctive (and, at times, peculiar) translational quality to them, which - naturally - renders them NOT the RSV-CE, NOT Douay-Rheims, etc.

Then again…“Needs Corrections” does not mean "Needs to be ".

After comparing my copy of the NJB to the original Greek/Hebrew, consulting both Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, and seeing how other translations render certain passages (relying on translations ranging from the astute RSV-CE and NRSV to the classic KJV to the bizarre The Message), I find that the NJB is actually more of a formally equivalent translation than its predecessor. It still retains many elements which will always classify it as a “Jerusalem Bible,” such as its untraditional usage of certain terms (many of which Manfred has already highlighted in the first post). Untraditional as they might be, though - I’ve found that the Greek/Hebrew could suggest such translations in some instances. Are they always the best choices? Not really. Take Romans 9:22, when Paul mentions the “vessels of wrath” (RSV-CE), the NJB chooses to translate it as “instruments of retribution,” which could easily lead to an alternate interpretation of the passage.

Changes to the NJB couldn’t hurt, especially in instances like the above where “innovation” affects interpretation. In my own copy of the NJB, I’ve made notes and changes in the margins in a couple of spots where I feel my tired old memory might forget the original Greek/Hebrew, or where it just so happens to matter most to me. Not all of them would match the changes called for by Manfred.

On the whole, the NJB reads very similar to the RSV in many spots. It’s just that my copy of the RSV-CE bears the brunt of no pencilled corrections - but that’s not to say it shouldn’t. I would love to use the NJB as my primary Bible, but something about it continues to lure me backwards.

 

[Verbum]

Hi All,

For those who are interested, all French-speaking Catholics (like me) use a special liturgical translation, that has no relationship to any other.

Some of you may be interested in the fact that the latter editions of the Jerusalem Bible in French have nothing to do with the English translation. The current Bible de Jérusalem does have some changes from the original 1955 edition, which I have, but relatively few.

I understand that the first English translation followed the French too closely for some; hence the New Jerusalem Bible, which takes many more liberties in contradistinction to the French, which is considered as one of the translations that sticks closest to the original text. Notwithstanding this, the Bible de Jérusalem, in all its editions is a literary as well as translation masterpiece and has been a model for many other translations, a model unfortunately not followed in the English New Jerusalem Bible.

Verbum

 

[mccorm45]

Setting aside the D-R, I think the simple fact is that out of the four major translations for Catholics out there, (NJB, NAB, RSV, NRSV), none of them is perfect. That is why it is important to own at least two of these translations in order to compare translations. There is nothing wrong with having one for study, while using another for prayer. If you happen to have one you like for both, then go for it. I think that all 4 translations have their high moments, as well as low. So ultimately, I find important not simply the translation, but also what materials come with it and if the type is readable.

As for the NJB, I own a study edition with all the footnotes that I purchased in Rome. I have found the notes to be far superior to any that the NAB has, so in that case I definitely prefer the NJB. (Many of the notes concerning Our Lady are all done quite well too.) In addition, the cross-referencing system is also outstanding. (Obviously the future release of the RSV Ignatius study bible will surpass the NJB)

Also, although I am not a huge fan of inclusive language, I think the NJB does the best job in how it is used. The best example of this, in comparing with the NAB, is Galatians 4:5-7. In the NJB, the translators maintain the translation “adoption as sons” while the NAB just drops the sons part. And again in the following verses the NJB maintains “sons” while the NAB just puts “child”. Ultimately, by excluding the word “sons”, the reader will never get the full theological concept that St. Paul was trying to get at…ie…the importance of sonship in relationship to the Father.

Of course there are two big clunkers in the NJB: 1) In the OT when we are told “not to covet our neighbors spouse” in Exodus 20. 2) Then there is in Matthew 16 where where Christ tells Peter that “Upon this rock I will build my community.” Community? What about Church?

With all that said, I find myself going back and forth between the NJB, NAB, NRSV, and the RSV. I think this will continue for the near future at least.

 

[Epistemes]

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that the whole point of these “Needs Corrections” threads are to p(name removed by moderator)oint one specific translation which *could *be used both for study as well as prayer/reflection. I think that anyone who takes Biblical studies seriously would naturally consult multiple translations. But we can’t take multiple translations with us everywhere we go, for all purposes, including evangelization. The need for a single, trustworthy translation is needed for those instances. Not to mention, when I sit at Adoration, I’d rather be comfortable knowing what my Bible (singular) says is accurate instead of fiddling with translational idiosyncracies.

The question then becomes not whether the NJB can be included among the NAB, RSV-CE, and NRSV as an excellent source/reference within its own right (for then we’d all have to say that it could - for what translation isn’t a good source/reference?), but whether the NJB consititutes a “worry-free” translation aside from the others. From the gist of this thread, the English NJB appears to be lacking in some respects.