New Jerusalem Bible Needs Corrections

[SFH]

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?

I would not be willing to publish an English translation of the Nova Vulgata without an imprimatur or nihil obstat. And I think you would be hard pressed to find a bishop willing to give an imprimatur or nihil obstat to such a work because it would be a translation of a translation rather than a translation from the original languages (even though it’s much closer to the original languages than most other translations).

However, I highly recommend studying Latin and reading the Nova Vulgata yourself. An excellent Latin textbook is “Jenney’s First Year Latin.” You can get it used on Amazon for about $5 - $10. If you study one lesson a week (i.e., spend about 20 minutes a day on the lesson), you will be more than well equiped to read the Nova Vulgata at the end of a year. Take the textbook to the gym and read it while you run on the treadmill, or read it while you eat your lunch, or read it over coffee in the morning. Trust me, the rewards of learning Latin and reading the Nova Vulgata are well worth the investment of your time.

 

[Manfred]

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.

On the whole, the NJB reads very similar to the RSV in many spots.

I would love to use the NJB as my primary Bible, but something about it continues to lure me backwards.

Epistemes,

I really like your astute summary of the NJB. It mimics my assessment of it, more or less, especially how it compares quite favorably (and is actually better, in many cases) than those other inclusive-language versions, the NRSV and the RNAB.

Since I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, I have to rely on the notes in the NJB to inform me what the original-language text said. Though the translators put forth far more conjectural emendations than say, the RSV-CE scholars, one can almost see why the rendering in the NJB is in the text.

If by being lured “backwards” you mean to the RSV-CE, then I’m in accord with this, too.

Thanks for articulating this so well.

 

[Manfred]

…(the Nova Vulgata is)… much closer to the original languages than most other translations].

Since most of us agree there is no flawless translation in English, the best “reference” version for those of us who don’t read Hebrew or Greek is the Nova Vulgata in Latin. One, then, would have no problem in comparing the
D-R, the RSV-CE, or the NJB to it, and finding that each of these has places where it can outshine the other two.

 

[Manfred]

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.

EXACTLY!

Even Liturgiam Authenticam suggested that there should be a single good translation that is suitable for use in the Liturgy, for study, for private reading. Fr. John Neuhaus also agrees with a single, well-done version, so Catholics can cite texts from it with confidence.

 

[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.

I found an online edition of La Bible de Jerusalem at

biblia-cerf.com/bj.php?type=catholique

 

[mmortal03]

I found an online edition of La Bible de Jerusalem at

biblia-cerf.com/bj.php?type=catholique

French 3rd Edition:
Isaiah 7.14
C’est pourquoi le Seigneur lui-même vous donnera un signe : Voici, la jeune femme est enceinte, elle va enfanter un fils et elle lui donnera le nom d’Emmanuel.

Google Translation:
This is why the Lord himself will give you a sign: Here, the young woman is pregnant, it will give birth to a son and she will give him the name of Emmanuel.

English 2nd Edition:
The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

English 1st Edition:
The Lord himself, therefore, will give you a sign. It is this: the maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

The 1st Edition notes state: “the Greek version reads ‘the virgin’ being more explicit than the Hebr. which uses almah, meaning either a young girl or a young recently married, woman.”

The 2nd Edition goes further to note that: “This LXX reading is, however, an important witness to an early Jewish interpretation, later adopted by the evangelist: Mt 1:23 understands the text to be a prophecy of the virginal conception of Jesus.”

I agree with the way they rendered it. If they were directly translating the Septuagint, they would have used “the virgin”. End of issue. Next verse.

 

[Epistemes]

Continuing my qualms with how the NJB renders Romans 9:22 - 24 (only because a *good *translation of this passage is difficult and, if successful, demonstrates an excellent handle of the Greek):

French:
Eh bien ! si Dieu, voulant manifester sa colère et faire connaître sa puissance, a supporté avec beaucoup de longanimité des vases de colère devenus dignes de perdition, dans le dessein de manifester la richesse de sa gloire envers des vases de miséricorde qu’il a d’avance préparés pour la gloire, envers nous qu’il a appelés non seulement d’entre les Juifs mais encore d’entre les païens…

Google translation:
Eh well! if God, wanting to express his anger and to make known his power, supported with much forbearance of the vases of anger become worthy of perdition, in the intention expressing the richness of his glory towards vases of mercy which it in advance prepared for glory, towards us whom it called not only among the Jews but still among the pagan ones…

NJB:
But suppose that God, although all the time he wanted to reveal his retribution and demonstrate his power, has with great patience gone on putting up with those who are the instruments of his retribution and designed to be destroyed; so that he may make known the glorious riches ready for the people who are the instruments of his faithful love and were long ago prepared for that glory. We are that people, called by him not only out of the Jews but out of the gentiles too.

And, for comparison, the RSV-CE:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

A tough call, but I really think the NJB flubs up just enough to make me wince.

 

[Markway]

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.

They’re ALL paraphrases, some are just freer than others.

What the NEB and the JB had in common is that they were translated by comittees that worked outside of any church authority, and were blessed with translators gifted in the English language. They weren’t as glued to accepted standards. They were more inclined to translate the way they thought best expressed the meaning. I have always blest the JB Study Bible. The footnotes were remarkably free from doctrinal bias.

Later The Revised New English Bible came out as did the New Jerusalem Bible, and in both cases they make for boring reading. What’s more, they bear the mark of forced conformity to liturgical language and doctrinal rigidity.

 

[mmortal03]

What the NEB and the JB had in common is that they were translated** by comittees that worked outside of any church authority, and were blessed with translators gifted in the English language. They weren’t as glued to accepted standards. They were more inclined to translate the way they thought best expressed the meaning.** I have always blest the JB Study Bible. The footnotes were remarkably free from doctrinal bias.

But that’s not possible! Only Catholic Church translated and approved texts with imprimaturs and nihil obstats could EVER be an accurate bible!!! (I’m not making fun of you, Markway. There are others that I AM poking fun at, though. Also, there is some sarcasm in there regarding what the Catholic Church HAS put out in English recently. Basically, my post is fun to go around for EVERYONE!)

 

[Manfred]

What the NEB and the JB had in common is that they were translated by comittees that worked outside of any church authority, and were blessed with translators gifted in the English language. They weren’t as glued to accepted standards. They were more inclined to translate the way they thought best expressed the meaning. I have always blest the JB Study Bible. The footnotes were remarkably free from doctrinal bias.

Why are footnotes IN A CATHOLIC BIBLE “free fom doctrinal bias” a good thing??!!

Later The Revised New English Bible came out as did the New Jerusalem Bible, and in both cases they make for boring reading. What’s more, they bear the mark of forced conformity to liturgical language and doctrinal rigidity.

Really? The NJB is not boring, but neither is it liturgically suitable as is. As for its “doctrinal rigidity” - see my comment above.

 

[Markway]

But that’s not possible! Only Catholic Church translated and approved texts with imprimaturs and nihil obstats could EVER be an accurate bible!!! (I’m not making fun of you, Markway. There are others that I AM poking fun at, though. Also, there is some sarcasm in there regarding what the Catholic Church HAS put out in English recently. Basically, my post is fun to go around for EVERYONE!)

I’m not a RC, and have run into some anger here, but you guys are cool. Frankly, there’s a lot of guys like you doing the same thing on the other side. The “New JB” comes out but so does the “RNEB”, and for the same reasons. I HATE doctrinal bias. I may part company there, but believe that each of us first and foremost must work on our relationship with Christ with fear and trembling. Liturgy is great, but THE MEANING is HERE, NOW, and where we stand and fall.

Here’s my philosophy in a nutshell; if you were conducting a Sunday School class, and you asked a kid to sum up what he’d been taught, would you rather that he paraphrase or quote?

 

[guanophore]

I’m not a RC, and have run into some anger here, but you guys are cool. Frankly, there’s a lot of guys like you doing the same thing on the other side. The “New JB” comes out but so does the “RNEB”, and for the same reasons. I HATE doctrinal bias. I may part company there, but believe that each of us first and foremost must work on our relationship with Christ with fear and trembling. Liturgy is great, but THE MEANING is HERE, NOW, and where we stand and fall.

Here’s my philosophy in a nutshell; if you were conducting a Sunday School class, and you asked a kid to sum up what he’d been taught, would you rather that he paraphrase or quote?

Good question!

If you hate doctrinal bias, how come you engage in it so much?

 

[mmortal03]

Good question!

If you hate doctrinal bias, how come you engage in it so much?

If you mean that you can cite him personally doing it, then give us those quotes. If you mean “you” as in “you Protestants” well, I think they do it for the same reason that Catholics do it: Because they think they are right. Guanophore, your questioning comes across as being quite accusatory, and it is as if when we’ve anytime made a little progress with ecumenical discussions, someone always has to come in and mess it all up again.

Back to the topic, though. It seems that many of these situations of translation can go either way, and it unfortunately really depends on how you interpret where the original writers were coming from to give you context…and that often depends on a tradition. If you go back “this” far in your doctrines, then your scholarship tells you “this”. If you go back “that” far in your doctrines, then your scholarship tells you “that”.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There is no such thing as real Catholic bias. A real Catholic translation wouldn’t be biased–it would only be proclaiming the truth!

 

[SFH]

I found an online edition of La Bible de Jerusalem at

biblia-cerf.com/bj.php?type=catholique

That’s not the most recent edition of La Bible de Jerusalem. In this version, Genesis is translated as “un vent de Dieu” (i.e., a wind of God). The most recent translation is “un souffle de Dieu” (i.e., a breath of God).

 

[lanceg]

I like both the JB and NJB. They are both really good translations, and elegant in style and language. I am not sure why the JB-based letionary had to be dropped, unless the USCCB thinks it is too old, and they have so much royalty money tied up in the NAB.

I do not understand why the NJB was never accepted as a basis for a lectionary.

The inclusive language in the NJB is restrained, and most of the time appropriate, it is not like the NRSV.