New Jerusalem Bible Needs Corrections

[Manfred]

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”

 

[porthos11]

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”

I don’t know if we can be as brutal with the NJB as we were with the RSV and NRSV because the NJB has never made any pretenses about its being a dynamic translation. Things like “have intercourse” rather than “know” or “uncover nakedness” are probably in better keeping with the NJB’s positioning, while it would not be in keeping with the RSV’s.

Ironically though, the JB retained some of these idioms.

 

[Markway]

Disagree with you on all points. Sorry. The whole point of the JB was to communicate the meaning without trying to create poetic language, or coddle people’s sensibilities. I’ve studied to be a Pastor (not a Priest), have taken my classes in Christian apologetics, read every version going, and still find the Jerusalem Bible the best study bible going except perhaps the new Net bible, Not the New English Bible which is actually excellent too. Both the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible came under a lot of heat for not being “liturgical” enough, or not having language that flowed properly when read publically, but that’s just garbage. The main purpose of a bible translation is to accurately translate the Word into another language, so that the MEANING is as little changed as possible. It’s about being saved, not high theater.

I must add however that the New Jerusalem is far inferior to the original, and there has been enough demand for the original to provoke a new edition of the Jerusalem Bible. The NJB is best when it hews to the JB and worst where it departs.

 

[Verbum]

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

 

[mmortal03]

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 agree. Don’t introduce anachronisms. Instead, just explain what it means in today’s terms in the notes.

 

[ricmat]

I agree. Don’t introduce anachronisms. Instead, just explain what it means in today’s terms in the notes.

My version of the NJB doesn’t have notes (well, it has very very very few). If you need to explain “what it really means”, then why not just say it in the first place?

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

There is a simple solution. Go to a used bookstore or to the well-known website to buy the original Jerusalem Bible.

I bought a second copy of the original Jerusalem Bible at an auction.

 

[mmortal03]

My version of the NJB doesn’t have notes (well, it has very very very few). If you need to explain “what it really means”, then why not just say it in the first place?

Because that would be missing the point.

 

[Andruschak]

So why not use the good old King James Version?

 

[Verisimilitude]

I must add however that the New Jerusalem is far inferior to the original, and there has been enough demand for the original to provoke a new edition of the Jerusalem Bible. The NJB is best when it hews to the JB and worst where it departs.

I have heard of a 3rd edition being worked on. I liked the OJB passages better but like the NJB notes and references better. All in all, I like the Jerusalem Bible, old or new…or newer.

 

[Andruschak]

My own touchstone for a translation is how they cope with two passages, very very clear in the original Hebrew and Greek, but likely to raise if correctly translated

ISAIAH, Chapter 56, verses 1-8. uch:

Matthew, Chapter 19, verses 11-12 :bigyikes:

 

[Manfred]

There is a simple solution. Go to a used bookstore or to the well-known website to buy the original Jerusalem Bible.

Chris,

Been there, done that. I bought one because of an article published in Adoremus Bulletin in Dec. 2000, in which comparison was made between passages of the US Lectionary for Mass (based on the RNAB) and the now-outlawed (in the USA) JB-based Lectionary.

But I soon had to admit, along with the NJB’s General Editor’s Foreward, that the JB was way too paraphrastic for me. Yes, it reads very smoothly, but some of its renderings were not at all to my liking. E.g., the Be(Happy) Attitudes; 1 Cor. 7: “sex is always a danger”; Tobit 2: “March the seventh”.

Plus I did have the NJB with which to compare it, and I felt the NJB at least made an attempt to depart (albeit slightly) from the dynamic equivalence approach.

The Notes, etc. are good in both.

 

[Manfred]

So why not use the good old King James Version?

I have a Douay-Rheims.

What I want is something that uses modern critical scholarship and is Catholic and that doesn’t “blow it” by getting all inclusive or politically-correct.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Manfred: What if you took the Confraternity New Testament and for the Old Testament used the RSV but ridded it of all Protestantisms?

Would that make for a close to decent bible?

 

[mmortal03]

Manfred, if you have already read the following article, then great:

adoremus.org/0607LiturgicalTranslation.html

I read through a good bit of it, and I found Bishop Elliot’s remarks to be, as they often have been from what I can remember, right on target. He describes the current problems afflicting the current English translation of the Missal. He also states at one point that there are some similar problems in the French missal translations, which made me think of this thread.

My line of thinking has me asking the following questions: What translation of the Bible does the French Church use, and how does it match up with the rest of the Liturgy there? To tying up the connection to this thread: Does this knowledge have anything to bear on the conditions on how the NJB was translated?

 

[Manfred]

Manfred, if you have already read the following article, then great:

adoremus.org/0607LiturgicalTranslation.html

I read through a good bit of it, and I found Bishop Elliot’s remarks to be, as they often have been from what I can remember, right on target. He describes the current problems afflicting the current English translation of the Missal. He also states at one point that there are some similar problems in the French missal translations, which made me think of this thread.

My line of thinking has me asking the following questions: What translation of the Bible does the French Church use, and how does it match up with the rest of the Liturgy there? To tie up the connection to this thread: Does this knowledge have anything to bear on the conditions on how the NJB was translated?

Yes, I had seen and read through Bishop Elliot’s article to which you refer above. The following quote jumped off the page when I re-read it:

“…mendacious banality, that is, a translation that tells lies in a rather dull way… was brought about by good intentions, distorted by applying the flawed principle of translation known as dynamic equivalence. This principle was endorsed by the 1969 instruction of the Consilium for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Comme le prévoit. The old ICEL was faithful to much of that instruction, and even went beyond it.”

I don’t know which translation the French use in the Liturgy, specifically whether the French 2nd edition of La Bible de Jerusalem is used or not. I did notice that Bishop Elliot took a swipe at use of the word “happy” for “blessed”, both in the ICEL Mass and the 1966 JB (the latter is one of the problems I have with the 1966 JB: Jesus says to Peter, “Simon, son of John, you are a happy man!”).

Another great point Bishop Elliot brought out is that there’s something to be said for not making the sacred text too easy to comprehend, as this “dumbs it down” to the secular street level and fails to bring us into the realm of the spiritual.

Thanks for bringing it to the attention of the rest of the posters.

 

[Manfred]

Manfred: What if you took the Confraternity New Testament and for the Old Testament used the RSV but ridded it of all Protestantisms?

Would that make for a close to decent bible?

Don’t think so. I’m not a fan of “hybrid” editions of the Bible. My first Bible had the Confraternity NT, 15 OT books translated from the original languages, and the remaining 31 books from the Douay.

I used the Confraternity NT from my grade school days in the 50s till it disappeared in the Novus Ordo. It’s actually quite good (though I wish John 2:4 had been translated more literally), and lots of us wish there were a Confraternity OLD Testament - translated from the Vulgate - as well, but, alas, Pius XII got blamed for issuing Divino Afflante Spiritu and putting an end to the Confraternity’s intentions to do so. But I digress.

When you look at all the places where the NJB and the RNAB need correction, you can hardly indict the RSV-CE for being loaded with “Protestantisms”. For the most part, the RSV is a formal equivalent translation, consistent in rendering key theological terms that made it suitable for use in the CCC. I don’t think the NJB or RNAB could fare as well. What would you call that which needs to be ridded from them?

 

[Manfred]

The whole point of the JB was to communicate the meaning without trying to create poetic language, or coddle people’s sensibilities. … Both the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible came under a lot of heat for not being “liturgical” enough, or not having language that flowed properly when read publically, but that’s just garbage. The main purpose of a bible translation is to accurately translate the Word into another language, so that the MEANING is as little changed as possible. It’s about being saved, not high theater.

… there has been … demand for the original (1966 JB) to provoke a new edition of the Jerusalem Bible. The NJB is best when it hews to the JB and worst where it departs.

Cannot agree with you in the first paragraph (I really dislike the NEB!); do agree with you in the second (but with reservations, of course).

Thanks to mmortal03 for reminding me of the article at the link below.

adoremus.org/0607LiturgicalTranslation.html

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Manfred: which Old Testament is worse: 1970 NAB–1961 through 1969 Confraternity/Genesis was different you know–1966 Jerusalem-- any RSV-CE or the Douay Rheims?

It seems to me that all you have there are a bunch of different bads.

The RSV Old Testament is less oneorous to me than the RSV New Testament.

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.

So for me I like the Confraternity New Testament and can barely live with the RSV Old Testament though many times I just throw up my hands and resort to the douay Rheims.

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.

Dealing with the least bad is drinving me to learn Latin and just go to the Latin Mass where I at least know that whenever the Bible is used it may not be 100% accurate but it will at least be without doctrinal error.

 

[mmortal03]

The RSV Old Testament is less oneorous to me than the RSV New Testament.

The criticism of the Old Testament of the RSV has been that the Christianity-supporting parts of it were deliberately weakened or nullified. It was the OT that was the focus of all the Protestants burning copies of it, soon after it was first published.

It is interesting that for you, and I don’t know what your standpoint on that is, still like the OT more than the NT.

For me, I haven’t tended to even try comparing the NT and the OT so much, so this isn’t much of an issue for me. I agree with Manfred on the dislike of hybrid Bibles, but I won’t throw that type of thinking out completely, however, consider that usually the reasons people will have for doing this is because a corresponding Testament wasn’t produced, not because of a great disparity between two that were together completed.

Something like NETS (an OT) could possibly work in a hybrid, though, because there is some notable correspondence there with how they used the NRSV. I haven’t analyzed it enough to know of just how well it might work combined with the RSV NT or a NRSV NT with the inclusive language removed, but it would be at least a novel case to have an all-Greek-source Bible.