E
Elzee
Guest
Does anyone know anything about the New Jerusalem bible? Is it a faithful translation for Catholics to use? Any concerns with using it over the NAB or RSV-CE?
- Status
R
richardwy
Guest
From: bible-researcher.com/new-jerusalem-bible.html
Nice group of calvinists and other folks. I do like the work that’s been done on assessing Bible translations.
I do not cotton to “inclusive” language Bible translations.
The New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
Henry Wansbrough, ed., The New Jerusalem Bible. New York; London: Doubleday; Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. ISBN: 0385142641
The New Jerusalem Bible is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible (1966). The revision seems to have been motivated chiefly by a desire to make the version more accurate. A number of reviewers had pointed out loose renderings which would cause problems for those who would use the version for close study, as it was intended to be used. There was also another consideration: The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was based upon the French Bible de Jérusalem (1961) prepared by the faculty of the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem; but in 1973 the French Bible was revised, and so for this reason it was felt that a corresponding revision of the English version was in order.
Henry Wansbrough of Ampleforth Abbey, York, was appointed chief editor for the revision. The preface mentions “Professor Kenneth Grayston and Canon Douglas Webster” as being especially worthy of notice in connection with this work.
The revision of the voluminous notes and introductions of the version simply follows the new French edition, and they represent the opinions of secular critical scholars. Skeptical views on the authenticity of various books, on the truthfulness of the biblical narratives, and even on the inspiration of the teachings of the Bible, are presented as if they were uncontroversial.
The translation is generally made more literal. In some places, however, the revision is less accurate than its predecessor. This is due mainly to the occasional changes made so as to avoid the linguistic “preference for the masculine.” Apparently, the editors were under some pressure to revise the text according to the new principles of inclusive language. But changes of this type in the New Jerusalem Bible are very few compared to the severely neutered Bible versions which appeared in the 1990’s.
The original Jerusalem Bible (1966) had been criticized for “undisciplined and capricious” treatment of the Old Testament, especially in matters of textual criticism. (1) Some problems of this kind have been corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible, but many remain. This seems to be a characteristic of modern Roman Catholic scholarship in general – a weakness for speculative reconstructions of the text of the Old Testament, and for novelties in Hebrew philology. The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
A “Reader’s Edition” of the New Jerusalem Bible with abridged introductions and notes (ISBN: 0385248334) was issued in 1990.
The New Jerusalem Bible has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. American Catholics prefer the New American Bible published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Nice group of calvinists and other folks. I do like the work that’s been done on assessing Bible translations.
I do not cotton to “inclusive” language Bible translations.
The New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
Henry Wansbrough, ed., The New Jerusalem Bible. New York; London: Doubleday; Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. ISBN: 0385142641
The New Jerusalem Bible is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible (1966). The revision seems to have been motivated chiefly by a desire to make the version more accurate. A number of reviewers had pointed out loose renderings which would cause problems for those who would use the version for close study, as it was intended to be used. There was also another consideration: The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was based upon the French Bible de Jérusalem (1961) prepared by the faculty of the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem; but in 1973 the French Bible was revised, and so for this reason it was felt that a corresponding revision of the English version was in order.
Henry Wansbrough of Ampleforth Abbey, York, was appointed chief editor for the revision. The preface mentions “Professor Kenneth Grayston and Canon Douglas Webster” as being especially worthy of notice in connection with this work.
The revision of the voluminous notes and introductions of the version simply follows the new French edition, and they represent the opinions of secular critical scholars. Skeptical views on the authenticity of various books, on the truthfulness of the biblical narratives, and even on the inspiration of the teachings of the Bible, are presented as if they were uncontroversial.
The translation is generally made more literal. In some places, however, the revision is less accurate than its predecessor. This is due mainly to the occasional changes made so as to avoid the linguistic “preference for the masculine.” Apparently, the editors were under some pressure to revise the text according to the new principles of inclusive language. But changes of this type in the New Jerusalem Bible are very few compared to the severely neutered Bible versions which appeared in the 1990’s.
The original Jerusalem Bible (1966) had been criticized for “undisciplined and capricious” treatment of the Old Testament, especially in matters of textual criticism. (1) Some problems of this kind have been corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible, but many remain. This seems to be a characteristic of modern Roman Catholic scholarship in general – a weakness for speculative reconstructions of the text of the Old Testament, and for novelties in Hebrew philology. The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
A “Reader’s Edition” of the New Jerusalem Bible with abridged introductions and notes (ISBN: 0385248334) was issued in 1990.
The New Jerusalem Bible has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. American Catholics prefer the New American Bible published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
P
Pani_Rose
Guest
No, it is inclusive.
You can get the '60s vesion from EWTN. Long ago, Mother Anglica got the rights to it, so she could have it printed. Or something like that, anyway, that is the only place you will find it hot off the presses.
Also, you can find them quite often on ebay. I have bid and got quite a few on there to give to people. Just plug in Jerusalem Bible
You can get the '60s vesion from EWTN. Long ago, Mother Anglica got the rights to it, so she could have it printed. Or something like that, anyway, that is the only place you will find it hot off the presses.
Also, you can find them quite often on ebay. I have bid and got quite a few on there to give to people. Just plug in Jerusalem Bible
Depends on your purposes.
Prayer and devotion: yes.
Liturgy: no.
Study: yes, with discernment.
N
Nezmith
Guest
The only translation of the Hebrew + Greek Bible you can trust is the King James Version of 1611, or simply the King James Version… God’s Word can not be relayed to you in any of the current English translations clearer than this. I have found the other translations to be downright inaccurate and misleading, not only this but they are mutilated as they are missing most of the original books of the Bible, mainly of the Apocrypha.
S
Sabda
Guest
That would be what is referred to as the Reader’s Edition right?No, it is inclusive.
You can get the '60s vesion from EWTN. Long ago, Mother Anglica got the rights to it, so she could have it printed. Or something like that, anyway, that is the only place you will find it hot off the presses.
Also, you can find them quite often on ebay. I have bid and got quite a few on there to give to people. Just plug in Jerusalem Bible
It can also be bought on Amazon.
Any translation that has the
*Nihil Obstat *and Imprimatur are ok translations to use, so look for that on the inside cover.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
start with the sticky at the top of this forum that includes a guide to bible translations, then review many past threads on this topic, it has been discussed in the last couple of weeks.
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
No. It is not faithful to Catholic faith or tradition.
Luke 1:28
He went in and said to her, ‘Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour! The Lord is with you.’
This choice of words makes Protestants happy, but it should be a red-flag to Catholics. A Catholic bible would say “full of grace” here.
Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
This is an anti-trinitarian choice. A Catholic bible would say “Spirit of God” here.
Psalm 1:1
1How blessed is anyone who rejects the advice of the wicked
and does not take a stand in the path that sinners tread,
“Anyone”? The classic prophecy of Christ ends up on the NJB cutting room floor. I love how they phrase it as a question too! This should say “Blessed is He”.
Psalm 22:16
16A pack of dogs surrounds me, a gang of villains closing in on me as if to hack off my hands and my feet.
The Septuagint, that Christ was actually quoting from on the cross, says “pierce my hands and feet”. Wrong, says the NJB team.
There are many more, but hopefully you see the point.
B
bauerice
Guest
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
Funny? No. It is outrageous though.
That means the NJB, along with all other Bible translations bearing such, are fine and suitable for private use. Continue using your NJB.
M
Manfred
Guest
Relative to the NAB or RNAB, the NJB is of higher quality in both its renderings and its wealth of study material. Yes, it’s got some inclusive language, but, as The Bible Researcher and a few of us have pointed out, its use is definitely more restrained than either the RNAB or NRSV.
Overall, it reads “smooth”, but is of a higher literary quality than the pedestrian NAB/RNAB.
There are a few, uh, innovative renderings, as you can see from some of the other posters, but they’re not “deal breakers” (at least, not for me anymore).
The RSV-CE is definitely more literal and quite literary, but lacks in-depth study material within its covers. As for “problem renderings”: see that magnificent
thread “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”.I have each of the bibles I’ve named, as well as the JB. The latter is just way too colloquial for me to read it with any confidence. I know a good part of the English-speaking world uses this in the Liturgy, but I don’t personally care for its style.
I also have a Douay-Rheims, of course. This provides a “standard” against which I check all the others, not so much in the OT, but especially in the NT.
M
Manfred
Guest
puzzleannie,
I don’t think it’s helpful to point anyone in the direction of the CAF “Bible Translation Guide”; it contains only a minimum of information relative to Catholic translations. The author spends way too much time on the Protestant New American Standard (NAS), New International Version (NIV), and that awful Cotton Patch Version.
What would’ve been nice is a good analysis and comparison of the CATHOLIC NAB/RNAB, JB/NJB, RSV-CE, and D-R.
As you know, the publisher of TAN Books wrote a pamphlet a few years back entitled “Which Bible Should You Read?” It was an unabashed and actually pretty decent apologetic for the D-R, precisely because it compared the latter to other Protestant and, more importantly, Catholic translations. To date, no one (sorry, Jimmy Akin) has come up with a rebuttal or analysis that even approaches this.
All we seem to have are those of us posting our musings in the various CAF Scripture Forum threads.
- Status