NJB v. NAB

  • Thread starter Thread starter AngelRose81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AngelRose81

Guest
I was just wondering what some of your thoughts were on the New Jerusalem Bible vs. the New American Bible. Personally, I like both and read both. I use my Scepter Pub. RSV-CE for devotional reading but I use my other translations for various other things. I know there is probably a thread on this somewhere but I couldn’t find it so if someone knows where it is please let me know! 👍
 
NAB has annoying footnotes (“Matthew misread the prophecy in Jeremiah”… yeah, ok) and has a lot of eyebrow raising renderings, but the NJB has the heretical inclusive language.

Among the two, I would say use the NJB but be careful to note when God should be referred to as “He.” Though the Douay-Rheims and RSV-CE are superior to both.
 
The language of the NJB is quite poetic, and I have the PRE INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE edition…I LIKE the footnotes in the NAB, and it’s an easy read…and the RSV-CE is excellent on all accounts. DR is what I was brought up with, but I only pick it up now and again.
 
I think the NJB is better, due to its more literary quality as well as the notes. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, has prefered the NJB to the NAB.

The NJB does use inclusive language, but far less than the NRSV and the NAB Psalms and NT. The person who said that the NJB gets rid of the “he” when referring to God is incorrect, that would be found in the NAB Psalms. There are two kinds of “inclusive language”: 1) Horizontal, when referring to men and women, 2) Vertical, when referring to God and the pronoun “he”. The NJB does not use vertical inclusive language, but only minor horizontal inclusive language. I would encourage you to compare the differences between the NAB and NJB in Galatians 4:1-7.
 
I like the New Jerusalem Bible text.
I don’t have a copy, but my sister does.
I like the NJB especially because it retains the Lord’s
real name, YAHWEH, each and every time the tetragrammaton occurs in the Old Testament Text. It is surprising to a lot of people that God’s real name is not “the LORD,” but YAHWEH.
Unfortunately, cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses take advantage of this surprise to accuse the Christian Church of conspiratorially removing the Name of Yahweh (or as they call it, Jehovah), from the Hebrew text. The simple answer is that the early Christian church used the Septuagint which contained the vowel points for ADONAI wherever the Divine Name appeared.

The text of the NAB isn’t bad, but the footnotes are bad.
And I know the NRSV uses inclusive language and sometimes uses the word “mortals” when a more correct rendering would be “humans” or “human beings” ((after all, bugs are “mortals”), but I still enjoy reading the NRSV.

But my favorite is still the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition published by Ignatius Press.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
AngelRose81 said:
I was just wondering what some of your thoughts were on the New Jerusalem Bible vs. the New American Bible. Personally, I like both and read both. I use my Scepter Pub. RSV-CE for devotional reading but I use my other translations for various other things. I know there is probably a thread on this somewhere but I couldn’t find it so if someone knows where it is please let me know! 👍
Click to expand...
AngelRose,

Well, you’re in the right Forum, alright, as there are a few threads that bring up the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles (use forum Search tool to find 'em). However, most of the time the threads veer off topic, as there don’t seem to be as many devotees of either of these bibles as there are for say, the NAB or even the NRSV. :eek: And, of course, before long, the RSV-xCE and/or D-R are brought in, which is fine if the posters were doing a careful comparison, but often that’s not what’s happening.

My own two-cents: I find too many readings in the 1966 JB to be innovative almost to a fault; I’m not comfortable reading it, even though it does not have inclusive language and is Mother Angelica’s favorite and is used in some English-speaking countries as the basis for their Lectionaries. I prefer the 1985 NJB, and my reasons line up pretty much with those of mccorm45; to wit, its use of inclusive language is far more moderated than is that of the RNAB or NRSV. It’s got a few innovative renderings of its own, to be sure, but, in comparison to the RNAB or NRSV, I’d trust the NJB text and notes first. I’d like to see some country give it serious consideration for Lectionary use (so far, none has). The NJB can unlock many an obscure passage found in, say, the D-R or even the RSV-CE. If it’s traditional language you’re looking for, you’d be better served by the RSV-CE. If “traditional” a la’ the TLM, then the D-R is best.
 
Manfred said:
AngelRose,

Well, you’re in the right Forum, alright, as there are a few threads that bring up the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles (use forum Search tool to find 'em). However, most of the time the threads veer off topic, as there don’t seem to be as many devotees of either of these bibles as there are for say, the NAB or even the NRSV. :eek: And, of course, before long, the RSV-xCE and/or D-R are brought in, which is fine if the posters were doing a careful comparison, but often that’s not what’s happening.

My own two-cents: I find too many readings in the 1966 JB to be innovative almost to a fault; I’m not comfortable reading it, even though it does not have inclusive language and is Mother Angelica’s favorite and is used in some English-speaking countries as the basis for their Lectionaries. I prefer the 1985 NJB, and my reasons line up pretty much with those of mccorm45; to wit, its use of inclusive language is far more moderated than is that of the RNAB or NRSV. It’s got a few innovative renderings of its own, to be sure, but, in comparison to the RNAB or NRSV, I’d trust the NJB text and notes first. I’d like to see some country give it serious consideration for Lectionary use (so far, none has). The NJB can unlock many an obscure passage found in, say, the D-R or even the RSV-CE. If it’s traditional language you’re looking for, you’d be better served by the RSV-CE. If “traditional” a la’ the TLM, then the D-R is best.
Click to expand...
Another point in favor of the NJB comes from this Sunday’s epistle reading from Hebrews 12:23:

NAB: “and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven”
NJB: “with the hole Church of first-born sons, enrolled as citizens of heaven.”

BTW: If you are interested in learning a bit more about the chief editor of the NJB, Henry Wansbrough OSB, you can pick up a recently published book by him entitled “The Story of the Bible: How It Came to Us” published by the Word Among Us Press. amazon.com/Story-Bible-How-Came-Us/dp/159325072X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2039073-4615909?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188744374&sr=8-1

(Fr. Wansbrough is a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.)
 
I am a convert to the church of 4 years. I am very comfortable with the New Jerusalem Bible. The New American doesn’t flow smoothly at times. :juggle:
I have one (NAB) for reference, but don’t use it much.
 
mccorm45 said:
Another point in favor of the NJB comes from this Sunday’s epistle reading from Hebrews 12:23:

NAB: “and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven”

NJB: “with the whole Church of first-born sons, enrolled as citizens of heaven”
Click to expand...
Just for completeness:

RSV: “and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven”

D-R: “And to the church of the firstborn who are written in the heavens”

Hmmm, is it me, or does the NJB seem to come a bit close to the D-R? Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
 
Manfred said:
Just for completeness:

RSV: “and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven”

D-R: “And to the church of the firstborn who are written in the heavens”

Hmmm, is it me, or does the NJB seem to come a bit close to the D-R? Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
Click to expand...
Yes, very cool!

I think there can be a legitimate discussion of Catholic translations, evaluating there merits, without simply dismissing one or the other. I think too many people come to conclusions about certain translations without thoroughly evaluating them. Perhaps this is not the forum to do this, but I think it can and should be done. Perhaps I will start up a blog about this very issue.
 
One final note on this thread. If you are looking for a quality edition of the NAB, I would recommend the “New Catholic Answer Bible” by Fireside. The apologetic inserts are outstanding and the binding/layout is high quality. firesidecatholic.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top