NJB: Yea, or Nay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Epistemes

Guest
The *New Jerusalem Bible *doesn’t seem to get enough play here on the forum, so I’m wondering what it is about this translation you either like or dislike?

I read a number of reviews on amazon.com stating that the NJB is actually the more accurate English translation of both the OT and NT, even though it is not approved for liturgical use? Do you agree?
 
I own an edition of the NJB with all the footnotes. I have found them 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.

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?

In addition, there are a few problems I have with the overall translation, which at times is way too dynamic. The lack of the use of the word “flesh”, particularly in the NT letters, can cause confusion at times. Also, I just find the translation to be not as dignified at times like the RSV, KJV, ESV, or DR.

Overall, I feel that if the notes and all the helps were combined with a more word for word translation, than the NJB would be my #1 favorite Bible.
 
mccorm45 said:
I own an edition of the NJB with all the footnotes. I have found them 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.

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?

In addition, there are a few problems I have with the overall translation, which at times is way too dynamic. The lack of the use of the word “flesh”, particularly in the NT letters, can cause confusion at times. Also, I just find the translation to be not as dignified at times like the RSV, KJV, ESV, or DR.

Overall, I feel that if the notes and all the helps were combined with a more word for word translation, than the NJB would be my #1 favorite Bible.
Click to expand...
Hi,
sorry I don’t know how to use the quote button—
My favorite bible of all time is the Jerusalem Bible. The original one.
JeanneH
 
NJB is the best.

Tolkien had a part in its translation, so you know it’s gotta be good.😃
 
I’m a big fan of the NJB. It is a great balanced version. I know some get crazy over inclusive language but, it is not over the top. I own several versions, but, the NJB is the one I read mainly.👍
 
Ahimsa said:
NJB is the best.

Tolkien had a part in its translation, so you know it’s gotta be good.😃
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that’s true; Tolkien did have a part in the original 1966 JB, but not the 1985 NJB.
 
Epistemes said:
The *New Jerusalem Bible *doesn’t seem to get enough play here on the forum, so I’m wondering what it is about this translation you either like or dislike?

I read a number of reviews on amazon.com stating that the NJB is actually the more accurate English translation of both the OT and NT, even though it is not approved for liturgical use? Do you agree?
Click to expand...
I think it’s scholarship and accuracy in capturing the meaning are actually better than other moderns, but that darned inclusive language intrudes and ruins it. Too bad, really.
 
Nope. NJB while being pretty close to the JB has inclusive language. Yes its much better than the Good News Bible, but there are just so many translations that are better than the GNB.
 
bauerice said:
I’m a big fan of the NJB. It is a great balanced version. I know some get crazy over inclusive language but, it is not over the top. I own several versions, but, the NJB is the one I read mainly.👍
Click to expand...
If the NJB is your preference, more power to you. 🙂 But I did want to comment that characterizing the nature or amount of inclusive language (which I dislike, btw) in a translation reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be a little pregnant.” 😉
 
Manfred said:
I don’t believe that’s true; Tolkien did have a part in the original 1966 JB, but not the 1985 NJB.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Bible. Wikipedia says, “The translation itself has been admired for its literary qualities, perhaps in part due to its most famous contributor, J.R.R. Tolkien (although his primary contribution was the translation of Jonah).” Tolkien died in 1973, so I don’t think he would have been around for the work on the New Jerusalem Bible.
 
Haven’t actually read the New Jerusalem Bible, but I’ve perused my parent’s Jerusalem Bible many a time, and love it. If the NJB is anything like I’d say it’s good.
 
Manfred said:
I think it’s scholarship and accuracy in capturing the meaning are actually better than other moderns, but that darned inclusive language intrudes and ruins it. Too bad, really.
Click to expand...
Manfred:

I’m surprised to see you say this. I have actually compared the NJB to your suggestions from the “RSV-CE Needs Corrections thread” and have discovered that the NJB hardly measures up to any of these.

I personally find the inclusive language a lot less horrendous in the NJB than the NAB or NRSV.
 
Nay, due to lack of an elevated style. I’ll take the style of the RSVCE or Confraternity any day.
 
The NJB is Catholic. The RSV-CE is Protestant with Catholic polishing.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The NJB is Catholic. The RSV-CE is Protestant with Catholic polishing.
Click to expand...
Well, this is true. I guess I should’ve asked Why not OTHER English translations, period? NAB and Douay-Rheims are also Catholic and have received recognition by the Church.
 
Suprisingly in some instances the KJV is more Catholic than other Protestant English translations.

I think in some foreign countries they might prefer the NJB because they think it comes from French and French from Latin and it is revised so why not trust it over anything produced in the United States which might be tainted by liberalism or Protestantism?
 
Epistemes said:
Manfred:

I’m surprised to see you say this. I have actually compared the NJB to your suggestions from the “RSV-CE Needs Corrections thread” and have discovered that the NJB hardly measures up to any of these.

I personally find the inclusive language a lot less horrendous in the NJB than the NAB or NRSV.
Click to expand...
Of course, the NJB won’t even be close the RSV-CE, so there’s no point in trying to make the NJB approach it.

But, from the point-of-view of its being a bible with copious book introductions, study notes, cross-references, indexes of themes, names and places, and, yes, some VERY original interpretations, it’s miles ahead of the RNAB and the NRSV. You are right on wrt to its inclusive language being less horrendous than either of the other two we mentioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top