Really, how inaccurate is the Jerusalem Bible?

[swampboy]

I have been comparing the New Jerusalem and Jerusalem Bibles and although they are quite similar, there are also some significant differences, particularly in the notes. Although the NJB does render some passages more similarly to more literal translations, I still think I like the JB better–especially for the notes. The inclusive language in the NJB is not real noticeable, but it has some crazy notes. I like the way the JB reads so I guess I will stick with it. Any other opinions??

 

[Mattjolley]

If anyone who likes the JB is not comfortable with the use of ‘Yahweh’ in it, the CTS New Catholic Bible has replaced it with ‘Lord’, and uses the Grail Psalms.

It therefore matches the text used in the English and Welsh lectionary.

 

[jcrichton]

The English JB is from the original languages and follows the French mostly when textual variants come into play.

Hail is and old English greeting. You may have heard the phrase Hail Ceaser. The greeting to Mary ‘Chaire’ (in the Greek 1:28) was an ancient greeting meaning rejoice. As it is a greeting is has traditionally been translated as hail. Some new translations do say greetings and the English JB and Christian Community Bible say rejoice.

Mary did indeed speak Aramaic as with those living in the Holy Land at the time. Outside Greek was the main language (later Latin) and Hebrew used in the Jewish liturgy.

out of intrest

English JB so highly favoured
French JB filled with grace
Spanish JB full of grace
Italian JB full of grace

Douay Rheims full of grace
Latin Vulgate full of grace
Christian Community Bible full of grace
Westminster Translation full of grace
New American Bible lectionary version full of grace

Thank you for the information!

…as you have kindly posted, it seems that the problem lies with the version to which we have become accustomed; I have always preferred the JB, Spanish–no inclusive language and some of the terms are kept in Aramaic… plus it has tons of notations and concordance!

…still, I wonder if “Hail” has a similar Aramaic word/expression…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

// Tobías 2: 12b: el siete del mes de Distros*

…yeah, but that is not a date according to the current calendar–the term used in my JB, Spanish: Dystros*

*footnote explians that it corresponds with the Jewish “Adar” which was a period between February-March.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Manfred]

…yeah, but that is not a date according to the current calendar–the term used in my JB, Spanish: Dystros*

*footnote explians that it corresponds with the Jewish “Adar” which was a period between February-March.

Maran atha!

Angel

May be, but the English edition still has “the seventh of March”. That’s fine for a footnote, but not the text itself.

From what I’ve been reading in this thread, the non-English editions of the JB are rather good; the same CANNOT be said of the 1966 English edition.

 

[jcrichton]

I have been comparing the New Jerusalem and Jerusalem Bibles and although they are quite similar, there are also some significant differences, particularly in the notes. Although the NJB does render some passages more similarly to more literal translations, I still think I like the JB better–especially for the notes. The inclusive language in the NJB is not real noticeable, but it has some crazy notes. I like the way the JB reads so I guess I will stick with it. Any other opinions??

…I must confess that my prejudice does keep me from reading through the NJB… since I am not a linguist or theologian/scholar I do not know which version is the correct or closer to the original (transliteration as some call it)… but what bothers me is those changes which, to me, detracts from the meaning of the passages:

“tal que, quien desee ser bendecido en la tierra, deseará serlo en el Dios del Amén, y quien jurare en la tierra, jurará en el Dios del Amén;” (Isaías 65:16a–JB)
(hence/therefore whoever wants to be blessed on earth, will want to be blessed in the God of the Amen, and whoever would swear on earth, will swear in the God of the Amen)

“Whoever blesses himself on earth will bless himself by the God of truth, and whoever swears an oath on earth, will swear by the God of truth,” (Isaiah 65:16a–NJB)

When we read these passages individually it seems that both versions are acceptable and inconsequential… but when we read Apocalypse 3:14 on the light of these passages, the JB version seems to render a deeper and more revealing understanding: Jesus is the God of the Amen!:

“Al Ángel de la Iglesia de Laodicea escribe: Así habla el Amén,” (Apocalipsis 3:14a)
(To the Angel of the Church in Laodicea write: The Amen speaks thusly,)

Though this example might be just an exception and not the rule, I prefer the JB’s!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If anyone who likes the JB is not comfortable with the use of ‘Yahweh’ in it, the CTS New Catholic Bible has replaced it with ‘Lord’, and uses the Grail Psalms.

It therefore matches the text used in the English and Welsh lectionary.

…but isn’t that part of the “inclusive language” movement? Why is the name Yahweh objectionable?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

May be, but the English edition still has “the seventh of March”. That’s fine for a footnote, but not the text itself.

From what I’ve been reading in this thread, the non-English editions of the JB are rather good; the same CANNOT be said of the 1966 English edition.

I concur… I wonder why these changes occurred–it cannot be due to grammatical accidents!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[swampboy]

So basically what I am gathering from reading these posts is that both the JB and NJB suffer from some substantial translation errors and/or quirks…too bad, as these are really the only decently laid out study bibles that Catholics have to use disregarding the NAB…I am a little worried about using the JB/NJB translation as a primary bible…I can’t tolerate the DR long enough to make it worthwhile, although I will still use the Haydock version for the commentary, so I guess I am stuck with the RSV which is laid out poorly and lacks substantial study notes, even the RSV-2CE. I may just have to revert back to my KJV study bible or the NASB …but at least they both have great layouts and are actually reader-friendly.

 

[jcrichton]

So basically what I am gathering from reading these posts is that both the JB and NJB suffer from some substantial translation errors and/or quirks…too bad, as these are really the only decently laid out study bibles that Catholics have to use disregarding the NAB…I am a little worried about using the JB/NJB translation as a primary bible…I can’t tolerate the DR long enough to make it worthwhile, although I will still use the Haydock version for the commentary, so I guess I am stuck with the RSV which is laid out poorly and lacks substantial study notes, even the RSV-2CE. I may just have to revert back to my KJV study bible or the NASB …but at least they both have great layouts and are actually reader-friendly.

There are some translations which are outright wrong (one I own has Jesus reading from the Bible)… yet, I do not understand how the JB is a wrong translation (I am referring to the French version and those who have maintained this particular form)… how have you determined that the KJV is a better translation?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Canto]

…but isn’t that part of the “inclusive language” movement? Why is the name Yahweh objectionable?

Maran atha!

Angel

The Church has asked that we not use the name of God. The Jews have always done the same thing even in the time before Christ.

The way I see it is I don’t call my father by his first name so why should I call my Father by His first Name. And that aside I feel so unworthy to even utter such a Holy Name.

 

[swampboy]

There are some translations which are outright wrong (one I own has Jesus reading from the Bible)… yet, I do not understand how the JB is a wrong translation (I am referring to the French version and those who have maintained this particular form)… how have you determined that the KJV is a better translation?

Maran atha!

Angel

I am not saying that the KJV is necessarily a “better translation” but at least the particular bible I have has decent cross references, lots of notes and study helps, and a readable layout. I find that most Catholic bibles lack those features, except for the JB series…however, the JB series has some translation quirks. I find it quite aggravating that Catholics have not been able to compile a decent comprehensive bible in 2000 years. I can’t understand why that is:shrug: Take a look at the RSV for instance…pretty decent translation but why would any publisher think that anyone would want to read anything, never mind the bible, in that format?! The JB has an awesome cross-reference and study notes system so obviously the information has been deciphered…but all the other translations are lacking this info…then you have the NAB which has notes that tell me that the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew!! I read that and threw my bible out. I am sure that copyright issues, etc. prevent some info from being shared or used between translations but that does not explain all the issues. At least the Protestant bibles mostly concur with each other and are readable. Just my opinion…but sadly it is true.

 

[Jehuty_X]

…yeah, but that is not a date according to the current calendar–the term used in my JB, Spanish: Dystros*

*footnote explians that it corresponds with the Jewish “Adar” which was a period between February-March.

Maran atha!

Angel

// it say’s the same thing in mine!

 

[Jehuty_X]

…I must confess that my prejudice does keep me from reading through the NJB… since I am not a linguist or theologian/scholar I do not know which version is the correct or closer to the original (transliteration as some call it)… but what bothers me is those changes which, to me, detracts from the meaning of the passages:

“tal que, quien desee ser bendecido en la tierra, deseará serlo en el Dios del Amén, y quien jurare en la tierra, jurará en el Dios del Amén;” (Isaías 65:16a–JB)
(hence/therefore whoever wants to be blessed on earth, will want to be blessed in the God of the Amen, and whoever would swear on earth, will swear in the God of the Amen)

“Whoever blesses himself on earth will bless himself by the God of truth, and whoever swears an oath on earth, will swear by the God of truth,” (Isaiah 65:16a–NJB)

When we read these passages individually it seems that both versions are acceptable and inconsequential… but when we read Apocalypse 3:14 on the light of these passages, the JB version seems to render a deeper and more revealing understanding: Jesus is the God of the Amen!:

“Al Ángel de la Iglesia de Laodicea escribe: Así habla el Amén,” (Apocalipsis 3:14a)
(To the Angel of the Church in Laodicea write: The Amen speaks thusly,)

Though this example might be just an exception and not the rule, I prefer the JB’s!

Maran atha!

Angel

// i did ask the publisher’s (Desclée De Brouwer) before on why the changes in the newer versions, as the publishers stated, they are updated after doing research from the ancient texts…
// to be honest, i really hate when this occurs…

 

[robfromhc]

Hi All-

I been part of this thread for several days. A few years ago I got tired of going from one Bible translation to another in the English language. My job has me fluent in several languages so I took some extra bucks and bought three Bibles in different tongues. Same result- frustration with translations.

Then I ran into a site that gave a free (and a very thorough course) in Aramaic and Koine Greek- both Biblical languges, the former language being the tongue Christ Himself spoke. I found sites that had Bibles in these tongues- free of charge. That’s where I learned that no present day translation of the Scriptures is going to satisfy everyone, if for no other reason than the bulk of these translations are the products of disagreements and compromises over what a certain word or symbol meant.

So- for me- the ultimate answer was to brush up on my Koine Greek, learn Aramaic (it’s not that difficult) and decide for myself whether I desired eloquence or accuracy in my native English tongue. I still have not made a definite choice between the two, but at least actively using these ancient tongues allows ME to decide what a given word or passage is saying.

Besides- as my professor of scripture in the seminary said- “If you took all the Bible scholars and put them in a straight line, they’d still all point in different directions!” Lesson being no translation is perfect and some are the products of some pretty nasty conflicts!

Pax tecum,
Rob

 

[swampboy]

Hi All-

I been part of this thread for several days. A few years ago I got tired of going from one Bible translation to another in the English language. My job has me fluent in several languages so I took some extra bucks and bought three Bibles in different tongues. Same result- frustration with translations.

Then I ran into a site that gave a free (and a very thorough course) in Aramaic and Koine Greek- both Biblical languges, the former language being the tongue Christ Himself spoke. I found sites that had Bibles in these tongues- free of charge. That’s where I learned that no present day translation of the Scriptures is going to satisfy everyone, if for no other reason than the bulk of these translations are the products of disagreements and compromises over what a certain word or symbol meant.

So- for me- the ultimate answer was to brush up on my Koine Greek, learn Aramaic (it’s not that difficult) and decide for myself whether I desired eloquence or accuracy in my native English tongue. I still have not made a definite choice between the two, but at least actively using these ancient tongues allows ME to decide what a given word or passage is saying.

Besides- as my professor of scripture in the seminary said- “If you took all the Bible scholars and put them in a straight line, they’d still all point in different directions!” Lesson being no translation is perfect and some are the products of some pretty nasty conflicts!

Pax tecum,
Rob

Well said, Rob. That is kind of what I figured and what my research has concluded. Because the English language is so limited in its ability to represent the intended meanings or expressions of other languages, particularly biblical languages, it is ultimately up to the translators to decide the “best fit”. One thing I do like about the N/JB series is that it at least gives you a sense of what the original languages meant and provides alternative expressions, if you have the ones with the extensive notes, sometimes even explaining why the translators chose the particular phrasing or word(s)–and this is something that is pretty unique to the N/JB series. I guess despite its downfalls (and pitfalls!) the N/JB series is not all that bad, especially if looked at in light of what Rob noted. At least it is an enjoyable read and helps make the scriptures come alive…it really helps me with Paul’s letters, as I can almost understand some of them when I read the N/JB!!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Jerusalem bible is doctrinaly inaccurate when it translates “In the presence of Christ” versus “In the person of Christ” when Paul grants absolution to the incestuous Corinthian in 2 Corinthians 2:10.

Any bible that translates “In the presence” is wrong!

And not wrong on a minor point but wrong on a doctrinal area of faith–absolution.

For me: that is on the level of “virgin will conceive”.

Notice: even the KJV gets that verse right: that was before Protestant bias supporters were able to catch it!

There are Catholic bibles and there are less than Catholic bibles.

Now we’ll listen to the less than Catholic bible lovers have a heart attack!

For anyone that cares about doctrinal accuracy the Douay Rheims Challoner and the Confraternity versions get it right, too.

Most all other translations get it wrong.

The Latin Vulgate says “In personna Christi”–the Nova Vulgata says the same thing.

Catholic priests act “in the person of Christ”!

That isn’ true only because the Catholic Church says so but because 2 Corinthians 2:10 says so!

 

[tobinatorstark]

The Jerusalem bible is doctrinaly inaccurate when it translates “In the presence of Christ” versus “In the person of Christ” when Paul grants absolution to the incestuous Corinthian in 2 Corinthians 2:10.

Any bible that translates “In the presence” is wrong!

And not wrong on a minor point but wrong on a doctrinal area of faith–absolution.

For me: that is on the level of “virgin will conceive”.

Notice: even the KJV gets that verse right: that was before Protestant bias supporters were able to catch it!

There are Catholic bibles and there are less than Catholic bibles.

Now we’ll listen to the less than Catholic bible lovers have a heart attack!

For anyone that cares about doctrinal accuracy the Douay Rheims Challoner and the Confraternity versions get it right, too.

Most all other translations get it wrong.

The Latin Vulgate says “In personna Christi”–the Nova Vulgata says the same thing.

Catholic priests act “in the person of Christ”!

That isn’ true only because the Catholic Church says so but because 2 Corinthians 2:10 says so!

what about the Ronald Knox. Does it translate in person of of Christ??? You’re right that is inaccurate to say in the presence.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Knox also translates: “in the person of Christ”.

 

[Manfred]

I concur… I wonder why these changes occurred–it cannot be due to grammatical accidents!

I think it’s called “dumbing down the translation”.