Really, how inaccurate is the Jerusalem Bible?

[tobinatorstark]

I wonder if you are wrong about that. You didn’t post a link or quote from Mother Angelica. I was aware that she preferred the 1966 edition. A house divided does not stand. I would not impute heresy for any Catholic Bible. Nor for any Protestant Bible. I’ve never seen a JW Bible. If I have throw their material away, it is their other publications, bound or not.

That is a direct quote from Mother Angelica from her show “Mother Angelica Live” episode entitled “Romans 7”. Not sure if EWTN provides a transcript of this or not, but the DVD that it is on will contained that. It premiered in 1997. As for a documentation. I don’t know if one exist other than a taped broadcast

 

[tobinatorstark]

that however doesn’t mean that the Bible itself is heretical. I am just quoting on what I had heard from the TV show. Obviously the Catholic Church doesn’t see it heretical.

 

[ohioszo]

that however doesn’t mean that the Bible itself is heretical. I am just quoting on what I had heard from the TV show. Obviously the Catholic Church doesn’t see it heretical.

Are you sure? Maybe it was another Bible that she was talking about. I heard her and only knew about her preference. If you read about both of the Jerusalem Bibles, one cannot find anything to support an accusation of heresy. She is someone people consider to be trustworthy, that’s why it matters.

 

[tobinatorstark]

She explicitly said she didn’t care for the New Jerusalem Bible and viewed it as heretical.But like I said I have no proof other than a recorded broadcast

 

[tobinatorstark]

the Romans 7 episode I am referring to is on EWTN’s site right now. This re aired Tuesday night.

ewtn.com/tv/prime_tuesday.asp

I am checking it out right now to make sure I didn’t misquote her.

 

[tobinatorstark]

In the 43rd minute of the link I posted earlier Mother Angelica states “I wouldn’t buy the new one. Because it is all inclusive language. And my idea of inclusive language is. It is heretical. I hope the right people heard that. It is heretical” "If you buy a Bible, look at the 2nd chapter of Luke and also the 6th chapter of John. And read it between there and if it doesn’t say “God” or “Father” at all. She then gives a thumbs down. “Then I wouldn’t buy it”

 

[robfromhc]

This thread seems to have engaged the subject of inclusive language. I’ll probably ignite some fire with my opinion of inclusive language, but here goes-

After several years of seminary studies, I’ve not formed an opinion as to whether or not inclusive language is heretical. However, I do think inclusive language, as a whole, is silly just as I think “politically correct” language is silly. Gender has been a part of language, written and spoken, as long as language has been a part of humanity. Therefore, why argue the point or get into lengthy or even scholarly debates about the matter?

Biblically, even Isaiah points out the God is our Mother as much our Father. Those of us who can remember the short, but impressive, reign of John Paul I remember that he ignited a firestorm when he pointed that out in one of his audiences.

Point is, no human tongue ever spoken has been “inclusive”. Moreover, I personally think trying to make Holy Scripture inclusive when it is rooted in languages and cultures that have always had a gender orientation can lead to the ruin of those sacred writings. Heretical? I’m not able to judge that. But- as one who is fluent in nine languages and uses them most everyday at work- I say that “inclusive” language is a slippery slope to be avoided, especially in Scripture.

 

[redrosetea]

Mother Angelica of EWTN fame, preferred the Jerusalem Bible.

excerptsofinri.com/mother_angelica_book.html

Yes and when she reads from it, I always find a clear meaning

 

[swampboy]

Yes and when she reads from it, I always find a clear meaning

…as do I…it may not be the best translation, but it is highly suitable for bringing out some of the hidden nuances of certain texts, which keeps me coming back to it. As I previously noted, I love the DR, but it makes my head hurt. I can read the same passage in the JB and get it right away.

 

[Manfred]

In the 43rd minute of the link I posted earlier Mother Angelica states “I wouldn’t buy the new one. Because it is all inclusive language. And my idea of inclusive language is. It is heretical. I hope the right people heard that. It is heretical” "If you buy a Bible, look at the 2nd chapter of Luke and also the 6th chapter of John. And read it between there and if it doesn’t say “God” or “Father” at all. She then gives a thumbs down. “Then I wouldn’t buy it”

I don’t know if that was or was not the broadcast in which she gave a thumbs down to the NJB, but I do remember her so doing. Which is most unfortunate, considering the NJB is the least offensive in its use of inclusive language, far more restrained than either the infamous RNAB and the over-hyped NRSV. Yet both the RNAB and NRSV are approved (albeit the RNAB with modifications) for liturgical use, while the NJB is not.

The national bishops’ conferences have a poor track record for the awful selections they made for translations deemed suitable for liturgical use. To this day, the big three are the RNAB, the JB, and the NRSV. Only India, I think, uses the 1965-66 RSV-CE.

 

[Manfred]

I don’t believe the accuracy of the JB to be compromised. Compared to many Bibles it trumps them.

Yep, I just love the way it renders 1 Corinthians 7:2, “sex is always a danger”, don’t you?

 

[jcrichton]

The JB is not a literal translation, so the more familiar biblical language is gone. Descendant instead of father, favoured instead of the more literal full of grace and famouse phrased too.

…could this not be due to the version of the JB that you have?

What does “Hail” means?

My JB, in Spanish (translated into Spanish from the French text "les Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1973), reads:

“Alégrate, llena de gracia, el Señor está contigo.”

(‘Be glad/happy, full of grace, the Lord is with you.’)

Do we know what language Mary spoke? If it was Aramaic would the greeting would still use the term “Hail?”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Allow me to offer you a few instances which, for me, militate against using the JB, even for “private reading”. Forget about using it as the basis for a “study bible”; while its notes, cross-references, headings, book introductions are really great - yes, FAR better than the (R)NAB - the text is wanting in too many places.

Could it be that you are using a differnt version, one that is not the original JB?

I have check my JB (Spanish, published in 1975; translated from the French’s 1973) and I am offering its respective passages for comparison:

In Matthew 16: “Simon, son of John, you are a happy man!” HAPPY??!!

San Mateo 16:17: “Bienaventurado eres Simón, hijo de Jonás,”
(“Bienaventurado” has several meanings–happy, fortunate, and blessed–for the purpose of a Biblical translation I would use the latter: You are blessed Simon, son of Jonah,)

In Tobit 2: “the seventh of March”. Didn’t know our calendar was used by the Hebrews in exile.

I did not find a date included in chapter 2; if you provide the verse I can offer you the passage’s text.

In 1 Cor. 16: “Sunday”, instead of “first day of the week”.

1 Corintios 16:2: “Cada primer día de la semana,”
(Every first day of the week,)

In the Last Supper narratives: “wine”, instead of “fruit of the vine”.

San Lucas 22:18b: “no beberé del producto de la vid…”
(I will not drink of the product/fruit of the vine…)

In Malachi 1:11: “from east to west”, instead of “from the rising of the sun to its setting”.

Malaquías 1:11: “Pues desde el sol levante hasta el poniente,”
(Hence from the rising sun till its setting,)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut Manfred. I am bothered by such things as well…but what I keep asking myself is does it really matter? I like reading the JB but am often put off by such discrepancies. I guess my question is what do the original languages sayin these instances? Is the JB incorrect or synonomous in these cases? I can’t read Greek or Hebrew so I do not know the answer. What translation(s) do you prefer?

…and how sure are we that the original language used by Jesus, Mary, the Angel… was not Aramaic?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I would do as Jimmy Akin does…use several!! Of course the RSVCE is the best (for instance from Scepter --especially in the Navarre) but it is good to use several.

No translation is perfect.

…does that not speak about our personal idiosyncracies?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I wonder if you are wrong about that. You didn’t post a link or quote from Mother Angelica. I was aware that she preferred the 1966 edition. A house divided does not stand. I would not impute heresy for any Catholic Bible. Nor for any Protestant Bible. I’ve never seen a JW Bible. If I have throw their material away, it is their other publications, bound or not.

…though I am not an avid fan… I think Mother Angelica was making reference to the changes inclusive language (and other “enhancements”) causes.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

She explicitly said she didn’t care for the New Jerusalem Bible and viewed it as heretical.But like I said I have no proof other than a recorded broadcast

…yeah, I caught that broadcast (or one where she made the same statements); she was, as usual, very nonchalant when she explained the reasons why she did not like the NJB.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Biblically, even Isaiah points out the God is our Mother as much our Father. Those of us who can remember the short, but impressive, reign of John Paul I remember that he ignited a firestorm when he pointed that out in one of his audiences.

…I’m not doubting your statement, could you post the passage where this is stated?

Thank you.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Canto]

…could this not be due to the version of the JB that you have?

What does “Hail” means?

My JB, in Spanish (translated into Spanish from the French text "les Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1973), reads:

“Alégrate, llena de gracia, el Señor está contigo.”

(‘Be glad/happy, full of grace, the Lord is with you.’)

Do we know what language Mary spoke? If it was Aramaic would the greeting would still use the term “Hail?”

Maran atha!

Angel

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

 

[Jehuty_X]

In Tobit 2: “the seventh of March”. Didn’t know our calendar was used by the Hebrews in exile.​

I did not find a date included in chapter 2; if you provide the verse I can offer you the passage’s text.

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