Really, how inaccurate is the Jerusalem Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter swampboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks to the posters who clarified in my mind what I had thought to be inclusive language.

I must agree with those who object to it, but not sure it is ‘heretical’ as Mother Angelica seemed to think.
 
Canto said:
Inclusive language can simplely change men to nuter language or in the extreeme delete Christological references from the Old Testament. It also in my op ruins the literary/poetic nature of the scripture.

He who… becomes the one who…
fishere of men… becomes fisheres of people…

What God has joined together let no man seperate… becomes What God has joined together human beings must not seperate…

In extreme cases

Revised Standard Version (RSV) translation: I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man"

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation: “As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being”

Because HE cleaves to me I shall deliver HIM;
I shall set HIM on high because HE knows my name.
When HE calls to me I shall answer HIM;
I shall be with HIM in distress.
(Psalm 91:14f.)

WHOEVER clings to me I will deliver;
WHOEVER knows my name I will set on high.
ALL who call upon me I will answer;
I will be with THEM in distress. (NAB)
Click to expand...
// oh my that is terrible :dts: … ugh!!! i never noticed about the inclusive language until you posted this comparison…
 
i found this link, and from what i have seen it is the full french jerusalem bible. correct me if im wrong by all means:confused:

Matt
 
Jehuty_X said:
// oh my that is terrible :dts: … ugh!!! i never noticed about the inclusive language until you posted this comparison…
Click to expand...
As far as inclusive language relates to the N/JB translation, the JB does not use inclusive language at all to my knowledge and the NJB really does not do any serious injustices to the texts, unlike the NAB. I do not think that the introducion of inclusive language into the NJB should be anyone’s basis for not using this translation, as some of its other features trump that matter IMO; plus the inclusive language is controlled and applied carefully. I have been seriously reading the NJB for a few days now and have to say that it is not that bad and cleans up some of the weird phraseology of the JB. I always end up going back to the NJB no matter where I “start from” so I guess that should be a sign that I should pay more attention to 😉
 
Jehuty_X said:
//i never noticed about the inclusive language until you posted this comparison…
Click to expand...
The bishops are just gonna love you!

If more people were like you - not noticing the inclusive language - the liturgy texts would be just awful, and we’d get a scriptural version like the RNAB.

Oh, wait; the liturgy texts are just awful, and we do have the RNAB. :eek:
 
jcrichton said:
I understand your position–my query is: since there are other JB versions, other than the English, which seem to have done a better job, why didn’t the translators of the English version take advantage of the already existing French/Spanish translations? Why must everyone seek to recreate the wheel? Why must the advant-garde scholars/theologians attempt to reinvent the wheel as square/rhombus?

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
I think they all got caught up in “the spirit of Vatican II”. :rolleyes:
 
Manfred said:
The bishops are just gonna love you!

If more people were like you - not noticing the inclusive language - the liturgy texts would be just awful, and we’d get a scriptural version like the RNAB.

Oh, wait; the liturgy texts are just awful, and we do have the RNAB. :eek:
Click to expand...
// well people like me are not bible experts nor try to be bible experts… 😉 i don’t know much of the english bibles and finally found a good one which is the douai-rheims…the new jerusalem bible is decent, but not as i thought it would be like the castillian version…

// if people like you would put up and say something instead of complaining and whining in a forum or to youselves and write to the bishops and/or do something about it maybe we won’t have awful liturgy texts, bibles, etc… 😉

// as for the liturgy, i hate reading from it at mass…
 
I know that the phrasing gets a bit weak, but the Jerusalem Bible has been my “go to” Bible since the summer of '71. So, as a prayer bible it works very well. I am not a scholar and I read the Word to hear the Lord speak to His people. Bible studies help me understand the content so the wording isn’t a big hang up. I’m glad to hear the critiques of the NRSV-CE since i was going to look into that, because all say it is the most accurate.If you are using your Bible to study-get the most accurate translation, if you want to pray, use the one that lends itself to readabilbity.:cool:
 
acw said:
I’m glad to hear the critiques of the NRSV-CE since i was going to look into that, because all say it is the most accurate.If you are using your Bible to study-get the most accurate translation, if you want to pray, use the one that lends itself to readabilbity.:cool:
Click to expand...
I was in a bookstore the other day and added to the NASB which claims most literal the publishers of the RSV, NRSV, NIV and others all claimed in their blurbs that theirs was the most accurate.

Personally none of them get the gong.
 
If you’re looking for “word-for-word” accuracy to the original scriptures…you’re probably not going to find any Bible translation that completely satisfies you. The RSV-CE is regarded as one of the most accurate translations in current use today. The Douhay-Rhiems (not sure of the spelling) is supposed to be an exact English translation of the Latin Vulgate, the official translation for the Catholic Church…however, since the Vulgate has had revision in the last few years for some technical errors, then the DR has had to be revised too. I’m not sure if this has been done yet.

For my money, the most beautiful translation – by far – is the Jerusalem Bible (1966 or prior). It is poetic and very free flowing in it’s style, without compromising on the meaning of the phrasing, like so many of the newer Bibles (the “Good News” Bible, for one!).

I have a Daily Roman Missal by Scepter Publishing, and when I follow the biblical readings at Mass each day, I listen to what the priest or reader are saying – but I read in my missal what is written (Jerusalem Bible translation)…and there is a world of difference in some of the terminology. For instance, I don’t know if it’s just me – but I’ve noticed that the Bible translations done by ICEL seem to avoid the word ‘love’ a lot. They tend to substitute the word ‘kindness’ for ‘love’. And since God is love…(I’ve never heard it said that God is kindness)…I can only guess that ICEL’s corrupt translations try not to recognize God for what He truly is. I wouldn’t have noticed this, except that in the Jerusalem Bible when it’s supposed to say ‘love’…it says ‘love’.

If I had only one choice of a Bible to read for the rest of my life…I would chose the Jerusalem Bible. (but not the “New Jerusalem Bible”, which is loaded with inclusive language).
 
reading any text means wanting to enter into communion with God speaking to us. be it JB, RSV, NEB, or for that matter Duvey Rheims version or some people may even use some protestant edition just for cross refference.
but our whole thrust must be on the communion and then we will fing the meaning really useful.
fr. joseph vas svd
 
BigRedpg51 said:
If you’re looking for “word-for-word” accuracy to the original scriptures…you’re probably not going to find any Bible translation that completely satisfies you. The RSV-CE is regarded as one of the most accurate translations in current use today. The Douhay-Rhiems (not sure of the spelling) is supposed to be an exact English translation of the Latin Vulgate, the official translation for the Catholic Church…however, since the Vulgate has had revision in the last few years for some technical errors, then the DR has had to be revised too. I’m not sure if this has been done yet.

For my money, the most beautiful translation – by far – is the Jerusalem Bible (1966 or prior). It is poetic and very free flowing in it’s style, without compromising on the meaning of the phrasing, like so many of the newer Bibles (the “Good News” Bible, for one!).

I have a Daily Roman Missal by Scepter Publishing, and when I follow the biblical readings at Mass each day, I listen to what the priest or reader are saying – but I read in my missal what is written (Jerusalem Bible translation)…and there is a world of difference in some of the terminology. For instance, I don’t know if it’s just me – but I’ve noticed that the Bible translations done by ICEL seem to avoid the word ‘love’ a lot. They tend to substitute the word ‘kindness’ for ‘love’. And since God is love…(I’ve never heard it said that God is kindness)…I can only guess that ICEL’s corrupt translations try not to recognize God for what He truly is. I wouldn’t have noticed this, except that in the Jerusalem Bible when it’s supposed to say ‘love’…it says ‘love’.

If I had only one choice of a Bible to read for the rest of my life…I would chose the Jerusalem Bible. (but not the “New Jerusalem Bible”, which is loaded with inclusive language).
Click to expand...
I AM NEW TO READING THE BIBLE I JUST LOVE IT I AM ROMAN CATHOLIC I HAVE THE NEW AMERIACN BIBLE,THE KJB THE COMPLEATE JEWISH BIBLE AND NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE HEBREW-GREEK I LIKE THE GREEK HEBREW THE BEST, THANK YOU. MAY GOD BLESS US ALL
 
The last few entries in this thread have been interesting! I sympathize with and at the same time admire anyone- including people who post here- who strive for accuracy in translations of Holy Scripture. Though once a seminarian (finished up my M.Div. elsewhere), I never found that picking the bones of Biblical translations to find out what so and so really meant etc., was my way of letting God speak to me through His Word once I finished pouring over a certain phrase or even a single word for accuracy’s sake.

I couldn’t get past the fact that most, if not all, of Holy Scripture was first handed down through generations of humankind before being written down in cogent form. Therefore, I’m asking the same question in this thread that I asked some time back- despite all efforts to discern accuracy of translation can any of us be truly certain what a single word, phrase, or other larger Biblical passage means or judge it’s intent? I think not.

Then there are also “books” of holy writ excluded from what is now the accepted canonical Bible. Some of these writings are now accepted as genuine scripture by many scholars. Those interested in reading about this can look over the last couple of years in National Geographic and read basic info on this matter. Point is, for me at least, these books excluded by the early Church fathers from our present day Bible, shed much light on what some things DO mean in the accepted Biblical canon. This is particularly true of the Gospels of James and Thomas, to a lesser degree the writings of Clement. I respectfully suggest that prayerfully reading these writings will aid anyone interested in accuracy of translation over beauty of prose and/or poetry in the Scriptures.
 
The Christian Community Bible is a modern catholic Translation, which has notes that while still Liberal, actually do back up Catholic teaching and spirituality - unlike those of the NAB or JB. It also translates the angel’s greeting properly as “filled with Grace”, rather than the protestant-influenced variations on “favoured-one.”
 
Axion said:
The Christian Community Bible is a modern catholic Translation, which has notes that while still Liberal, actually do back up Catholic teaching and spirituality - unlike those of the NAB or JB. It also translates the angel’s greeting properly as “filled with Grace”, rather than the protestant-influenced variations on “favoured-one.”
Click to expand...
but does the Christian Community Bible translate the end of Luke 1:28 blessed art thou among women, like it should?

“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women.”
 
tobinatorstark said:
but does the Christian Community Bible translate the end of Luke 1:28 blessed art thou among women, like it should?

“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women.”
Click to expand...
// i do wonder why is blessed art thou among women is not on modern translation, yet it’s on the latin vulgate and vulgate translations???
 
Jehuty_X said:
// i do wonder why is blessed art thou among women is not on modern translation, yet it’s on the latin vulgate and vulgate translations???
Click to expand...
Very true, however some argue well it is in Luke 1:42. That is no excuse for leaving it out of Luke 1:28. It was once included in the NAB when it was first released. In 1986 when the Revised NT was released it changed. The Jerusalem Bible also omits it. The most recent Catholic edition besides the original NAB is the probably the Ronald Knox Translation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top