Really, how inaccurate is the Jerusalem Bible?

[jcrichton]

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.

…I think that it goes beyond the interchanging of pronouns… inclusive language removes the original words/expressions to render Biblical language in a more palatable manner; the translators/scholars want to present the Bible within modern-day values, supposedly to make it more appealing to a greater number of people…

ie: The term “Amen” has been removed from most “modern” translations… it seems simple enough, rather than “Amen” just plug in “let it be/let it be so” or some other value… but Scriptures tell us that Jesus is the Amen; in Isaiah it tells us to view our lives in the God of the Amen–does “let it be” offer the same value?

Then there are the hardliners who want to introduce things into Scriptures from our perspective… one Spanish version has Jesus going to the synagogue and reading from the Bible instead of the Sacred Scrolls; since Scriptures are not our own personal poetry we, lay and scholar alike, should not take such licenses!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mexanava87]

The Jerusalem Bible is thought-for-thought translation which try’s to translate the Bible for its meaning rather than trying to translate it word-for-word.

I developed a scale that is very familiar to the scale that the staff of Catholic Answers use in their book entitled The Essential Catholic Survival Guide. In my scale I have 5 categories. The 1st is literal - a true word-for-word translation, 2nd is essentially literal - a word-for-word translation that has some modification to it in order to make it more readable, 3rd is dynamic - an essentially literal translation with some thought-for-thought in it as well, 4th is thought-for-though - which is a translation that try’s to convey the message rather than the actually translating it word-for-word and contains some paraphrasing in it as well, and lastly 5th is paraphrased - which is the bible completely paraphrased.

Here is my order for Catholic Bibles and Orthodox Bibles that contain the Duerocanonical books in them.

1 - Interlineal Bible (ILB)
1 - Revised Standard Bible (RSV)
1 - New King James Version (NKJV)
1 - English Standard Version (ESV)
2 - New Revised Standard Bible (NRSV)
2 - Douay-Rheims (DR)
2 - Confraternity Version (CV)
3 - New American Bible (NAB)
3 - Ronald Knox Translation (KNX)
3 - Christian Community Bible (CCB)
4 - New English Bible (NEB)
4 - New Living Translation (NLT)
4 - Good News Translation (GNT)
4 - Contemporary English Version (CEV)
4 - New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
4 - Jerusalem Bible (JB)
5 - Living Bible (LB)

Check these Bibles out at book store or look check them out at ChristianBook.com or Amazon.com. Some times they let you read a couple pages of them so you can see their structure.

I hope you find the translation you’re looking for.

God Bless and keep the faith,
Michael

 

[jcrichton]

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

Matt

Hi, Matt!

…went to the site… checked a few links but I could not find the Bible… could you post a direct link?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think they all got caught up in “the spirit of Vatican II”.

…or was it the interpretation of Vatican II?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

// 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 think that Manfred was speaking in just–that we, Catholics, are not quick at spotting things because we trust the leadership of the Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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).

I concur! I find that some of the reasons offered for the changes are weak; it is similar to the argument that we cannot read Gabriel’s salutation to Mary as “Full of Grace” because “highly favored” is closer to the full meaning that the original Scripts meant to convey… it’s like buying a shot of rum (not a drinker myself) and pouring it into a sixteen ounce glass of coca cola before drinking it!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

Hi, are you a Catholic Friar?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

Hi, tina!

Welcome to the forum!

…so you are fluent in Greek and Hebrew?

Can I PM you with questions about the text in these languages and their translation to English (I promise you that it will not be an onslaught of unending queries)?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…I’m not judging you… but have you considered that if the Bible is flawed (wrong meanings, wrong message, wrong theological value) then Christ was wrong and the Holy Spirit is sterile?

Consider the following:

so it is with the word that goes from my mouth: it will not return to me unfulfilled or before having carried out my good pleasure and having achieved what it was sent to do. (Isaiah 55:11)

Suggesting that the Bible (all of the Sacred Writings and the dynamic engaged in the comprising the 73 Books of the Chruch’s Canon–with the exclusion of all others) is flawed information passed down from man to man, is to ignore the Holy Spirit as the other Paraclete Whom Jesus promised to send to the Church.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

// 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???

…the notes on my JB-Spanish suggest that that portion is influenced by Elizabeth’s greeting (1:42).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Canto]

…the notes on my JB-Spanish suggest that that portion is influenced by Elizabeth’s greeting (1:42).

Maran atha!

Angel

I think the English JB says the same. I believe it is in the majority of texts but not the oldest ones, and some claim it is a scibal adition from Elisabeth’s Greeting.

The Confaternity from the 50s has the line but notes in the footnotes from memory that it is not contained in the oldests manuscripts but in the majority.

 

[acw]

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.

Be careful. Who do you look to for God’s Authority in this area. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth! These writings can be informative, but whether or not the writings are “genuine scripture” is only the Church’s to decide guided by the Holy Spirit!

 

[NuCatholic73]

Is this referring to the Torah or a newer translation. I know there are many discrepancies in the Greek translation of the Septuagent, but they do not really change the message enough to make it an issue.

One issue was the fact that the Septuagint refers to Angels and men making ‘Nephilim’, which was translated into Giants. This is inaccurate…Nephilim is a word for half-breed and has nothing to do with giants or height. What has been found are caves that show where Homo Sapiens (Modern Man) and Cro-magnon man actually lived together and intermarried and buried the dead together in caves around Jerusalem and Lebanon. This is the only place where this intermingling happened. Of course, we know that we exist today and Cro-Magnon died out, but we do not know why.

It is amazing to me how much the archaeology proves the authenticity of the Bible. They also just found the buriel site and plaque of Baal…the priest with the talking donkey that lived at the time of Moses. That proves a character from Numbers actually existed.

The Naked Archeaologist on the History Channel really puts the Jerusalem Bible or Torah to the test. He also puts the New Testament through some digging and testing. It is quite fascinating how the history and archaeology prove the Bible as more factual and not less.

Heather

 

[NuCatholic73]

I do not think these ‘new’ books are accurately considered to be a part of the New Testament or should be. They were written much later than the New Testament books and are incomplete. Many of the historians trying to push these books are filling in the blanks with their own biased views and assumptions.

It does not sound like you want facts, but to prove the Church is trying to hide something from us. The Church released these books after very careful scrutiny and deciding they added nothing new to the New Testament, but were from a later period, missing too much for accuracy, and had been severely tampered with.

There is also a Book of Mary that some historians are trying to use to claim there should be female priests. The Book of Judas claims Judas was possessed by demons and was an even worse portrayal of this man than what is currently in the New Testament…but, all of them are incomplete, damaged, or have been written on in an attempt to change their meaning or context.

Why don’t you dig a little deeper into where these books came from and how much is really written and what is just conjecture. Nothing is being hidden from us…it simply is not there.

 

[robfromhc]

…I’m not judging you… but have you considered that if the Bible is flawed (wrong meanings, wrong message, wrong theological value) then Christ was wrong and the Holy Spirit is sterile?

Consider the following:

so it is with the word that goes from my mouth: it will not return to me unfulfilled or before having carried out my good pleasure and having achieved what it was sent to do. (Isaiah 55:11)

Suggesting that the Bible (all of the Sacred Writings and the dynamic engaged in the comprising the 73 Books of the Chruch’s Canon–with the exclusion of all others) is flawed information passed down from man to man, is to ignore the Holy Spirit as the other Paraclete Whom Jesus promised to send to the Church.

Maran atha!

Angel

I’m afraid I gave everyone the wrong impression about what I was trying to say.

I’m certainly not denying or belittling the role of the Holy Spirit in forming what we now call Holy Scripture. The only point I was trying to make was that neither oral tradition or written scripture tradition could possibly contain the full meaning of all things God wants us to learn via His word as contained in the Bible. We can do all the research and study we please and we still won’t get the meaning of various words and phrases in Scripture in their entirety unless we also allow the same to be “written” in our hearts and souls.

I guess my view, in part, is formed by the fact that I’ve always lived in places where the scriptures are preached and practiced from a legalistic, if not literal, viewpoint. There’s much more to Scripture than that. And that’s where I believe the Paraclete takes over again- if the Holy Spirit isn’t allowed into our souls as we ponder God’s Word, then no amount of searching for the “true meanings” will allow us to discern what God wants to say to us.

I apologize not only to you, Angel, but to all others on this thread for not making my meaning more clear in the original post.

Pax tecum,
ROb

 

[NuCatholic73]

I completely agree. I believe the ‘Scripture Only’ concept kept me from God for a long time because I did not understand the historical context or do my own research into finding the true meaning of the verse. I think as a new Catholic I feel very angry about how much was kept from me by my family and my protestant religion. Although, I am thankful it was my minister that encouraged me to become Catholic if I felt that would deepen my faith.

Somehow the concept of ‘less is more’ is just sad to me in regard to my relationship with God. How can anyone want less of God? I have learned so much over the past four years that I may have never had if I had not become Catholic.

I do hear what you are saying Rob. A lot of what your bringing up is because the ancient Hebrew can be translated into many different words. One word for many things…so it does not change the big picture or meaning to the stories, but it can make them a little different. Like Joseph’s many colored coat…the word for many colored can also mean long tunic or long sleeved. This is where the historical context is so valuable because we know everybody had coats with and without sleeves, long and short…but, to make it woven with many colors was hard work and an act of great sacrifice and love…men had to stir the dyes themselves…this would make people jealous. Plus, we have samples of coats made long before Christ that were so beautiful and ornate…more colorful than our clothing today.

So, is it inaccurate? Not necessarily because the Hebrew has several meanings and interpretations. And not if God is telling you to dig deeper…the deeper we dig the better our understanding and the more we embrace the God of our understanding. It takes a lot of Holy Spirit burning within us to look for more…God must be preparing you for testimony…(smile)! I like an NIV Bible and I use several Biblical Reference books with it. I do miss the Apocrypha so I have my Catholic Bible from my Catechism to fill in for that and I love it, too. I am not sure the translation…Roman?

So, accuracy can be in how you feel when YOU are reading it. Does the page open up for you like a movie unfolding that you just can’t stop watching? Then that is your book!!! I love the KJB, but I have to look up so many words that it made reading it like pulling teeth and I found myself not wanting to pick it up. Not MY book

Heather

 

[Luvadoxi]

I found a brand new edition of the Jerusalem Bible (the original 1966 version, I believe, with footnotes, and updated to change the “Yahweh” in Psalms to Lord, or God.) It’s published by the Catholic Truth Society in a handy portable size (print a little small, though).

 

[robfromhc]

Be careful. Who do you look to for God’s Authority in this area. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth! These writings can be informative, but whether or not the writings are “genuine scripture” is only the Church’s to decide guided by the Holy Spirit!

Here again, I need to clear up a matter with those on this thread. Guess this is my day to stick my foot deeply in my mouth!

When I used the word “genuine” in reference to the writings of say Clement or Thomas- I am merely agreeing with the archaeologists and others who have studied the books and determined that they fit a time frame making them worthy of scholarly study by authorities of Holy Mother Church if the Church is so moved by the Holy Spirit. I certainly believe that most of these works are incomplete in many ways and there is one, at least, that I personally cannot fathom and that is the Gospel (or is it “Book”) of Mary.

There is one “book” of these writings that I find relaxing to read and which trigger spiritual thought on my part- “The Odes of Solomon.”

Be assured, neither I nor anyone I know will accept these “other writings” as truly genuine unless and until the Church says that they are to be so accepted.

Pax tecum,
Rob

 

[Mattjolley]

I found a brand new edition of the Jerusalem Bible (the original 1966 version, I believe, with footnotes, and updated to change the “Yahweh” in Psalms to Lord, or God.) It’s published by the Catholic Truth Society in a handy portable size (print a little small, though).

Thanks for bringing this up!

They also do a ‘Standard Version’ which is slightly bigger.

The Psalms are the ‘Grail’ Psalms, not the original Jerusalem however. The rest is the original Jerusalem text

‘Yahweh’ is changed to ‘Lord’ throughout the text, not just the Psalms. Infact the Grail Psalms never used ‘Yahweh’ in the first place as far as I know.

It was printed in 2007 to give us English and Welsh Catholics a Bible that matches the lectionary exactly, as we use the Jerusalem and Grail Texts and change ‘Yahweh’ to ‘Lord’.

My number one bible of choice!

 

[donalddon5]

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.

I heard his Holy Name once when a young jewish fellow became angry with me for watching Morton Downey show years ago and as he mention at the time I will not even be able to pronounce it…but you can rest assure it is not YAWEH or any of those names that the freemasons like to put on their temples such as EL SHADDAI or whatever hebrew names they use. It starts with a G and that is the best I can recall other then yes he does have a HOLY Name but I most especially like what you said about just simply calling GOD Father…that says it all!