So I ordered a New Jerusalem Bible

[jayk15]

Ok, so I got the New Jerusalem Bible I ordered. I’ve got a problem with the following passages:

Isaiah 7:14 ‘The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel’ Shouldn’t 'young woman be translated ‘virgin’

Matthew 16:18 ‘So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my commmunity…’ Shouldn’t ‘community’ be ‘Church’

1 Timothy 3:15 ‘…the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth’ Shouldn’t there be a ‘the’ before ‘pillar’

Besides those verses I quite like the NJB, I like it’s structure. I’ll give it 7 out of 10

 

[Omyo12]

Ok, so I got the New Jerusalem Bible I ordered. I’ve got a problem with the following passages:

Isaiah 7:14 ‘The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel’ Shouldn’t 'young woman be translated ‘virgin’

In the Hebrew, Isaiah 7:14 should read “young woman”

Matthew (or the Greek translation of Matthew if you believe there was an original “Aramaic Matthew”) quoted the Greek Septuagint which reads “virgin”

Matthew 16:18 ‘So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my commmunity…’ Shouldn’t ‘community’ be ‘Church’

The Greek word is ἐκκλησία literally “assembly” so while the word “community” isn’t prefered, it’s correct.

However, ἐκκλησία is ecclesiam is the Latin Vulgate,
ecclesiam means church

1 Timothy 3:15 ‘…the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth’ Shouldn’t there be a ‘the’ before ‘pillar’

No, the Greek has no definite article before “pillar,” sometimes the translator adds “the” or “a” but this is only how the translator interpreted it.

Besides those verses I quite like the NJB, I like it’s structure. I’ll give it 7 out of 10

Yeah, its nice overall, I still prefer the RSV-CE!

 

[garysibio]

Ok, so I got the New Jerusalem Bible I ordered. I’ve got a problem with the following passages:

Isaiah 7:14 ‘The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel’ Shouldn’t 'young woman be translated ‘virgin’

Matthew 16:18 ‘So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my commmunity…’ Shouldn’t ‘community’ be ‘Church’

1 Timothy 3:15 ‘…the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth’ Shouldn’t there be a ‘the’ before ‘pillar’

Besides those verses I quite like the NJB, I like it’s structure. I’ll give it 7 out of 10

Is 7:14 Actually the NJB has done the best job on this verse. The Hebrew OT does not say “Virgin,” it says “young woman” but the implication is that she is also a virgin. That is the exact meaning of “maiden.” It is the Septuagint version - a Greek translation - which uses “virgin.” The NT uses the Septuagint for quotation purposes.

Matt 16;18 The Greek ekklesia actually means community and was adopted by the church. It can be applied to any community.

1 Tim 3:15 There is no definite article in the Greek text.

 

[Mattjolley]

The Jerusalem Bible is the older (1966, I think) translation. It does not have inclusive language and is approved for liturgical use in English-speaking countries.

With the exception of the Psalms; we use the Grail Psalms not the JB ones. Plus Yahweh is changed to LORD in the UK lectionary. The CTS New Catholic Bible follows these guidelines. One of the better Catholic Bibles available IMO.

 

[garysibio]

With the exception of the Psalms; we use the Grail Psalms not the JB ones. Plus Yahweh is changed to LORD in the UK lectionary. The CTS New Catholic Bible follows these guidelines. One of the better Catholic Bibles available IMO.

I knew, but had forgotten about, the different Psalms being used. I didn’t know about the Yahweh to Lord change. I was going to order a copy of the CTS Bible until I discovered that they believe the two letters attributed to St. Peter have different authors. That discredits them in my opinion.

 

[Omyo12]

I knew, but had forgotten about, the different Psalms being used. I didn’t know about the Yahweh to Lord change. I was going to order a copy of the CTS Bible until I discovered that they believe the two letters attributed to St. Peter have different authors. That discredits them in my opinion.

Many modern Bibles have footnotes attributing the Letters of St. Peter to different authors.

But, what do footnotes have to do with the translation?

 

[garysibio]

Many modern Bibles have footnotes attributing the Letters of St. Peter to different authors.

But, what do footnotes have to do with the translation?

And they’re all wrong.

I already have a JB. I ws thinking of buying it for the reference material.

 

[Fidelis]

I’m looking a Parallel Bible versions of 1 Timothy 3:15 (KJV, Amplified, Rhiems, NASB. NIV, NAB, NRSV, RSV, GNT and the CCB) and they all have “the” included. The NJB omits both ‘a’ and ‘the.’.

The only version I have which mangles it substantially are the Catholic JB (“the Church of the living God,** which upholds the truth**”). It’s ok I guess --just seems kind of wimpy.

 

[Omyo12]

And they’re all wrong.

I already have a JB. I ws thinking of buying it for the reference material.

Ah, I see, I thought you were rejecting it on the basis of the footnotes! lol

 

[Omyo12]

I’m looking a Parallel Bible versions of 1 Timothy 3:15 (KJV, Amplified, Rhiems, NASB. NIV, NAB, NRSV, RSV, GNT and the CCB) and they all have “the” included. The NJB omits both ‘a’ and ‘the.’.

The only version I have which mangles it substantially are the Catholic JB (“the Church of the living God,** which upholds the truth**”). It’s ok I guess --just seems kind of wimpy.

I think the Message is worse: “this God-alive church, bastion of truth.”

Also,

Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, American Standard Version (ASV), Darby Bible, Revised Version (RV), Webster’s Bible, World English Bible, Green’s Literal Translation (LITV), Geneva Bible, and Tyndale’s Bible, add “the”

Green’s Interlinear doesn’t have either (since the Greek doesn’t either)

From what I’ve seen, only the New World Translation, English Standard Version (ESV), Young’s Literal Translation, and Wycliffe’s Bible add “a”

 

[jarmum]

Are you using the NJB for prayer or study? I think NJB is good for study - although I agree with comments re inclusive language etc - as all the footnotes and cross references are very helpful. However the most accurate (and readable) translation is the Revised Standard Version (not New RSV), Second Catholic Edition, (eg Ignatius Bible from Ignatius Press). It is the version used by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in English edition of course) when it is quoting Scripture.

Michael

 

[jayk15]

I am using my NJB for devotional/prayer purposes and some light study. I’m going to get the RSV-2CE soon for deep Scripture study. Does the RSV-2CE come with footnotes?

 

[CalCatholic]

I am using my NJB for devotional/prayer purposes and some light study. I’m going to get the RSV-2CE soon for deep Scripture study. Does the RSV-2CE come with footnotes?

The current RSV-2CE has very limited foot notes, however Ignatius is coming out with a new Catholic Study Bible (New Testament) which sould incorporate all the notes from their current Catholic Study Bible series (which consists of numerous paperback booklets). Amazon lists it on their site but shows a release date of May 3, 2010. I have heard others on this forum say that it is supposed to be released at the end of this year. Maybe someone who has that information will add to this.

 

[bengland]

The NJB is an excellent translation and I think the inclusive language issue is severely overblown in regards to this translation. They were reasonably conservative with it, unlike the NRSV or the GNB.

Both the NAB, which some detest, and the NJB have value for Catholics. I especially like the way that the NJB will stick with certain phrases and renderings throughout to aid you in seeing old testament vs new testament understandings and in relation to the Church. Some of the renderings stick with the Greek better, using words that may seem obscure in every day language, but not in the religious Catholic sense, such as the use of “Liturgy” in the NJB, as opposed to service or priestly duties, or the use of “Exodus” in the NAB Luke 9:31.

It’s little touches like this that make them stand out. The RSV2CE is a nice translation, but I use the NJB and NAB for personal devotion more now than in the past. The NAB is growing on me lately.

For apologetics, however, the NRSV-CE often comes out on top. It may be awkward to read at times and the inclusive language may be so bad as to be mildly irritating, but it’s a very strong translation, and the language isn’t aged at all. I think if you ditched some of the attempts at modernisation and neutering such as “O Mortal” vs “Son of man” in Ezekiel, it would be the best study translation available, and would appeal to conservative evangelicals as well as Catholics. The language overall is superior to that of the ESV.

 

[jayk15]

The way the NJB renders the biblical text to me is quite fantastic. I find I read the Bible more now with the NJB. Perhaps because I’m more confident with the translation. The inclusive language of the NJB is tame. Other than that, it’s an accurate translation.

 

[Dan_Parker]

After using the Good News Bible all the time I decided I needed a change. The language of the Good News Bible was just too simple without much substance for me. So I ordered a New Jerusalem Bible. What are your opinions on the New Jerusalem Bible, the advantages and disadvantages? Thanks

I got a NJB at a used bookstore years ago. It is a reference edition and has very good footnotes. I like that.

Dan

 

[David_Zampino]

After using the Good News Bible all the time I decided I needed a change. The language of the Good News Bible was just too simple without much substance for me. So I ordered a New Jerusalem Bible. What are your opinions on the New Jerusalem Bible, the advantages and disadvantages? Thanks

I own one. (Then again, I have copies of most major translations – and a few not so major ones as well! )

It’s not bad. I don’t care much for the inclusive language, but there are far worse out there.

 

[David_Zampino]

The Jerusalem Bible is the older (1966, I think) translation. It does not have inclusive language and is approved for liturgical use in English-speaking countries.

It is the older translation. I’ve got one as well. The Reader’s edition doesn’t have nearly the notes that the original edition had.

I don’t like the spelling out of the Divine Name (personal preference) but I DO like the fact that the poetic books are treated, in fact, as poetry!

 

[iamanea]

I personally like the Jerusalem Bible, although I have the 1964 (?) version so it may not be the one you refer to. I currently use the 1970 New American simply because, as a Lector using it is easier for practicing the Sunday readings. I used to use the Jerusalem bible and found it confusing because of the slightly different text.

As I said, I am not sure if we are speaking of the same edition or not. One caveat I would issue about using the 1964 edition is that it is a translation of the original text into French and THEN into English. It is therefore, one step removed from the original language. Personally, I like the more poetic language of the Jerusalem and still use it for private prayer.

For detailed study (I have 15 hours of graduate level scripture and am a Masters student at Franciscan with an emphasis on Scripture) I use multiple translations. Unfortunately, neither my Latin or Greek are proficient enough to be able to read the original. I also have no knowledge of Aramaic or Hebrew. And of course the Vulgate is a translation also. Therefore, for detailed study of a passage, I read several commentaries and versions and compare the results. This is of tremendous benefit for me personally but not every one is inclined or has the time to get that deeply into the passage.

For that reason, I would suggest that you find a translation that “fits” with your personal needs. There are many excellent study bibles out there and most today contain the extra books not accepted by all Christians as canonical. At the very least, you should be able to find a Roman Catholic version of most, if not all, professionally prepared translations.

corry

 

[Omyo12]

For apologetics, however, the NRSV-CE often comes out on top. It may be awkward to read at times and the inclusive language may be so bad as to be mildly irritating, but it’s a very strong translation, and the language isn’t aged at all. I think if you ditched some of the attempts at modernisation and neutering such as “O Mortal” vs “Son of man” in Ezekiel, it would be the best study translation available, and would appeal to conservative evangelicals as well as Catholics. The language overall is superior to that of the ESV.

For apologetics, most Catholic apologists recommend the RSV-CE and the Douay Rheims (traditionalists) while most Protestant apologists recommend the NASB, ESV, and the KJV (for the kjv-onlyists).

As for devotional, its really up to the person on preference.