The thing I don’t like about the NJB is that it has inclusive language. Mother Angelica doesn’t think highly of it. Its text isn’t bad. Beware of some mutilated passages like Luke 1:28 and Matthew 6:9-13. It is safe for Catholics to read so other than that, its your call
I see what you mean about Matthew 6:9-13. I think the GNB mutilated it to. It says ‘Our Father who is in heaven: May your holy name be honoured; may your Kingdom come; may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today the food we need. Forgive us the wrongs we done, as we forgive the wrongs that others have done to us. Do not bring us to hard testing, but keep us safe from the evil one’
Some of these passages it just isn’t what it should be. Matthew 18:11 is another example in most Bibles. It has either been relegated to a footnote or omitted. Mark 9:29 is also the same. It should be prayer and fasting and most modern Bibles omit the word fasting
It’s an excellent translation and I use it quite a lot myself. There is some inclusive language but, IMO, not enough to be obnoxious or to alter the meaning of texts like the NAB does.
Sheesh! I’ve seen leetspeak with better grammar.
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.
Yes, it states that the original is from 1966. In the preface it says that the Readers Edition is a little more approachable than the original. This is good for me. It is also Catholic approved.
Based on what?
The problem with that is that is what the Greek says. There’s no definite article in the Greek. I started a thread about this issue a few months ago. A lot of Catholic versions in other languages also use the indefinite article.
But in the Greek there is no indefinite article,
while using the indefinite article is justifiable, it does bring up theological questions on what the Church is.
I use the Latin as my “authoritative” Bible, if you will, in terms of faith and morals:
the Latin has no article there
I don’t know Greek and can only go based on what I’ve read from those who do. It is my understanding that Greek has no indefinite article. In this case, the context assumes it. Using the indefinite article does no damage to the belief that the Church is a pillar of the truth. As I mentioned, many non-English Catholic Bibles also use an indefinite article here.But in the Greek there is no indefinite article,
So more literally it would be:
while using the indefinite article is justifiable, it does bring up theological questions on what the Church is.
It’s not too different from the Jehovah’s Witness rendering of John 1:1
I use the Latin as my “authoritative” Bible, if you will, in terms of faith and morals:
the Latin has no article there
You’re completely right, but when it comes to arguing for “a pillar” you get arguments like this:
the definite article in front of “household” is also absent in the Greek but it is implied by most translators
Good points and I would be way out of my league trying to address them. However, I don’t see the use of the indefinite article as being a big deal. The Church does not cease to be a pillar based on the article used. Catholicism is certainly not free to teach something the Bible says is untrue, so what’s the big deal?You’re completely right, but when it comes to arguing for “a pillar” you get arguments like this:
youtube.com/watch?v=J7iwhiBw50c
So I generally wouldn’t recommend the ESV to anyone if there was a better option. Unfortunately, the ESV is actually a very good translation overall and generally better than most modern Catholic Bibles (especially with its lack of inclusive language and its 21st century textual basis).
Try this:
jimmyakin.org/2005/04/iai_pillar_and_.html
Note the subtle inconsistency with:
the definite article in front of “household” is also absent in the Greek but it is implied by most translators