The Jerusalem Bible

[BenRosa]

MaggieOH:

The New Jerusalem Bible uses inclusive language (ack), whilst the Jerusalem Bible uses the language that the writers meant to convey to the readers.

MaggieOH

Maggie:

This may seem trival, but what “inclusive” language? Can you (or anyone reading) give me an example also?

Many thanks…

 

[serendipity]

The New Jerusalem Bible is translated by Dominicans form the original texts into English. Occasioannly it referred to notes made form the Fench verison, which needing clarification.

The Jerusalem Bible was translated from the original texts into French and then English. It does not use “inclusive language”

Inclusive languages is used in the New Jerusalem Bible. By “inclusive” I have not seen any changes made to the names by which God is addressed, but only to terms referring to groups. like instead of men, the word people may be used. Personally, from the perspective of having done intrepretive work, I believe this representd a more accurate interpretation, and that the older Jerusalem Bible is exclusive.

Some people do not like seeing the many names of God used in the Old Testament, such as Yahweh, and El Shaddai, which is the format of the Jerusalem Bibles. I appreciate the use of these names, beucase I think that if God did not want us to know them, then he woudl not have given them to us. Seeing them makes me feel closer to God, and it is more poetic, but some people believe writing them is disrespectful.

I made a mistake earlier, in that I praised the Jeruslame Bible, and I meant to prasei the New Jeruslaem Bible. Although I was disappointed when I bought it to learnt hat the paper back version does not have the extensive study notes of the hard back version.

 

[porthos11]

serendipity:

I made a mistake earlier, in that I praised the Jeruslame Bible, and I meant to prasei the New Jeruslaem Bible. Although I was disappointed when I bought it to learnt hat the paper back version does not have the extensive study notes of the hard back version.

In which case you’re therefore mistaken when you said earlier it is the liturgical standard for other countries. The Holy See has rejected the New Jerusalem Bible because of its use of inclusive language, as it did the RNAB and the NRSV. It is still the original JB that is used at Mass in many countries outside the US.

 

[Digitonomy]

porthos11:

The Holy See has rejected the New Jerusalem Bible because of its use of inclusive language, as it did the RNAB and the NRSV.

Cite?
It is my understanding that the NRSV is used in the lectionary for Canada.

 

[jpy15026]

Being a “fallen away” Catholic and returning to the Catholic Church 30 yrs. ago I have been reading the scriptures for quite a while now, immersing myself into The New American Bible. I recently experienced a ‘Renewal’ into my Catholic faith and what an exciting renewal it is! I ‘discovered’ The Early Church Fathers and a whole new light has come on concerning my Catholic faith. I now read the scriptures through Catholic Glasses and see things that I never saw before in the Scriptures!

I had to replace my New American Bible (that I used for 30 years),and since then also purchased The Navarre Gospels and Acts, The Navarre Bible Pentateuch ,The New Jerusalem Bible , and The Ignatius RSV-CE. Then I discovered The Douay Rheims Bible and everything changed!

The Douay-Rheims Bible is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible, a version universally used in the Church for over 1500 years, itself meticulously translated from the original Hebrew and Greek by St. Jerome (A.D. 340-420).

The argument that it is a “translation of a translation” is bogus! Since we don’t have the “original” Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts and we do have the Vulgate in the Vatican Archives, this is the only true Bible in my opinion that we Catholics should read.

This is what the Catholic Church used for 1500 years; everything we believe is contained in these Scriptures, without corruption. I am amazed as I read the Douay Rheims just how much is conveniently changed in other versions of scripture to ‘fit’ protestant arguments. The root word of Protestant of course is to “Protest”… Protest what? Protest the Catholic Church!

I now fully understand why non Catholics base their whole faith on Sola Scripture (Bible only theology) this has put a new twist to the quote from Bishop Newman “To immerse oneself in history is to cease to be Protestant”

I say:

“To read and Study the Douay Rheims Bible is to cease to be Protestant!”

Please excuse my rant, but after discovering this, I’m really fired up over it!

John

 

[whosebob]

digitonomy:

Cite?
It is my understanding that the NRSV is used in the lectionary for Canada.

JMJ + OBT​

The JB lectionary (not the New JB) is used in Jamaica, for example. At least it was as of Spring 2003. I know because I was there and assisted at Holy Mass in several different chapels and churches.

Further proof is that, prior to the current edition, Scepter Publishers’ (see also MTF) Daily Roman Missal contained the JB lectionary readings.

In facts, up until 2002, the JB and RSV (not the New RSV) lectionaries were approved for use in the United States. One way to verify this firsthand would be to listen to archived homilies originally broadcast on EWTN prior to the time when the Revised NAB lectionary became the sole approved lectionary for use in celebrations of Holy Mass in the vernacular in churches within the governance of the USCCB. Readings during EWTN’s televised Mass were taken from the JB lectionary until Pentecost, 2002.

For some background on this issue, try the following article at Adoremus.org which was published in 1996:

Confusion about Scripture Translations for Liturgical Use: A Status Report

Make sure to read this on too, from EWTN.com:

Lectionary - New Edition for U.S.

I hope this helps.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[JohnPaul0]

BenRosa:

I’m told the New Jerusalem bible replaced the JB several years back (the JB went out of print), and now the JB is back. Are the New JB & JB bibles different in some way?

I have a New Jerusalem Reader’s Edition from 1990. The jacket says that the Jerusalem Bible was published in 1966, the New Jerusalem Bible in 1985, and then, by public request, the NJ readers’ version that I have. The jacket says that the New Jerusalem is “a complete revision and updating” of the JB.

I don’t care for the New Jerusalem Reader’s Edition for two reasons:

1. Unfamiliar wording a British style prose
2. Very few cross references in the Reader’s Edition.

 

[whosebob]

digitonomy:

. . . It is my understanding that the NRSV is used in the lectionary for Canada.

JMJ + OBT​

That is true, but the story of how the NRSV lectionary became approved for use in Canada is a bit out-of-the-ordinary:

. . . The Canadian bishops had already published a Lectionary based on the NRSV without submitting it to the Vatican for prior approval. Because their books were already in print, Canada was granted temporary permission to use this Lectionary, but only until the translation controversy is resolved. It is not permissible to use the Canadian Lectionary in any other country . . .

The previous quote was taken from the article . . .

CARDINALS MEET VATICAN OFFICIALS ON MASS TEXTS

 

[Digitonomy]

whosebob, thank you for that very well-documented reply.:tiphat:

porthos11:

The Holy See has rejected the New Jerusalem Bible because of its use of inclusive language, as it did the RNAB and the NRSV.

In light of the links provided by whosebob, it is more accurate to say Rome withdrew approval for use of the NRSV as a lectionary. It is still approved for reading and scripture study outside mass.

 

[serendipity]

porthos11:

In which case you’re therefore mistaken when you said earlier it is the liturgical standard for other countries. The Holy See has rejected the New Jerusalem Bible because of its use of inclusive language, as it did the RNAB and the NRSV. It is still the original JB that is used at Mass in many countries outside the US.

I don’t udnerstand your comment. I think I was correct in saying that the Jerusalem Bible is used overseas.

What I erred in was realizing that the New Jerusalem Bible is what I prefer to read.

 

[porthos11]

serendipity:

I don’t udnerstand your comment. I think I was correct in saying that the Jerusalem Bible is used overseas.

What I erred in was realizing that the New Jerusalem Bible is what I prefer to read.

Sorry, my mistake. You’re right.

 

[porthos11]

whosebob, thank you for that very well-documented reply.:tiphat:

In light of the links provided by whosebob, it is more accurate to say Rome withdrew approval for use of the NRSV as a lectionary. It is still approved for reading and scripture study outside mass.

Sorry, should have been clearer on this. Yes, Rome withdrew approval for liturgical use, but granted Canada permission to use their NRSV lectionary on an “interim” basis (interim is now over 10 years).

The main reason though, is still the inclusive language.

 

[Maccabees]

drforjc:

I personally don’t care for the diction and style of the JB. Not saying it’s a bad translation technically, but some of the “classic” verses; you know, the ones you committ to memory and often pop into your head just don’t sound the same with the JB. It just seems to read too differently to me. I guess if I were intentionally looking for a different perspective it would certainly be an option.

Yeah that’s one of the reasons I like the RSVCE its close the KJV that many exprotestants grew up on without the Olde English.
The NAB and Jerusalem Bible has some very different way of parsing some verses that scramble the way I memorized these verses in the past.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

porthos11:

And of course, the JB doesn’t use inclusive language, and that’s a GOOD thing!

I agree. If we want iclusive language John 3:16 would read

“For a non gender specific deity so loved the world that the non gender specific deity gave a non gender specific’s non gender specific only begotten offspring that whosover believes on the non gender specific offspring should not perish but have everlasting life.”

 

[porthos11]

jpy15026:

The argument that it is a “translation of a translation” is bogus! Since we don’t have the “original” Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts and we do have the Vulgate in the Vatican Archives, this is the only true Bible in my opinion that we Catholics should read.

Glad you indicated that it’s just your opinion. I and I’m sure many other faithful Catholics cannot easily read the Douay-Rheims (or the KJV). That’s why I’m glad for translations like the RSV-CE and the Jerusalem Bible. I can’t even get the hang of the Hellenized proper names (e.g. Osee, Ozochias, Abdias).

This is what the Catholic Church used for 1500 years; everything we believe is contained in these Scriptures,

Nope. We don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura, even in the DR or Vulgate.

without corruption.

That’s not entirely true. Just take 1 John 5:7-8: the so-called “Comma Iohannenum.” This verse in the DR and KJV is the most explicit reference to the Holy Trinity in the entire New Testament, but is not present in today’s modern translations. Why? Because it was never found in any of the most reliable Greek manuscripts before the 15th century.

The truth of the matter is, archaelolgical discoveries of more ancient manuscripts have greatly aided the advance of Bible scholarship. Even the present approved version of the Vulgate is not the same Vulgate they used to translate the DR. And even then, today’s DR available is most likely the Challoner revision.

Still, I agree the DR is a good, venerable translation, and should be kept alive. I just admit it’s not a perfect translation (none is) and Catholics do have the option to read any approved Catholic Bible out there.

 

[drforjc]

Yeah that’s one of the reasons I like the RSVCE its close the KJV that many exprotestants grew up on without the Olde English.

Precisely my thoughts. I’m in the same situation-- former Protestant now Catholic.

 

[Scullinius]

Matt25:

The Jerusalem Bible is the one used in the liturgy here in the UK. Personally I’m not that keen on it. Partly because of its defiantly non-inclusive language.

Why would this be an objection?

And what is the difference between “non-inclusive language” and “defiantly non-inclusive language”?

Scullinius

 

[serendipity]

I don’t see anything wrong with just saying God (or using one of God’s many names) and leaving it at that. Using pronouns seems to trivialize the concept to me, but I suppose it is a personal thing. I don’t think any Catholic Bible has “non-gender specific deity,” in the text, but I may be wrong.

I suppose in standard language it is awkward to refrain from using pronouns, but in the Bible, and this is probably just a quirk of mine, I like seeing God’s name over and over again, reminding me where the words come from; not that I could forget because it is the Bible…but I guess I am just a freak that way.What I notice as inclusive may be the terms for the use of groups, it’s not only men, men, men, but more often people, which I prefer. The word bothers is used throughout the New Testament, so it is not an extreme difference.

 

[jpy15026]

porthos11:

That’s not entirely true. Just take 1 John 5:7-8: the so-called “Comma Iohannenum.” This verse in the DR and KJV is the most explicit reference to the Holy Trinity in the entire New Testament, but is not present in today’s modern translations. Why? Because it was never found in any of the most reliable Greek manuscripts before the 15th century.
.

Apparantly St. Jerome “found” it in his third century “Greek” manuscripts,otherwise it would not have been in the Latin Vulgate,the “Official” and "only " Bible our Catholic Chuch used for 1500 years.

 

[jpy15026]

jpy15026:

Apparantly St. Jerome “found” it in his third century “Greek” manuscripts,otherwise it would not have been in the Latin Vulgate,the “Official” and "only " Bible our Catholic Chuch used for 1500 years.

I did some further research by copying 1Jn. 5: 7-8 from the Latin Vulgate directly from the Vatican website:
7 Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur:
8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres in unum sunt.

I then went to a secular site and translated these verses from Latin into English,and this is the result:

7 three , which/who they testify:

8 Spirit and the water and the blood; And these three into one are.

Is it the Vulgate that has been mistaken for the past 1500 years or “the Modern translations” that have it wrong?..Hmmm