The NJB and I

[Epistemes]

I bought a New Jerusalem Bible several months ago. My first, actually. I’ve posted about the NJB to some degree here before, mostly asking what other people’s opinions about it were.

In the months that I’ve owned the NJB, I’ve tried multiple times to make it my primary Bible for devotional reading , minor study, etc. - yet there’s just something about the NJB which I don’t particularly care for, something which causes me to prefer other translations.

I know it’s not the inclusive language - just because inclusive language doesn’t bother me to a terrible degree, as it should. I can’t help but think it’s the ultra-dynamic translation, even though the poetic language is really quite nice. The Gospel of John and Epistles of John are written in some of the finest language in the NJB, I think. The whole Gospel seems to sing magnificence!

But there’s just so much more of the translation which I find confusing. The lack of traditional renderings bothers me to a certain degree.

Does anybody think similarly about the NJB?

 

[bauerice]

I’m in love with the NJB. I have RSV-2ce, NAB (1970), RNAB, Confraternity, JB, KJV (with duet) and other Protestant Bibles. But for me the NJB is my everyday/reading Bible. I’m not one to do in-depth Bible studies. I let the Church Magistrerium/ Catechism be my guide.

 

[Manfred]

I bought a New Jerusalem Bible several months ago. My first, actually. I’ve posted about the NJB to some degree here before, mostly asking what other people’s opinions about it were.

I believe I saw your post, and have posted a query or two of my own on the NJB, but responses were scarce. Pity, because the NJB is, as I mentioned then, superior to the RNAB and the NRSV, despite the use of both of these in Lectionaries.

In the months that I’ve owned the NJB, I’ve tried multiple times to make it my primary Bible for devotional reading , minor study, etc. - yet there’s just something about the NJB which I don’t particularly care for, something which causes me to prefer other translations.

I know it’s not the inclusive language - just because inclusive language doesn’t bother me to a terrible degree, as it should. I can’t help but think it’s the ultra-dynamic translation, even though the poetic language is really quite nice. The Gospel of John and Epistles of John are written in some of the finest language in the NJB, I think. The whole Gospel seems to sing magnificence!

But there’s just so much more of the translation which I find confusing. The lack of traditional renderings bothers me to a certain degree.

Does anybody think similarly about the NJB?

You hit it right; the deliberate and seemingly reckless abandon of more-established and familiar “traditional renderings” is not easy to settle with.

 

[puzzleannie]

I agree that this version of the Gospel and letters of John is my favorite by far, and the one I chose for devotional reading.

I think I noticed the same “feel” with the original JB as well, and I think it is somewhat the same as the old version we used in parochial school. I think both these versions were translated first into French, then into English, with the French versions of proper names, sentence structure and phraseology. NJB has anglicised proper names, but I think the choice of words and phrasing may still echo the original French forms, while other English translations directly from original languages to English, were expressed into more colloquial forms. just a guess.

 

[mmortal03]

I agree that this version of the Gospel and letters of John is my favorite by far, and the one I chose for devotional reading.

I think I noticed the same “feel” with the original JB as well, and I think it is somewhat the same as the old version we used in parochial school. I think both these versions were translated first into French, then into English, with the French versions of proper names, sentence structure and phraseology. NJB has anglicised proper names, but I think the choice of words and phrasing may still echo the original French forms, while other English translations directly from original languages to English, were expressed into more colloquial forms. just a guess.

From what I understand, the NJB translators have said that it was a fresh translation, with only the French as a guide, however, there isn’t really any easy way to know.

 

[Verisimilitude]

But there’s just so much more of the translation which I find confusing. The lack of traditional renderings bothers me to a certain degree.

Does anybody think similarly about the NJB?

Can you give an example?

I might be biased because I have been reading the JB since 1979, and the NJB since around 2001- or there abouts. I have other bibles and will cross reference them occasionally, but due to the fact the NJB has a more readable text, better footnotes, and a lot of depth keeps me from the traditional renderings like the NKJ.

The Word is universal in that sense so why not read it as it makes sense to you.

 

[mccorm45]

There are a lot of things I like about the NJB. The notes are the best out there for a complete one volume Catholic study bible, the cross-references are unmatched, the page format is easy on the eyes, and they do the best job IMHO at inclusive language.

But, I too have a hard time with some of the passages that are somewhat different to the traditional renderings. In particular, the way in which the NJB chooses different ways of translating “the flesh” is odd to say the least. Plus there is the occasional British word that slips into the translation like Haversack.

All in all I enjoy having the translation, but I feel like it will never really catch on and who knows if there will be a third edition.

 

[Manfred]

Can you give an example?

I might be biased because I have been reading the JB since 1979, and the NJB since around 2001- or there abouts. I have other bibles and will cross reference them occasionally, but due to the fact the NJB has a more readable text, better footnotes, and a lot of depth keeps me from the traditional renderings like the NKJ.

I can give you a couple: in Matthew 16, Jesus says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of John, for no human agency has revealed this to you…”

The footnote does give the literal “flesh and blood”; why not put that into the text?

At the Last Supper, Jesus tells His Apostles He will no longer drink “wine” with them; why not the the more poetic - and literal - “fruit of the vine”?

 

[Manfred]

From what I understand, the NJB translators have said that it was a fresh translation, with only the French as a guide, however, there isn’t really any easy way to know.

The General Editor’s Foreward in the JB admits that - in those places where the originals were unintelligible - the English was translated from the French; the NJB did not follow this same mode, but translated eveything anew, or left parts of some verses untranslated. Since I don’t know French, I’m not able to compare the French of the 2nd JB with the English of the NJB, but I’m under the impression that only the notes came directly from the French.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I can give you a couple: in Matthew 16, Jesus says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of John, for no human agency has revealed this to you…”

The footnote does give the literal “flesh and blood”; why not put that into the text?

Fair enough, but the footnote tries to convey the literal translation of whatever greek word that was used as it says. Often it gives the original word used, but in this case it does not. BTW-the JB did use “flesh and blood” but with no footnote. I do not see this as having lost anything but gained a fuller meaning.

At the Last Supper, Jesus tells His Apostles He will no longer drink “wine” with them; why not the the more poetic - and literal - “fruit of the vine”?

I’m not sure of the significance, but wine is specific and fruit of the vine could be Welches grape juice. Ok, I’m being a little facetious but the meaning is not lost to me either way as it does not seem to be lost to you either. As I said, I have my bias.

 

[JeanneH]

Hi

Fair enough, but the footnote tries to convey the literal translation of whatever greek word that was used as it says. Often it gives the original word used, but in this case it does not. BTW-the JB did use “flesh and blood” but with no footnote. I do not see this as having lost anything but gained a fuller meaning.

Matt.16:17 --flesh and blood—
there IS a footnote that says–The expression indicated man, emphasising his material, limited nature as opposed to that of the spirit world. Si14:18; Rm 7:5+; 1 Co 15:50; Ga 1:16; Ep 6:12; Heb 2:14; cf, Jn 1:13.

I love my OJB

JeanneH

 

[Verisimilitude]

Hi

Matt.16:17 --flesh and blood—
there IS a footnote that says–The expression indicated man, emphasising his material, limited nature as opposed to that of the spirit world. Si14:18; Rm 7:5+; 1 Co 15:50; Ga 1:16; Ep 6:12; Heb 2:14; cf, Jn 1:13.

I love my OJB

JeanneH

I had to re-look again. My New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) (1985 version- 1990 printing) has the foonote you reference.

My Jerusalem Bible (JB) (1966 version- 1968 printing) has no footnote for that passage but uses the term “flesh and blood” in th epassage.

Both of mine are the hardback editions. I believe there are soft covers that have some differnt reference material in the back from that of the hardbacks, but as far as I know the Scripture and footnotes are the same for both hard/soft covers.

I love them both!

 

[mmortal03]

The General Editor’s Foreward in the JB admits that - in those places where the originals were unintelligible - the English was translated from the French; the NJB did not follow this same mode, but translated eveything anew, or left parts of some verses untranslated. Since I don’t know French, I’m not able to compare the French of the 2nd JB with the English of the NJB, but I’m under the impression that only the notes came directly from the French.

Yeah, I read a post on here once that gave an example of how the style of the French translation was better. I vaguely recall it saying that the French NJB didn’t use inclusive language, and also that the 3rd Edition (only in French) was more accurate.

I could be mistaken, so someone who speaks French is going to have to confirm this if no one wants to search around the forum for that post.

 

[Manfred]

I had to re-look again. My New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) (1985 version- 1990 printing) has the foonote you reference.

My Jerusalem Bible (JB) (1966 version- 1968 printing) has no footnote for that passage but uses the term “flesh and blood” in th epassage.

Both of mine are the hardback editions. I believe there are soft covers that have some differnt reference material in the back from that of the hardbacks, but as far as I know the Scripture and footnotes are the same for both hard/soft covers.

I love them both!

I, too, have them both - the OJB is a full-size (not Reader’s Ed.) burgundy hard-bound, the NJB is a full-size burgundy leatherette soft-cover. Very simply: the OJB is too much of a dynamic-equivalent for me to have confidence in its renderings, though it gets an “A” for having no inclusive-language; the NJB made an attempt at being more of a formal-equivalent, but is compromised by its inclusive-language, however mild it may be (compared to the vaunted RNAB or NRSV).

Psalm 1:1 (NJB) “How blessed is anyone…”

“Anyone”?

 

[Verisimilitude]

I, too, have them both - the OJB is a full-size (not Reader’s Ed.) burgundy hard-bound, the NJB is a full-size burgundy leatherette soft-cover.

My OJB is the Readers Edition. My older sister gave it to me when I was Confirmed. It’s fairly dogeared now.

Very simply: the OJB is too much of a dynamic-equivalent for me to have confidence in its renderings, though it gets an “A” for having no inclusive-language; the NJB made an attempt at being more of a formal-equivalent, but is compromised by its inclusive-language, however mild it may be (compared to the vaunted RNAB or NRSV).

Can any book capture the Word perfectly? The nuance is fluid and difficult to capture. Even if we had a tape recording of Paul or John, much less the Lord I am sure we would be debating what “is” is still.

The Truth is able to translate adaquately for it must be more than the words alone that express the Word to anyone. Pentecost proved that in speech so I think it applies to the written word as well. That is why it is catholic.

Psalm 1:1 (NJB) “How blessed is anyone…”

“Anyone”?

OJB: “How happy the man…” I wonder what it is in Japanese.

Both books have a Chronological Table in the Supplements.
The OJB starts at 4,000 BC (Gn. 4:16f)- writting at 3000 BC- Abraham at 1850 BC.
The NJB starts at 2,000,000 BC- placing Cain at 9,000 BC- Abraham at 1850 BC.

A favorite author of mine, J. R. R. Tolkien played a part in translating the OJB.

Versions in other languages followed. “The Jerusalem Bible” was first published in English in 1966 by Darton, Longman and Todd, and Doubleday. A few years later, in 1973, the French original was thoroughly revised, and that in turn led to the publication of “The New Jerusalem Bible” in 1985. At the present moment a third French edition is in preparation.

It’s like looking at old maps. The land, like Truth, is constant.