K
Khalid
Guest
I dislike the New Jerusalem Bible in its entirety, but the OT is notably worse than the NT. However, both are very loose translations, “dynamic” in character (much more so than even an NIV, much less so than a paraphrase such as the Message), and use a good deal (although not NRSV-level) of neutered language. And none of the doctrinally-important passages are rendered correctly (which oftentimes gives me the feeling that they were rendered as-is purely as to be doctrinally incorrect, at least in several places).
Overall, the NJB - any part of it - is decent and acceptable for quickly reading, as one would a story or history or any other book one was reading in the normal sense, large sections of the Bible. It is useless for getting at the underlying or deeper meanings, or for any form of study (as in “studying Livy”, and not just “reading history”, or “studying Aquinas”, as one can never merely “read” philosophy or theology - the Bible can be both read and studied).
Overall, the NJB - any part of it - is decent and acceptable for quickly reading, as one would a story or history or any other book one was reading in the normal sense, large sections of the Bible. It is useless for getting at the underlying or deeper meanings, or for any form of study (as in “studying Livy”, and not just “reading history”, or “studying Aquinas”, as one can never merely “read” philosophy or theology - the Bible can be both read and studied).
