Why not the NJB?

[garysibio]

Brigid:

I’m almost as EXHAUSTIVE as you…

ESV w/ Apocrypha

I also really like this translation. It has replaced the RSV-CE as my second Bible.

Gary

 

[CalCatholic]

Does the CTS Bible still put the verse numbers down the edge and dots where the verse begins? I hate that.

Gary

No, it puts the verse numbers in front of each sentence, like most versions do.

 

[CalCatholic]

I’m a bit concerned about the extra-biblical material in the CTS Bible. I understand that they attribute First and Second Peter to two different authors.

Gary

The introductions to both 1 and 2 Peter claim that it is unlikely that Peter wrote either of of them. There is nothing in either introduction to claim they are by the same author. The notes in 2 Peter actually claims that it has more in common with the Letter of Jude.

 

[RedSoxFan]

It is truly pathetic that truth has taken a back seat to socio-political agendas in education today.

Gary

Yeah it is. But I think or hope at least with the gravity in which Catholic Universities in the USA are screwing up, many universities will revert back to be truly Catholic schools. And if not, hopefully websites like this one will build enough of a community to generate the need and desire for truly Catholic Universities through out the USA.

 

[garysibio]

No, it puts the verse numbers in front of each sentence, like most versions do.

Good. Thanks.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

The introductions to both 1 and 2 Peter claim that it is unlikely that Peter wrote either of of them. There is nothing in either introduction to claim they are by the same author. The notes in 2 Peter actually claims that it has more in common with the Letter of Jude.

I wouldn’t waste my time with a study Bible that promotes this silliness.

Gary

 

[bengland]

I have grown to appreciate the NJB over the JB, even though the JB shines in certain places, and have since sought out convenient editions for reading (the study bible is good for a table, but gets unwieldy elsewhere) and for carrying around during travels. The language is good. It’s Catholic. The study bible is excellent, in particular the cross referencing. Jeremiah is also easier to read in the NJB. There are places where the 1966 JB seems sort of awkward and I have been uncomfortable reading it at times.

I bought a used NRSV-CE from ebay with intolerably thin see through pages and inclusive language that was so invasive that it hampered the text in many places. The NJB isn’t anywhere near this bad, and seems responsible by comparison. To this day I will not understand the infatuation that some people have with the NRSV. Even tonight I picked it up for Ezekiel 33 and it read “O Mortal” whereas every other serious translation says “Son of Man”.

Everyone has different reasons for their choice, be it inclusive language, perceived abuses or liberalism, long term familiarity with one or another translation, review from a trusted source, etc.

 

[bengland]

I have grown to appreciate the NJB over the JB, even though the JB shines in certain places, and have since sought out convenient editions for reading (the study bible is good for a table, but gets unwieldy elsewhere) and for carrying around during travels. The language is good. It’s Catholic. The study bible is excellent, in particular the cross referencing. Jeremiah is also easier to read in the NJB. There are places where the 1966 JB seems sort of awkward and I have been uncomfortable reading it at times.

I bought a used NRSV-CE from ebay with intolerably thin see through pages and inclusive language that was so invasive that it hampered the text in many places. The NJB isn’t anywhere near this bad, and seems responsible by comparison. To this day I will not understand the infatuation that some people have with the NRSV. Even tonight I picked it up for Ezekiel 33 and it read “O Mortal” whereas every other serious translation says “Son of Man”.

Everyone has different reasons for their choice, be it inclusive language, perceived abuses or liberalism, long term familiarity with one or another translation, review from a trusted source, etc.

Since writing this I made an effort to investigate portions of the NRSV-CE for its quality, rather than just casually picking it up, and can now understand why some people like it. Through previous casual reading in familiar passages it seemed lacking. Certain familiar phraseology was often eliminated and new phrases were chosen, as in the above example regarding “O Mortal” and the frequently strained use of inclusive language. In less familiar sections it seemed that not only was there nothing wrong with the translation, but it conveyed the message without difficulty. I then went through with e-sword to see if they butchered the text for the sake of readability, comparing to the RSVA and other bibles, and in that it appears to be a solid translation, better than most. It’s virtually indistinguishable from the RSV and ESV in most places. There are still certain places that will make you twinge as you read it, but they’re not deal breakers. The same is true for most translations.

That said, I still prefer the NJB for basic reading and I think it’s because it uses terminology that helps to link passages of Scripture together, carefully considering prophecies (except Isaiah 7:14). The style of writing, although it seems awkward in a few places when compared to other renderings, is better than average when taken as a whole. On its own it’s enjoyable to read.

 

[mccorm45]

Since writing this I made an effort to investigate portions of the NRSV-CE for its quality, rather than just casually picking it up, and can now understand why some people like it. Through previous casual reading in familiar passages it seemed lacking. Certain familiar phraseology was often eliminated and new phrases were chosen, as in the above example regarding “O Mortal” and the frequently strained use of inclusive language. In less familiar sections it seemed that not only was there nothing wrong with the translation, but it conveyed the message without difficulty. I then went through with e-sword to see if they butchered the text for the sake of readability, comparing to the RSVA and other bibles, and in that it appears to be a solid translation, better than most. It’s virtually indistinguishable from the RSV and ESV in most places. There are still certain places that will make you twinge as you read it, but they’re not deal breakers. The same is true for most translations.

That said, I still prefer the NJB for basic reading and I think it’s because it uses terminology that helps to link passages of Scripture together, carefully considering prophecies (except Isaiah 7:14). The style of writing, although it seems awkward in a few places when compared to other renderings, is better than average when taken as a whole. On its own it’s enjoyable to read.

I think on the whole, the NJB and ESV are fine Bibles. One reason I like the NRSV best, with all its faults, is that it contains plenty of textual notes at the bottom of each page. Thus, at least for me, they are not hiding anything from the reader. This is particularly the case with the inclusive language stuff, which is more the often referenced to a textual note. I also think the NRSV reads really well.