Why not the NJB?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manfred

Guest
Folks,

I just don’t understand it.

Many of you are tripping all over yourselves extolling the virtues and merits of the Revised New American Bible (RNAB) or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), yet no one says a word about the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), whose use of gender-inclusive language was quite restrained, to say the least, compared to either of the other two mentioned here.

Yes, I realize the original (1966) Jerusalem Bible was recently re-issued, minus most of the study material found in the “regular” edition, but, again, there are accolades and praise all around for it, though it embodies dynamic equivalence to a fault.

Pray tell, what giveth? :confused:

I am not interested in hearing that certain episcopal conferences deem the RNAB, NRSV, and 1966 JB suitable for liturgical use. :rolleyes:

I’d like to know why CAF members don’t think much of the NJB.
 
I’ll take the NJB over the NRSV (:() anyday of the week. Though I prefer the 1966 orig. The inclusive language in the update is nowhere near as obsessive as other translations.

I haven’t read much of RNAB to comment but the footnote on the Magnificat :eek:

After vulgate based translations with the Hebrew and Greek it’s the JB for me, than the NJB (maybe that doesn’t say much about Catholic Bible translations 🤷, or maybe the Church is to busy with other things).
 
I think the NJB is a fine Bible, and in many ways is superior to the original JB. I think the biggest reason that the NJB doesn’t get more publicity is the fact that it isn’t promoted very well, and it doesn’t come in many different editions. I really enjoy the study edition of the NJB, but it is so huge. If anyone asks me, I always speak highly of the NJB: catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-jerusalem-bible-review.html
 
mccorm45 said:
I think the NJB is a fine Bible, and in many ways is superior to the original JB. I think the biggest reason that the NJB doesn’t get more publicity is the fact that it isn’t promoted very well, and it doesn’t come in many different editions. I really enjoy the study edition of the NJB, but it is so huge. If anyone asks me, I always speak highly of the NJB: catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-jerusalem-bible-review.html
Click to expand...
Tim,

I didn’t mean to slight you in my OP, as I recall you and I PM’ed a couple of years back re our admiration for this rather fine translation. In fact, I was aware of, and had read, your review of the NJB.

I have both the 1966 JB and the 1985 NJB; each is the full-sized edition with ALL the study material. I realize the '66 JB is widely available in its “Reader’s Edition” format (i.e., minus all the useful study aids), yet, IMHO, those would be the only reason to even consider owning a JB, as the translation itself is way-y-y-y too dynamic-equivalent, hardly at all useful for study. (BTW - Henry Wansbrough has a way with words such that, just when you think he said X, he goes on and says the opposite of X. But I digress.)

The cross-references, book introductions, notes (theological, historical, geographical) are really wonderful, though some of the comments in the notes might be just a bit on the liberal side. And the aim of the translators to be more consistent in rendering the same Hebrew or Greek word where it appears in more than one place is admirable; again, this is in sharp contrast to what the JB did.

By and large, the RNAB is worse than the original NAB, the NRSV is definitely worse than the RSV, but it does not automatically follow the NJB is at all inferior to the JB. In fact, it’s a huge improvement over it.

I can’t believe so few of us see it this way. 🤷
 
I own a NJB. I love the Gospel of John in the NJB: so poetic!

Aside from that, the single reason I prefer not to use the NJB is its uninhibited use of the Tetragrammation.
 
Epistemes said:
I own a NJB. I love the Gospel of John in the NJB: so poetic!

Aside from that, the single reason I prefer not to use the NJB is its uninhibited use of the Tetragrammation.
Click to expand...
The original 1966 JB, whether the full-size or the Reader’s Edition, also makes “uninhibited use of the Tetragrammation”. (The recently-published CTS edition, however, uses LORD.)

My point is, the JB has all the negatives (except for gender-inclusive language) that people attribute to the NJB, and then some.

How can anyone embrace the RNAB or NRSV, with their generous use of inclusive language, while criticizing or ignoring the NJB, whose use of such is noticeably restrained?

And if it’s the Divine Name that bothers some, well, the JB also has it.

If anyone is put off by the Name “Yahweh”, how does “Jehovah” sit with you?
 
Manfred said:
The original 1966 JB, whether the full-size or the Reader’s Edition, also makes “uninhibited use of the Tetragrammation”. (The recently-published CTS edition, however, uses LORD.)

My point is, the JB has all the negatives (except for gender-inclusive language) that people attribute to the NJB, and then some.

How can anyone embrace the RNAB or NRSV, with their generous use of inclusive language, while criticizing or ignoring the NJB, whose use of such is noticeably restrained?

And if it’s the Divine Name that bothers some, well, the JB also has it.

If anyone is put off by the Name “Yahweh”, how does “Jehovah” sit with you?
Click to expand...
My primary Bible has become the NRSV Harper-Collins Study Bible, so in terms of which Bible I choose to read daily, I’ve deviated about as far left as is possible from Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats. I can’t rightly say that inclusive language doesn’t bother me since it does to a limited degree, especially in the Psalms, but it bothers me far less than the use of the Divine Name – and since I don’t own or use a JB, that includes my NJB…but would otherwise include the JB, as well. The NJB does have some excellent qualities, including its limited use of inclusive language, but the use of the Divine Name is a killer for me; however, even if it didn’t include the Divine Name, I still wouldn’t make it my primary translation since it’s far too dynamic for my tastes.
 
Ahhh, this is why I use the CTS New Catholic Bible; Original 1966 JB text, which I love, but with no annoying use of ‘Yawhweh’ to be found, just ‘The LORD’. Sweet.👍

Oh, and it uses ‘The Grail’ Psalms, which I also love. 🙂

But I do have a soft spot for the NJB, I studied the Gospel of John at College and the College used the NJB in the classroom, so I fell for its rather poetic language, as an earlier poster has noted.

However, once I came back to full life in the Church, I couldn’t reconcile myself with the Inclusive Language of the NJB. So now I tend to steer clear from it, which is a shame!
 
Mattjolley said:
Ahhh, this is why I use the CTS New Catholic Bible; Original 1966 JB text, which I love, but with no annoying use of ‘Yawhweh’ to be found, just ‘The LORD’. Sweet.👍

Oh, and it uses ‘The Grail’ Psalms, which I also love. 🙂
Click to expand...
I wish the CTS would open up a branch over here – or at least sell their Bible here, I saw an advert for it on some blog & wanted one right off.
 
I use my Bibles for devotional use generally, and the versions I most like are the RSV-CE and the NJB. Now most often I like the RSV-CE (more traditional language) however when I don’t need traditional I like the NJB. I also want to say that I much prefer the NJB to the JB. (I only have the NJB NT since the NT doesn’t have much of a problem with inclusive language, too.)

Whenever I use a Bible for semi-scholastic 😛 purposes, I like to use my parallel Bible, which has eight versions (NT) - D-R, NAB, JB, NJB, RSV-CE, NRSV, Good News - CE, Catholic Community Bible (I haven’t seen this version in stores - I like it - it was translated by a priest in South America or the Phillipines for those for whom English is a second language).
 
I like the NJB. It is a nice break, when I have been reading the RSV-2CE for study purposes, or the NAB for Bible Study class, and I just want to sit back and read the Gospels for inspiration. The translation flows very well and is enjoyable to read. It is a nice change of pace.
 
brigid12 said:
I use my Bibles for devotional use generally, and the versions I most like are the RSV-CE and the NJB. Now most often I like the RSV-CE (more traditional language) however when I don’t need traditional I like the NJB. I also want to say that I much prefer the NJB to the JB. (I only have the NJB NT since the NT doesn’t have much of a problem with inclusive language, too.)

Whenever I use a Bible for semi-scholastic 😛 purposes, I like to use my parallel Bible, which has eight versions (NT) - D-R, NAB, JB, NJB, RSV-CE, NRSV, Good News - CE, Catholic Community Bible (I haven’t seen this version in stores - I like it - it was translated by a priest in South America or the Phillipines for those for whom English is a second language).
Click to expand...
Brigid:

I’m almost as EXHAUSTIVE as you…

RSV - 2CE (including Study Booklets from Ignatius Press)
JB (NJB given away to someone who needed a Bible)
NAB (“RNAB”)
Orthodox Study Bible
ESV w/ Apocrypha
New Oxford Annotated Bible w/ Apocrypha RSV
(NOAB-NRSV was given away to someone who needed a Bible)
Greek Interlinear NT w/ NIV & NASB Parallel
NIV Archeological Study Bible (“Sawed-off Bible”)

I also must admit that I thought the NJB was a much better Bible than the NRSV, which I had bought because I had owned an RSV when I was a teenager. :ouch: I was actually LUCKY someone needed a Bible. or I would have given it to a friend so he could use it for TARGET PRACTICE - We’re talking REAL HOSTILITY here! :rotfl:

And, I’ve found the WEB makes a great (& FREE) resource! :extrahappy:

I don’t know where the idea started that the NJB was a “Bad Bible”, but compared to the NRSV, the “RNAB” & some of the other bad translations I’ve seen, it’s fine… I probably wouldn’t use it as my primary translation, but if I hadn’t found the used JB I found on the Internet, I would have kept the NJB & gave the new Christian $20 to buy his own Bible… I would never say that for the NRSV (which almost became a target) or the “RNAB”.

I hope this makes my thinking clear…

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael
 
Traditional Ang - I’m a convert from Anglo-Catholicism. If there had been a Traditional Anglican church near to me I probably would have just started going there rather than converting, however then I would have missed the Eucharist (and Confession) so I think I ended up getting the better end of the deal. I miss the beautiful liturgy/architecture/music at the Anglican/Episcopalian churches, however I got the Pope and Christian Orthodoxy, along with a surety of valid Holy Orders (even tho’ my last Episcopalian priest was trained at Nashota House and therefore safely orthodox I was never sure of his ordination).

OP - See, there are a number of us (and more who didn’t see your post) who like the NJB.
 
I personally don’t have a problem with the NJB aside from it’s use of inclusive language. It has become such an issue for me that while I am studying for my Masters I have been told by professors that I must write in inclusive language. The professor’s rational is that it is the language “of the academy”. I don’t buy this at all, but will do so not to have my gades suffer anymore. Then if I go for a doctorate or a higher degree beyond my master’s I will go to a University where I won’t have to deal with this nonsense. To me, this acton is intellectual fascism.

Does this really have anything to do with the NJB? Not really. It’s kind of a collateral damage. Inclusive language is the only issue I have with the NJB, and Im sure that’s the issue that hold back 90% of the people who would otherwise love it.

~RSF
 
Manfred said:
Folks,

I just don’t understand it.

Many of you are tripping all over yourselves extolling the virtues and merits of the Revised New American Bible (RNAB) or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), yet no one says a word about the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), whose use of gender-inclusive language was quite restrained, to say the least, compared to either of the other two mentioned here.

Yes, I realize the original (1966) Jerusalem Bible was recently re-issued, minus most of the study material found in the “regular” edition, but, again, there are accolades and praise all around for it, though it embodies dynamic equivalence to a fault.

Pray tell, what giveth? :confused:

I am not interested in hearing that certain episcopal conferences deem the RNAB, NRSV, and 1966 JB suitable for liturgical use. :rolleyes:

I’d like to know why CAF members don’t think much of the NJB.
Click to expand...
I like the NJB. It’s my version of preference. Yes, I know it has some inclusive language but not that much and it’s not in your face about it. I haven’t seen it used anyplace where it would alter the meaning of the text.

Other than that, it is my understanding, based on what I’ve read, that the NJB corrected some translation errors in the JB.

Gary
 
Epistemes said:
I own a NJB. I love the Gospel of John in the NJB: so poetic!

Aside from that, the single reason I prefer not to use the NJB is its uninhibited use of the Tetragrammation.
Click to expand...
I understand that the pope has recently forbidden the use of ‘Yahweh’ in the liturgy but it is not forbidden outside of liturgy. Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is. I know the jews don’t use it from fear of using it in vain but we’re not Jewish. If we can call the Father ‘Abba’, what’s wrong with ‘Yahweh’? Not looking to pick a fight; I’m just curious.

Gary
 
Mattjolley said:
Ahhh, this is why I use the CTS New Catholic Bible; Original 1966 JB text, which I love, but with no annoying use of ‘Yawhweh’ to be found, just ‘The LORD’. Sweet.👍

Oh, and it uses ‘The Grail’ Psalms, which I also love. 🙂

But I do have a soft spot for the NJB, I studied the Gospel of John at College and the College used the NJB in the classroom, so I fell for its rather poetic language, as an earlier poster has noted.

However, once I came back to full life in the Church, I couldn’t reconcile myself with the Inclusive Language of the NJB. So now I tend to steer clear from it, which is a shame!
Click to expand...
Does the CTS Bible still put the verse numbers down the edge and dots where the verse begins? I hate that.

Gary
 
didymus said:
I wish the CTS would open up a branch over here – or at least sell their Bible here, I saw an advert for it on some blog & wanted one right off.
Click to expand...
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
 
RedSoxFan said:
I personally don’t have a problem with the NJB aside from it’s use of inclusive language. It has become such an issue for me that while I am studying for my Masters I have been told by professors that I must write in inclusive language. The professor’s rational is that it is the language “of the academy”. I don’t buy this at all, but will do so not to have my gades suffer anymore. Then if I go for a doctorate or a higher degree beyond my master’s I will go to a University where I won’t have to deal with this nonsense. To me, this acton is intellectual fascism.

Does this really have anything to do with the NJB? Not really. It’s kind of a collateral damage. Inclusive language is the only issue I have with the NJB, and Im sure that’s the issue that hold back 90% of the people who would otherwise love it.

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

Gary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top