-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is the new Jerusalem Bible version?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
I personally like the older Jerusalem Bible better. It uses noninclusive language. The New Jerusalem Bible uses inclusive language.
J.R.R. Tolkien of Lord of the Rings, was one of the translators of the Jerusalem Bible but not the New Jerusalem Bible.
I also like some of the renderings in the Jerusalem Bible better:
John 3:16 Jerusalem Bible
Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life.
John 3:16 New Jerusalem Bible
For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
J.R.R. Tolkien of Lord of the Rings, was one of the translators of the Jerusalem Bible but not the New Jerusalem Bible.
I also like some of the renderings in the Jerusalem Bible better:
John 3:16 Jerusalem Bible
Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life.
John 3:16 New Jerusalem Bible
For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
It was meant to become the Roman catholic version before NAB?
Yes it is catholic, released in 1985, and it must be read in that light as it is influenced by the theology of the translators in my opinion.
had the original Jerusalem bible, the version seemed done well, its the study notes that were lacking! As they were "best of contemporary catholic scholarship!"
No,the NJB uses about as much of it as the ESV in my opinion.
Actually it is rather orthodox in my opinion. It is safe for a Protestant to read minus the extra 13 noncanonical books.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
It is interesting that you would chose this verse as an example. Notice that the two versions are in the mostly exactly the same (colored blue above), except for a few words and word order in first phrase. The New Jerusalem version is more literal than the earlier Jerusalem translation: first, the word The Greek word for "Yes" (ναί) is not present; second, the NJB rendering of "this is how" (οὕτως meaning 'in this manner') is closer to the Greek than "so much that" of the original JB.
I have only read the NT in the Jerusalem version so I do not know if this is representative of the differences between the two.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Not really. Officially the D-R was still the primary Catholic English text until the NAB (in America). However, the RCC does sanction some other versions such as the Jerusalem, Knox NT, and Kleist-Lilly NT, and Christian Community Bible for examples.
My understanding is that the notes translated into English (1966) from the original French (1956); it was executed by Catholic scholars at Jerusalem. The NJB (1985) was a fresh translation.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Roman Catholic International Commission for the Preparation of an English-language Lectionary recently contracted to use the ESV:
New Lectionary & ESV: Some official clarification
New Lectionary & ESV: Some official clarification
pilgrim_99
Member
This link may be helpful: http://bible-researcher.com/new-jerusalem-bible.html
That site in general is an excellent resource on Bible versions and related issues, even if one disagrees with the site owner here and there.
That site in general is an excellent resource on Bible versions and related issues, even if one disagrees with the site owner here and there.
A lot of my books have been scattered to the winds including most of my Bible translations. Thankfully most can be viewed on line.
Here are some snips from Psalm 139.
3 : you know every detail of my conduct
5 : You fence me in, behind and in front, you have laid your hand upon me.
6 : a height to which I cannot attain
8 : If I scale the heavens
12 : even darkness to you is not dark
15 : textured in the depths of the earth
16 : Your eyes could see my embryo. In your book all my days were inscribed, every one that was fixed is there.
Proverbs 3
3 : Let faithful love and constancy never leave you
5 : put no faith in your own perception
6 : acknowledge him in every course you take
7 : Do not congratulate yourself on your own wisdom
15 : nothing you covet is her equal
20 : Through his knowledge the depths were cleft open and the clouds distil the dew
35 : Glory is the portion of the wise, all that fools inherit is contempt
"In matters of detail." That could be said of most translations. Everyone needs to compare their favorites with other versions of various styles.
By the way, the author said "The translation is generally more literal." So you are incorrect to say it is a functionally equivalent translation.
"I did not nor"? Come again?
You said in post 13 "I enjoyed the pithy remark, suitable for all functional equivalent translations."
Your words clearly were directed toward the NJB and others of the same functional equivalent emphasis. But Marlowe said it is generally more literal. So you are stuck.
How about I meant what I said. Too conservative for your "words mean what I want them to mean" liberalism?
One might conclude you do not realize one functional equivalent version could be more literal than others and less literal than still others. Good grief. Mr. Rippon finds fault with his own constructions. Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations.
The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
One might conclude you do not realize one functional equivalent version could be more literal than others and less literal than still others. Good grief. Mr. Rippon finds fault with his own constructions. Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations.
The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.