Originally Posted by Cyklist
I wouldn't call the vein liberal. I would just call it modern. For example the 1966 Jerusalem Bible Standard Edition has modern scholarship and was the very first version that made us of the DSS (in Is), it's one of the very few ecumenical translations, it's in between Catholic and Protestant, for example it doesn't support Transubstantation. It's not more liberal than the Confraternity Version that was issued at approximately that time.
What do you mean the JB doesn't support transubstantiation? I have never seen anything in the JB or NJB which contradicts it.
While we're on that point, however, it's not the job of the translation to support any doctrine. A translation is supposed to be a faithful rendition of the original in another language from which we then derive our beliefs. (Of course, as Catholics we also have Apostolic Tradition.) You are putting the cart before the horse. Like Luther you want to determine Scripture from preconceived assumptions about what is true.