Jerusalem Bible vs. New Jerusalem Bible?


#1

what are the differences?


#2

The NJB is just an update of the JB, just as the NRSV is an update of the RSV, though the NJB does tend to use a bit of inclusive language here and there.


#3

Tolkein! :smiley:

The great author was consulted for style on the 1966 version and the final draft of Jonah passed entirely through his hand.

Aside from that, the NJB mainly has updated and “inclusive” language.


#4

NJB = inclusive language but more literal

JB = less inclusive language and less literal.

The best possible combination would be the NJB with all the inclusive language taken out!


#5

I like the Jerusalem Bible better :) Mother Angelica loves it

--
Free Catholic Bible
catholicholybible.blogspot.com


#6

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . 1966 Jerusalem Bible ** *(a paraphrase **not a word for word translation)* . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . "inclusive language" . . . incorporated into ALL this Bible's versions thereafter . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church's Official Bible. Bishop Challoner's edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the Holy Spirit's **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed **St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

[size=]Pope Pius XII stated that the
**Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
[/size]
was **
*"free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals."
*
With St. Jerome *. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church *. . . **and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ's declaration of support** . . . vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . . you can't go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the Eternal Word Television Network's ** ewtn.com website . . . which also contain some examples of the **Holy See's gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

[INDENT]*:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, **the Church's official Scripture text, by **English* Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. [/INDENT]

I’ve read several times that** that the Holy Father in Rome ** uses the ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of **Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

[INDENT]:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE).Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press ...******[/INDENT]

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of "inclusive language" *(stripping **God the Holy Spirit's** designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them)* to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to **Christ's Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

[INDENT]New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language ... ******[/INDENT]

[INDENT]NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991) [also a paraphrase **not a word for word translation]. It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some **uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
[/INDENT][RIGHT]. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+
[/RIGHT]


#7

+**. . . :coffeeread: . . .

*NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION OF *
BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE LITURGY**

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1995

[In 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued "secret norms" to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the United States) to guide their revision of the Lectionary used at Mass. Prior to this time the Congregation had rejected two versions of Scripture (the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised New American Bible [NAB]) for use in the Liturgy, owing to the unacceptable use of inclusive language. These norms remained "secret," even from most bishops, until just prior to the June 1997 meeting of the bishops' conference. This meeting approved, by subsequent mail ballot, a version of the Lectionary agreed upon by a working committee of Vatican officials and US bishops in March 1997. This Lectionary conforms to the previously issued Norms. Having been approved by the entire Conference it will now be sent to Rome for final confirmation.]

  1. The Church** must** always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.

  2. The first principle with respect to :bible1: Biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language used by the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. "Dei Verbum" III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.

  3. The translation of Scripture should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant mode of human expression without "correction" or "improvement" in service of modern sensitivities.

a) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.

b) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

4/l. The natural gender of "personae" in the Bible, including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2. The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3. In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained.

4/4. Similarly, in keeping with the Church's tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5. There shall be no systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text.

4/6. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

  1. Grammatical number and person of the original texts ordinarily should be maintained.

6/1. Translation should strive to preserve the connotations as well as the denotations of words or expressions in the original and thus not preclude possible layers of meaning.

6/2. For example, where the New Testament or the Church's tradition have interpreted certain texts of the Old Testament in a Christological fashion, special care should be observed in the translation of these texts so that a Christological meaning is not precluded.

6/3. Thus, the word "man" in English should as a rule translate 'adam and anthropos (ανθρωποσ), since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology.

[Adoremus Bulletin, III, No. 5, July/August 1997]


Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
ewtn.com

[RIGHT]. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+[/RIGHT]


#8

I have the New Jerusalem Bible - and its now my favorite. Just so that you know, the New Jerusalem Bible’s introductions and footnotes have been thoroughly revised and expanded from the old. Either way, both are great. I know that there might be a difference between the two and some favor the old version - but I like the new.


#9

I love both the JB and NJB. There is a rumor of a 3rd, hopefully in my lifetime.


#10

I’ve heard that the JB is based on the Hebrew with the Greek variations in the footnotes, while the NJB is based on the Greek with the Hebrew variations in the footnotes. I don’t own either, fyi–this is based on hearsay.


#11

I have not read the Jerusalem Bible but the New Jerusalem Bible is hands down my favorite all around any time Bible! I love it!!!


#12

same tiny type font
for personal study the 1966 remains my favorite but I can no longer hold it for long or read it unaided. age is creeping up.


#13

This thread is pretty old. But there is something I didn't see than anyone mentioned.

The Jerusalem Bible IS the official bible of the Catholic Church. It is what they use overseas. It is what the passages in all our rituals are taken from. (I'm a professed terciary Franciscan)

The AMERICAN version of the NJB is rejected by the Holy See. It is not "just updated" as a few folks have said. No updates were made. They simply edited all the text trying to make it inclusive. Thereby changing the meaning of entire passages.

There is a European version. It has been updated to include the recent translation of the Grail Psalms. One thing I don't like about it is that they have whitewashed all of God's names.

While the Holy Father has stipulated that we should not use Yahweh in PUBLIC services, it is fine for private use. So I am unhappy with that edit.

Still, it's a wonderful translation.

Due to copyright infringements, they can't (technically) sell the European version of the New Jerusalem Bible here in the US. But you can have it shipped here.

You can buy the "proper" NJB from Catholic Truth Society.

cts-online.org.uk/

I bought their new missals rather than ours because I prefer the Jerusalem Bible to the New American Bible. They are WONDERFUL!! Since their books are so popular they are set up for US shipping. It comes fairly quickly too.

If you are careful in your search you can find them on Amazon.


#14

MaxMarieOFS,
Please give me a direct link to the specific NJB you are referencing. I checked out their standard New Catholic Bible and in their preview, it uses God rather than Elohim, etc.
Thanks


#15

False. Henry Wansborough lies in the foreword the the NJB - it's not a revision of the JB. The NJB has more translation errors in places, see for example: christianforums.com/t7625834-post59659391/#post59659391
The NJB is a standalone version.

[quote="LoyalViews, post:2, topic:245024"]
The NJB is just an update of the JB

[/quote]

[quote="MaxMarieOFS, post:13, topic:245024"]
They simply edited all the text trying to make it inclusive. Thereby changing the meaning of entire passages.

[/quote]

The European NJB MaxMarieOFS is talking about, is not an NJB, it's an update of the JB.

I think that the JB is better and would be worth having in a Bible study software. Please support at: community.logos.com/forums/t/55583.aspx
...You can register without having to make an initial purchase.


#16

I prefer the JB to the NJB.

…Scottish Monk


#17

[quote="Scottish_Monk, post:16, topic:245024"]
I prefer the JB to the NJB.

...Scottish Monk

[/quote]

:thumbsup:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.