Just ordered the New Jerusalem Bible


#1

Is this translation worth the purchase?


#2

Clarify, please.
You ordered it, did you prepay? if so then you’re asking too late.

In general, it’s my favorite of the RCC Bibles I own. Good footnote apparatus.


#3

It is a lovely Bible


#4

Nothing wrong with it. It’s the one used as the basis for the lectionary in the UK and other English-speaking parts of the world.


#5

All the Catholic approved Bible translations are good. The NJB (1985) does have some inclusive language so some will prefer the RSVCE (1965-66) which has less.


#6

I like it…for me its a comforting, non-pretentious read - Great to have on my night stand!


#7

No it isn’t @Cor_ad_Cor .

It is the original 1966 version of the Jerusalem Bible which is used in the lectionary .

The New Jerusalem Bible is a 1984 translation , approved for use in study and personal devotion .


#8

I have used The New Jerusalem translation ever since I converted from atheism in 1986. I have always found it to be very beautiful and poetic.


#9

I am currently using NJB but the language is a little difficult to understand for Asian people like myself. I prefer NIV.


#10

Thanks for the correction.


#11

It is one of my favorite “sit down to read it” translations.


#12

I don’t have a NJB book, but that translation is included in The Complete Parallel Bible so I have read at least some of it (most of the New Testament, I believe). I agree that is a more poetic translation than most. It’s “inclusive” language is minimal and, compared to most texts we are subjected to nowadays, hardly noticeable, IIRC.


#13

The Psalms the NJB are my favorite out of my other Bibles.


#14

There is a Revised New Jeruselem Bible which is NT sns Psalms. Updated and revised scholarship. It is a study version. Have not had one in my hands yet


#15

MiserereMei25 . . .

Is this translation worth the purchase?

Excellent.

I particularly enjoy reading this translation for the Old Testament “stories” and just easy reading.

I use other translations usually for “study”, but this is an excellent translation for this purpose.

God bless.

Cathoholic


#17

Cool. When I ordered it the description mentioned footnotes. Are these study foot notes?.


#18

MiserereMei25 . . .

Cool. When I ordered it the description mentioned footnotes. Are these study foot notes?.

Technically they probably are. I usually ignore them and get better study footnotes.

My NJB has no study footnotes but I have seen different NJBs that have some commentary.

I can’t speak for all of them, but in my opinion the notes/commentary are underwhelming at best (I have seen some of the commentary versions).

If I could have only one commentary, I’d gravitate toward the Igatius study Bibles.

I have this New Testament commentary and it is quite good.

It is available in smaller chunks too but the overall cost will be more. Here is one of those.

It is now available in much of the Old Testament too.

Like this one . . .

.

Good luck with and enjoy your study!


#19

The word of God is always worth it, in my view.

The Bible that you read the most often is the best choice for you. All of the modern Catholic translations are good - some are superior in technical ways, some have better footnotes than others, etc.

But that’s often an issue of splitting hairs.

Commentaries are plentiful, and helpful.

As a supplement to reading the Bible, I would suggest you pick up a copy of Fr. Bargil Pixner’s With Jesus Through Galilee: According to the Fifth Gospel it’s from '92 and published by Corazin. It will make your knowledge and experience of reading the Gospels come to life in a beautiful way.

Blessed are you who study the Logos, the Word made flesh,
Deacon Christopher


#20

My NJB is from Doubleday, ©1985, with the Imp. and N.O. Well over 2000 pp. of text.
As to footnoting, an example is at Pro 8:22, under the editors’ subhead Wisdom as Creator. The first note is 3 1/4 column-inches of perhaps 3 point serif text, investigating the one who is the personification. Since wisdom is in the female gender in Hebrew, some had said that it must be Mary. The editors don’t touch on that, but they do give extensive reasoning on why it is Jesus. This has long been the mainstream thought as well. Very thorough scholarship.
I found it interesting that now-Dr Taylor Marshall holds to the Marian view. :slight_smile:


#21

I understand your position. But, one problem in moving from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic into English is those languages are gendered, while English is not.
Example: Ps 115:16, An American Translation, “The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, but the earth has he given to mankind.”
Same, NJB, “Heaven belongs to Yahweh, but earth he has given to the children of Adam.”

I don’t know the underlying Hebrew, but I can’t argue with the more inclusive NJB. “Mankind” doesn’t have children without womankind. Or so I’m told. :slight_smile: Many scriptures use son or sons where the context clearly indicates children is also correct.
Counterexample: Remember those pretty female Hallmark angels with their perfect makeup and flowing robes? Sorry, folks, but “angel” is always masculine in the original languages.


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.