After using the Good News Bible all the time I decided I needed a change. The language of the Good News Bible was just too simple without much substance for me. So I ordered a New Jerusalem Bible. What are your opinions on the New Jerusalem Bible, the advantages and disadvantages? Thanks
The thing I don’t like about the NJB is that it has inclusive language. Mother Angelica doesn’t think highly of it. Its text isn’t bad. Beware of some mutilated passages like Luke 1:28 and Matthew 6:9-13. It is safe for Catholics to read so other than that, its your call
I see what you mean about Matthew 6:9-13. I think the GNB mutilated it to. It says ‘Our Father who is in heaven: May your holy name be honoured; may your Kingdom come; may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today the food we need. Forgive us the wrongs we done, as we forgive the wrongs that others have done to us. Do not bring us to hard testing, but keep us safe from the evil one’
Some of these passages it just isn’t what it should be. Matthew 18:11 is another example in most Bibles. It has either been relegated to a footnote or omitted. Mark 9:29 is also the same. It should be prayer and fasting and most modern Bibles omit the word fasting
It’s an excellent translation and I use it quite a lot myself. There is some inclusive language but, IMO, not enough to be obnoxious or to alter the meaning of texts like the NAB does.
There is a new version coming out called “The Bible in Its Traditions.” To be honest I’m a little confused about what is going to be different about the new version.
Sheesh! I’ve seen leetspeak with better grammar.
I’ve got something called The Jerusalem Bible, Reader’s Edition which I like. They have a good system for labeling versus. I also like the fact that it uses Yahweh.
The Jerusalem Bible is the older (1966, I think) translation. It does not have inclusive language and is approved for liturgical use in English-speaking countries.
The NJB should do well for me. Maybe at a later stage I’ll get the RSV-2CE for closer Bible study. Thank you all for your advice.
- I think the GNB mutilated it to. It says 'Our Father who is in heaven: May your holy name be honoured;
Gramatically, this should be "Our Father who ARE in heaven…"
Yes, it states that the original is from 1966. In the preface it says that the Readers Edition is a little more approachable than the original. This is good for me. It is also Catholic approved.
I took a course at the local seminary which did the Old Testament up to Judges. We would sometimes be asked to read a verse from our bible. The teacher had a Greek bible. Occasionally he would state that the translation in someone’s bible is not exactly correct. He never said that about a verse from my bible so I’d guess that at least as far as the OT goes it’s a pretty good translation.
As I posted before, the notations about where a verse begins are a real plus. The down side is that this bible does not have enough footnotes to explain stuff about the verses.
This will probably get me screamed at but you might also check out the English Standard Version. It’s a very good translation - very accurate and very readable - but it was done by Protestants which causes some folks to have a cow. They have an edition with the deuterocanonical books.
Based on what?
The Greek literally reads:
“The Father of us in the heavens”
It seems the GNB was giving the more recognizable rending from the KJV but in modern English…
Saying “are” is more archaic
I like the ESV, except for one verse which really grinds my gears:
1 Timothy 3:15- if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
The problem with that is that is what the Greek says. There’s no definite article in the Greek. I started a thread about this issue a few months ago. A lot of Catholic versions in other languages also use the indefinite article.
But in the Greek there is no indefinite article,
So more literally it would be:
1 Timothy 3:15- if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, pillar and buttress of the truth.
while using the indefinite article is justifiable, it does bring up theological questions on what the Church is.
It’s not too different from the Jehovah’s Witness rendering of John 1:1
“**John 1:1 (NWT)- **In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
I use the Latin as my “authoritative” Bible, if you will, in terms of faith and morals:
1 Timotheum 3:15- si autem tardavero, ut scias quomodo oporteat in domo Dei conversari, quae est ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis.
the Latin has no article there
I meant to say:
In Greek there is no indefinite article***
I don’t know Greek and can only go based on what I’ve read from those who do. It is my understanding that Greek has no indefinite article. In this case, the context assumes it. Using the indefinite article does no damage to the belief that the Church is a pillar of the truth. As I mentioned, many non-English Catholic Bibles also use an indefinite article here.
While your Latin Vulgate is considered authoritative about faith and morals, it is not when it comes to translation.
You’re completely right, but when it comes to arguing for “a pillar” you get arguments like this:
So I generally wouldn’t recommend the ESV to anyone if there was a better option. Unfortunately, the ESV is actually a very good translation overall and generally better than most modern Catholic Bibles (especially with its lack of inclusive language and its 21st century textual basis).
Note the subtle inconsistency with:
1 Tim 3:15 (ESV): I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.
the definite article in front of “household” is also absent in the Greek but it is implied by most translators :shrug:
Good points and I would be way out of my league trying to address them. However, I don’t see the use of the indefinite article as being a big deal. The Church does not cease to be a pillar based on the article used. Catholicism is certainly not free to teach something the Bible says is untrue, so what’s the big deal?