New American Bible vs. New Jerusalem Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cary.Melvin

Roman Orthodox
Sep 3, 2003
822
32
48
Ocala, FL
✟1,143.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What is the difference between these two translations?

The Jerusalem Bible (revised now as the New Jerusalem Bible) was published first in 1966. Why did the American Bishops want their own translation for the United States? And why does Canada use yet another translation (the New Revised Standad Version)?

Why can't all of the Catholic English speaking countries get on the same page as far as Bible translations?

BTW: I personally use the New Jerusalem Bible (Even though I am an American).
 

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,479
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
the New Jerusalem Bible is not the same as the Jerusalem Bible.
And the NJB is a more dynamic (And highly accurate) translation, whereas the NAB is a more literal (and also highly accurate) translation.
I find the NAB to be klunky to read, and prefer the NJB to any other translation available.
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
garydench said:
I use the NJ too. It's far more scholarly.
Maybe the Jerusalem (1966 edition and now the New Jerusalem) have terrific footnotes, but the Jerusalem is still a "meaning-for-meaning" translation while the New American is a "word-for-word" translation. In the Jerusalem's effort to make things more understandable, pure poetry and how things were always known have been sacrificed (case in point, The Our Father -- Luke 11:2-4 and Matthew 6:9-13 is not like that that is normally recited in Mass).

Then there is the fact that the New Jerusalem (not the 1966 edition nor the NAB--except for the Psalms in the NAB) has inclusive language. Inclusive language is often "stilted" and the emphasis is on the horizontal and I have heard that it has at times accidently excluded Messianic references in an effort to be "politcally correct". (I seem to vaguely recall that the Vatican has said that inclusive language is not to be used in the Liturgy--anyone else have more information on that?)

BTW I have BOTH the 1966 Jerusalem translation AND the NAB. I don't intend to get the New Jerusalem even though there have been one or two words that have been clarified in the New because of more archeological advances since the 1966 printing.
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Merely said that it uses inclusive language--you know, instead of "mankind", you'll have "he or she" or "humankind" or something along those lines.

I've used the Jerusalem in Bible Study and have had people also use the New Jerusalem in the same Bible Study. It's great for just reading, but it is not used in the Liturgy (in the U.S.).

As far as the New Revised Standard Version of Canada--it has inclusive language and my parish tried to experiment with it at Liturgy (and bought the various books to use at Mass), but I do think some sort of document was promulated that specifically stated that an inclusive language translation was not to be used in Liturgy, because shortly afterward we returned to using the NAB and so all that money was wasted.

Believe that the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) of the Ignatius Bible is more "up-to-date", but doesn't use inclusive language.

Editted to say:

According to the book, MASS CONFUSION by James Akin, there are currently no lectionaries based on the New Jerusalem Bible OR the New Resised Standard Version. The Canadian bishops' conference has been given TEMPORARY permission to use an NRSV Lectionary IN CANADA ONLY. The Holy See prohibits attempts to gender revise texts in order to fit a modern social-political agenda.
 
Upvote 0

Irenaeus

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus!
May 16, 2004
6,574
518
USA
✟18,468.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't like the NAB. I heard the Jerusalem Bible was good, though.

The people that compiled the study for the NAB Catholic Bible included several Protestant scholars, several of which have reading guides in the preface, and their notes are similarly...questionable.

I discussed this with Michelina in another thread...we've both noticed the Enlightenment-style Biblical text criticism, a near denial of miracles, eisegetically imposed feminism, etc. The NAB footnotes are a minefield.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michelina

.
Site Supporter
Nov 6, 2003
13,640
663
✟19,733.00
Faith
Catholic
AMDG said:
The Holy See prohibits attempts to gender revise texts in order to fit a modern social-political agenda.

Thank God the Holy See acted on this, just in the nick of time. (I do NOT want to live in a gender-neutral world!)

Irenaeus said:
The NAB footnotes are a minefield.

That's it, in a nutshell, Irenaeus.
 
Upvote 0

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,479
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It is not the mere existence of inclusive language that is a problem with translations... it is the abuse of them in particular areas - hence the reason the psalms had to be revised in the orginal NAB - which is a literal translation btw.
the NJB is not a liberal translation, and should never be confused as being one.. it is very orthodox.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cary.Melvin

Roman Orthodox
Sep 3, 2003
822
32
48
Ocala, FL
✟1,143.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
geocajun said:
It is not the mere existence of inclusive language that is a problem with translations... it is the abuse of them in particular areas - hence the reason the psalms had to be revised in the orginal NAB - which is a literal translation btw.
the NJB is not a liberal translation, and should never be confused as being one.. it is very orthodox.
Why do they keep revising the NAB? In the Mid-eightys, the New Testament was completely revised. The Psalms were also revised in the early ninetys and I have heard that the Old Testament has been under revision for some time.

Was there something just fundamentaly wrong with the NAB that nessecitated all of these revisions?
 
Upvote 0

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,479
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Cary.Melvin said:
Why do they keep revising the NAB? In the Mid-eightys, the New Testament was completely revised. The Psalms were also revised in the early ninetys and I have heard that the Old Testament has been under revision for some time.

Was there something just fundamentaly wrong with the NAB that nessecitated all of these revisions?
well translation does take into account theological advancements, and this can be good or bad depending on the editor/translator of the Sacred Scripture. Also, errors which are identified are corrected.
Heck, we even saw the DRV refreshed by Bishop Challoner :)
 
Upvote 0

Cary.Melvin

Roman Orthodox
Sep 3, 2003
822
32
48
Ocala, FL
✟1,143.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here is an interesting article about the NAB:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html

The New American Bible

Louis F. Hartman and Myles M. Bourke, eds., The New American Bible, Translated from the Original Languages, with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources, by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Sponsored by the Bishops' Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Paterson, N.J.: St. Anthony Guild Press. 1970.

The history of this Roman Catholic version is rather complicated. It was undertaken with the support and oversight of the American hierarchy after Pope Pius XII in 1943 issued an encyclical letter (the Divino afflante Spiritu) in which he encouraged Roman Catholic scholars to make translations of the Bible from the original languages rather than from the Latin Vulgate, which previously had been the basic text used by Catholic translators. At that time a new translation from the Vulgate, called the Confraternity Version, was already underway in America, the New Testament having been published in 1941. The corresponding translation of the Latin Old Testament was abandoned after the Pope's encyclical gave permission to translate from the Hebrew, and work began on a translation of the Hebrew, with Louis F. Hartman as the chief editor. This translation of the Old Testament gradually appeared in four volumes in 1951, l955, 1961, and 1969. Work on a new translation of the Greek New Testament (based on the Nestle-Aland 25th edition) began in 1956, with Myles M. Bourke as the chief editor. The completed Bible, as published in 1970, contained a substantial revision of the Old Testament portions which had earlier been published. The 1970 version of Genesis was an entirely new translation. Shortly after the publication of the complete Bible, the American bishops decided that the 1970 NAB New Testament was too paraphrastic for general use, (1) and so the New Testament was "revised" (translated anew, really, on different principles, from the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland) and published in 1986. This new translation of the New Testament was for the most part more literal, but it employed "dynamic equivalence" in places for the sake of gender-neutral language. The Book of Psalms was similarly "revised" in 1991. Therefore, the most recent editions of the NAB include the 1970 Old Testament, 1991 Psalter, and 1986 New Testament, though some older editions are still in print. A revision of the entire Old Testament, excluding the Psalter, is currently underway, and this is expected to be published in 2003.

Pope John Paul II and other Vatican officials were not happy with this version, mainly because of the inclusive language, which was mandated by liturgical guidelines issued by a committee of the U.S. Catholic Conference in 1990 (2) but specifically disallowed by the provisional norms for translation of biblical texts sent by Vatican officials to American Bishops in June of 1997, (3) and also disallowed by the translation guidelines formally promulgated in an Instruction published by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in March 2001. (4) And so, although the NAB is the "official" translation of the U.S. Conference of Bishops, it became necessary for the Scripture portions included in the liturgy of the English Mass to be revised. A complete overhaul so as to remove the inclusive language from the version, in accordance with the liturgical guidelines of the Vatican, would seem to be the next logical step; but this is unlikely to happen because opposition to the Vatican guidelines is very strong in the American hierarchy. Richard John Neuhaus described the confused state of affairs surrounding Roman Catholic Bible versions in 2001:


At present, three translations are approved for Catholic liturgical use: the New Jerusalem, the RSV, and the New American Bible (NAB). The lectionaries and the several publishers of Mass guides, however, use only the NAB. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a wretched translation. It succeeds in being, at the same time, loose, stilted, breezy, vulgar, opaque, and relentlessly averse to literary grace. The bishops had the NAB updated to the Revised New American Bible (RNAB), but Rome had objections to that and hurriedly appointed a committee to fix it up into what might be called the Amended Revised New American Bible (ARNAB), which will soon become mandatory in lectionary use. Technically, the RSV and New Jerusalem are still permitted but, with ARNAB as the mandatory translation of the future, nobody has any interest in printing lectionaries or Mass guides using those versions. There is the additional oddity that you cannot buy an ARNAB Bible, since only the pericopes (liturgical readings) exist in ARNAB-talk. So Catholics do not have a Bible for personal or group reading that uses the same text that they hear at Mass. (5)



 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.