The New Jerusalem Bible (Top Ten Bible Versions #7)
08/04/2006 16:00 Filed in: Faith & Reason
NOTE: Tables in this blog entry do not render correctly in Internet Explorer 6 for Windows.
Introductory Comments. As I have mentioned in an earlier post, some of my selections for my "Top Ten Versions of the Bible" were of a categorical nature. One could not say that the New Jerusalem Bible is my "seventh most used translation." In fact, there are a handful of translations that I reference more frequently than the New Jerusalem Bible which do not even appear on my list. But as I was creating my top ten Bible versions, I wanted to include a Catholic translation. There was never any question regarding which one I would choose. To me, the New Jerusalem Bible stands out. This is my way of saying that I believe the New Jerusalem Bible is the best Catholic translation available in English, although I'm not a Catholic myself. I also believe the New Jerusalem Bible is a fairly good translation for other reasons which I'll describe below.
Essentially, there are three primary Catholic translations in use in North America today (although there are a few more minor ones and a number of Protestant Bibles which also have editions available with the deuterocanonical books such as the NRSV, REB and NLT). The most widely used Catholic translation in North America is the New American Bible (not to be confused with the Protestant New American Standard Bible). The older and more traditional Douay-Rheims Bible (based on the Latin Vulgate) is often preferred among more conservative Catholics. And the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), while not used as much on this continent, is supposedly the most popular translation in other English speaking countries.
History. The NJB is an update to the older Jerusalem Bible, which incidentally included J. R. R. Tolkein of Lord of the Rings fame who contributed as an English stylist primarily working with the Book of Jonah. However, the NJB, like the Jerusalem Bible before it, is essentially an English adaptation to the French Bible de Jérusalem. According to David Dewey (see comments below), "the NJB differs from the JB in that the latter is a translation from the French with reference to the original languages, whereas the former is a translation from the original languages with reference to the French." The NJB update was released in 1985, and since the French version is now in its third revision, some have speculated that the NJB may receive a forthcoming update as well.
My experience with the NJB began in the late 1980's shortly after its publication when I decided to read through a Bible that included the deutercanonical books. I wanted to do this with a Catholic Bible so that these extra "apocryphal" books would be found in their traditional place in the text as opposed to a separate section where most Protestant Bibles place them. In comparing the NJB to the NAB, I found the former to be a bit more of a smoother read, and I still agree with that summation today. I am not as familiar with these translations as I am with others, but the NAB appears to be more formal equivalent (but not as much so as the more formal Protestant translations such as the NASB or even the ESV) and the NJB more dynamic. But overall in my brief examination of the two translations then and now, the NJB seems to be of a better literary quality as well. I'm not going to take the time to demonstrate the differences between the NJB and NAB, but this is the feel I continue to receive when I compare them.
Use of Yahweh for the Divine Name. What I will demonstrate is the value of one of my favorite features of the NJB: it's use of Yahweh for the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH) instead of the traditional LORD (all caps). Very few English Bibles tend to designate God's name in any meaningful way outside of the NJB, American Standard Version of 1901, and the New World Translation. The Holman Christian Standard Bible will make use of Yahweh in certain texts, but they primarily use the traditional LORD.
It is my desire that eventually translations will move away from using LORD for the name of God and begin rendering יהוה as something like Yahweh following the example of the NJB. Two passages will demonstrate the value of this method and highlight one of the NJB's greatest strengths. In contrast to the NJB, I could use any version of the Bible, but I will display the NIV in a parallel column since it is still the most popular translation in the English-speaking world.
In the passages depicted above, Joshua is calling on his fellow Israelites to make a firm decision between serving the old pagan gods of their ancestors and the creator God who rescued them from Egypt. It's significant that Joshua calls the latter God by his name, Yahweh, to distinguish him from these pagan gods. The NIV's use of LORD does not entirely mute this distinction, but I do believe the message is toned down quite a bit. The call for decision is made quite clear in the NJB when Joshua says, "As regards my family and me, we shall serve Yahweh."
A similar situation is found in 1 Kings 18 when the prophet Elijah confronts the priests of Baal. The choice proposed by Elijah is quite clear in the New Jerusalem Bible: "If Yahweh is God, follow him; if Baal follow him." However, the NIV's "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him" begins to become even less precise when you consider that the name Baal also meant "lord."
Another example of the inadequacies of LORD is found when the OT makes specific reference to the divine name. Consider Psalm 83--
Here the psalmist is referring specifically to the name of the God of the Bible to distinguish him from all other gods. God's name is completely lost in the NIV with the phrase, "Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD... " because LORD is a title, not a name. The NJB brings the original message across much clearer with "Let them know that you alone bear the name of Yahweh."
I would suggest that all English translations in the future follow the NJB's lead and use Yahweh for the Tetragrammaton. As mentioned, the HCSB uses it in places (such as 1 Kings 18:21, but not Josh 24:15), but not extensively enough in my opinion. The use of LORD in all caps in English Bibles is certainly insider code--a signal that here is represented the divine name of God. But I challenge you to find ten average church members who can explain this.
Of course this practice of using another word for God's name goes all the way back to the Jews themselves. Out of reverence for the divine name, when reading a Torah scroll aloud, they would substitute the word אדני/adonay ("lord" or "master"). However, as mentioned above, the average church member doesn't understand this, and I would suggest that most Christians don't even realize that God has a name outside of simply "God" or "Lord."
Over the years I've heard two main objections for using Yahweh in the text. The first objection says that "Yahweh" (pronounced "yah-way") is only a guess to the original pronunciation. Originally Hebrew didn't have vowels and pronunciation was maintained merely through the language's use when spoken. Because the Jews avoided pronouncing the name, it's true pronunciation is lost. Plus, who can forget the improper transliteration of "Jehovah" a century ago? However, I would counter that Yahweh is recognized almost across the board in academic writing, and it has begun to be used in popular materials as well, including worship songs. It's use would give more meaning to texts such as those I referred to above.
A second objection states that use of God's name is offensive to Jewish ears. But is it offensive in the text? Would the use of Yahweh in an English text be all that different from יהוה in a Hebrew text? In fact, what I would suggest is that when reading aloud in a context that might give offense to some, the reader could merely substitute the English word Lord in place of Yahweh, in keeping with similar Jewish tradition.
Other Features of the New Jerusalem Bible. Like any translation, the NJB is not perfect and has some quirky features now and then. In John 14:26, the NJB simply transliterates παράκλητος/parakletos as Paraclete, although I'm not sure that this is overly helpful (pun intended; the Greek word means "helper," "comforter," "counselor"). Compare the NIV and and NJB for this verse:
Although there's part of me that's attracted to this use of transliteration, I don't know if it would be all that helpful for the average Bible reader since Paraclete is not part of standard vocabulary outside of more usually academic circles. I don't think it's the same issue as using Yahweh in the Old Testament because Yahweh is a name while Paraclete is a title or functional designation.
On another note, the NJB was one of the first major translations (the first?) to use inclusive gender for humans where the context warranted it. However, I've found that they don't always use it consistently and not as frequently as later translations such as the NRSV, NLT, and TNIV do. For instance, in Matt 4:4, Jesus quotes Deut 8:3 saying, "Human beings live not on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (and technically, I find the "live not" as opposed to "do not live" a bit awkward), thus avoiding a masculine universal such as the traditional man. However in Gen 1:27, man is retained: "God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female, he created them."
I'm always interested in seeing how a translation committee renders a verse like Rev 3:20. For whatever reasons, this verse often seems to provide a challenge for inclusive rendering and many times comes across a bit awkward. I feel that this is the case for the NJB as well: "Look, I am standing at the door, knocking. If one of you hears me calling and opens the door, I will come in to share a meal at that person's side." I find this rendering especially awkward because at the beginning of the second sentence, the translators use the second person to offer a non-exclusive reading, but shift back to third person by the end of the sentence.
Some renderings have a distinctly British sound which may contribute to the lesser use of the NJB in North America. Consider Luke 22:36's use of haversack: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and the same with a haversack; if you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one... ."
Editions of the New jerusalem Bible. To be honest, I'm not completely up on all the editions of the NJB available today, so investigate carefully before you make a purchase sight unseen. Doubleday is the exclusive publisher of the NJB, but I have difficulty determining from their website or even from Amazon's descriptions exactly what some of these editions look like on the inside. [As an aside: I really wish that Bible publishers would include depictions of full-page spreads on their website for each Bible they publish. Some publishers do this and some do not do it all all, and some do it inconsistently for some products and not others. Tyndale seems to be the worst offender by showing a picture of the cover of a Bible which is absolutely meaningless, rather than showing a two-page spread of the actual text.]
From what I can gather, NJB editions are still available in hardback, paperback and even leather editions, but don't expect a lot of variety with any of them. And I'm not sure if any of these reflect the original edition I obtained shortly after the NJB's release in 1985. My copy is a blue cloth-covered hardback that came in a slipcase due to its rather large size. In fact, I would say that this is the thickest Bible I own, even larger than my newly procured TNIV Study BIble (review forthcoming). The off-white paper is thin, but thicker than your average Bible paper, and the text is represented in a a very nice single-column text. Cross-references are on the outer margins and verse numbers are only represented on the inner margins much like the original editions of the New English Bible. Study notes are included, but only on the right page, even when referring to verses on the left page. The notes are a combination of interpretation, background information, but very few of a devotional or applicative nature. Theologically, the notes are often left-leaning, and perhaps could be compared with those of the Oxford Annotated Study Bible, but with a Catholic flavor.
The New Jerusalem Bible is available for most Bible software packages including Accordance, Logos, Bibleworks, and Wordsearch.
To this day, when I need to do any extended reading of the deuterocanonical/ apocryphal books, I turn to the New Jerusalem Bible first (followed probably by the NRSV in preference). I commend this version to you for this use or for a very good translation to go along beside others in your study. If you are a Protestant who does not have a copy of a Catholic Bible, I recommend the NJB as the best of the primary offerings. And if you are Catholic and take your Bible study seriously, I would feel that the NJB is indispensable.
For Further Reading:
- NJB Publisher's Webpage
- NJB Wikipedia Page
- NJB Better Bibles Blog Page
- NJB Bible-Researcher Page
- NJB Online Text
Redacted: 08/05/2006
Up Next: The Good News Translation
Also Coming Soon: This Lamp Review of the TNIV Study Bible
Essentially, there are three primary Catholic translations in use in North America today (although there are a few more minor ones and a number of Protestant Bibles which also have editions available with the deuterocanonical books such as the NRSV, REB and NLT). The most widely used Catholic translation in North America is the New American Bible (not to be confused with the Protestant New American Standard Bible). The older and more traditional Douay-Rheims Bible (based on the Latin Vulgate) is often preferred among more conservative Catholics. And the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), while not used as much on this continent, is supposedly the most popular translation in other English speaking countries.
History. The NJB is an update to the older Jerusalem Bible, which incidentally included J. R. R. Tolkein of Lord of the Rings fame who contributed as an English stylist primarily working with the Book of Jonah. However, the NJB, like the Jerusalem Bible before it, is essentially an English adaptation to the French Bible de Jérusalem. According to David Dewey (see comments below), "the NJB differs from the JB in that the latter is a translation from the French with reference to the original languages, whereas the former is a translation from the original languages with reference to the French." The NJB update was released in 1985, and since the French version is now in its third revision, some have speculated that the NJB may receive a forthcoming update as well.
My experience with the NJB began in the late 1980's shortly after its publication when I decided to read through a Bible that included the deutercanonical books. I wanted to do this with a Catholic Bible so that these extra "apocryphal" books would be found in their traditional place in the text as opposed to a separate section where most Protestant Bibles place them. In comparing the NJB to the NAB, I found the former to be a bit more of a smoother read, and I still agree with that summation today. I am not as familiar with these translations as I am with others, but the NAB appears to be more formal equivalent (but not as much so as the more formal Protestant translations such as the NASB or even the ESV) and the NJB more dynamic. But overall in my brief examination of the two translations then and now, the NJB seems to be of a better literary quality as well. I'm not going to take the time to demonstrate the differences between the NJB and NAB, but this is the feel I continue to receive when I compare them.
Use of Yahweh for the Divine Name. What I will demonstrate is the value of one of my favorite features of the NJB: it's use of Yahweh for the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH) instead of the traditional LORD (all caps). Very few English Bibles tend to designate God's name in any meaningful way outside of the NJB, American Standard Version of 1901, and the New World Translation. The Holman Christian Standard Bible will make use of Yahweh in certain texts, but they primarily use the traditional LORD.
It is my desire that eventually translations will move away from using LORD for the name of God and begin rendering יהוה as something like Yahweh following the example of the NJB. Two passages will demonstrate the value of this method and highlight one of the NJB's greatest strengths. In contrast to the NJB, I could use any version of the Bible, but I will display the NIV in a parallel column since it is still the most popular translation in the English-speaking world.
| JOSHUA 24:14-15 | |
|---|---|
New International Version |
New Jerusalem Bible |
| Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. | So now, fear Yahweh and serve him truly and sincerely; banish the gods whom your ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve Yahweh. But if serving Yahweh seems a bad thing to you, today you must make up your minds whom you do mean to serve, whether the gods whom your ancestors served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are now living. As regards my family and me, we shall serve Yahweh. |
In the passages depicted above, Joshua is calling on his fellow Israelites to make a firm decision between serving the old pagan gods of their ancestors and the creator God who rescued them from Egypt. It's significant that Joshua calls the latter God by his name, Yahweh, to distinguish him from these pagan gods. The NIV's use of LORD does not entirely mute this distinction, but I do believe the message is toned down quite a bit. The call for decision is made quite clear in the NJB when Joshua says, "As regards my family and me, we shall serve Yahweh."
A similar situation is found in 1 Kings 18 when the prophet Elijah confronts the priests of Baal. The choice proposed by Elijah is quite clear in the New Jerusalem Bible: "If Yahweh is God, follow him; if Baal follow him." However, the NIV's "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him" begins to become even less precise when you consider that the name Baal also meant "lord."
Another example of the inadequacies of LORD is found when the OT makes specific reference to the divine name. Consider Psalm 83--
| PSALM 83:16-18 | |
|---|---|
New International Version |
New Jerusalem Bible |
Cover their faces with shame so that men will seek your name, O LORD. |
Shame written all over their faces, let them seek your name, Yahweh! Dishonour and terror be always theirs, death also and destruction. Let them know that you alone bear the name of Yahweh, Most High over all the earth. |
Here the psalmist is referring specifically to the name of the God of the Bible to distinguish him from all other gods. God's name is completely lost in the NIV with the phrase, "Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD... " because LORD is a title, not a name. The NJB brings the original message across much clearer with "Let them know that you alone bear the name of Yahweh."
I would suggest that all English translations in the future follow the NJB's lead and use Yahweh for the Tetragrammaton. As mentioned, the HCSB uses it in places (such as 1 Kings 18:21, but not Josh 24:15), but not extensively enough in my opinion. The use of LORD in all caps in English Bibles is certainly insider code--a signal that here is represented the divine name of God. But I challenge you to find ten average church members who can explain this.
Of course this practice of using another word for God's name goes all the way back to the Jews themselves. Out of reverence for the divine name, when reading a Torah scroll aloud, they would substitute the word אדני/adonay ("lord" or "master"). However, as mentioned above, the average church member doesn't understand this, and I would suggest that most Christians don't even realize that God has a name outside of simply "God" or "Lord."
Over the years I've heard two main objections for using Yahweh in the text. The first objection says that "Yahweh" (pronounced "yah-way") is only a guess to the original pronunciation. Originally Hebrew didn't have vowels and pronunciation was maintained merely through the language's use when spoken. Because the Jews avoided pronouncing the name, it's true pronunciation is lost. Plus, who can forget the improper transliteration of "Jehovah" a century ago? However, I would counter that Yahweh is recognized almost across the board in academic writing, and it has begun to be used in popular materials as well, including worship songs. It's use would give more meaning to texts such as those I referred to above.
A second objection states that use of God's name is offensive to Jewish ears. But is it offensive in the text? Would the use of Yahweh in an English text be all that different from יהוה in a Hebrew text? In fact, what I would suggest is that when reading aloud in a context that might give offense to some, the reader could merely substitute the English word Lord in place of Yahweh, in keeping with similar Jewish tradition.
Other Features of the New Jerusalem Bible. Like any translation, the NJB is not perfect and has some quirky features now and then. In John 14:26, the NJB simply transliterates παράκλητος/parakletos as Paraclete, although I'm not sure that this is overly helpful (pun intended; the Greek word means "helper," "comforter," "counselor"). Compare the NIV and and NJB for this verse:
| JOHN 14:26 | |
|---|---|
New International Version |
New Jerusalem Bible |
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. |
but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you. |
Although there's part of me that's attracted to this use of transliteration, I don't know if it would be all that helpful for the average Bible reader since Paraclete is not part of standard vocabulary outside of more usually academic circles. I don't think it's the same issue as using Yahweh in the Old Testament because Yahweh is a name while Paraclete is a title or functional designation.
On another note, the NJB was one of the first major translations (the first?) to use inclusive gender for humans where the context warranted it. However, I've found that they don't always use it consistently and not as frequently as later translations such as the NRSV, NLT, and TNIV do. For instance, in Matt 4:4, Jesus quotes Deut 8:3 saying, "Human beings live not on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (and technically, I find the "live not" as opposed to "do not live" a bit awkward), thus avoiding a masculine universal such as the traditional man. However in Gen 1:27, man is retained: "God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female, he created them."
I'm always interested in seeing how a translation committee renders a verse like Rev 3:20. For whatever reasons, this verse often seems to provide a challenge for inclusive rendering and many times comes across a bit awkward. I feel that this is the case for the NJB as well: "Look, I am standing at the door, knocking. If one of you hears me calling and opens the door, I will come in to share a meal at that person's side." I find this rendering especially awkward because at the beginning of the second sentence, the translators use the second person to offer a non-exclusive reading, but shift back to third person by the end of the sentence.
Some renderings have a distinctly British sound which may contribute to the lesser use of the NJB in North America. Consider Luke 22:36's use of haversack: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and the same with a haversack; if you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one... ."
Editions of the New jerusalem Bible. To be honest, I'm not completely up on all the editions of the NJB available today, so investigate carefully before you make a purchase sight unseen. Doubleday is the exclusive publisher of the NJB, but I have difficulty determining from their website or even from Amazon's descriptions exactly what some of these editions look like on the inside. [As an aside: I really wish that Bible publishers would include depictions of full-page spreads on their website for each Bible they publish. Some publishers do this and some do not do it all all, and some do it inconsistently for some products and not others. Tyndale seems to be the worst offender by showing a picture of the cover of a Bible which is absolutely meaningless, rather than showing a two-page spread of the actual text.]
From what I can gather, NJB editions are still available in hardback, paperback and even leather editions, but don't expect a lot of variety with any of them. And I'm not sure if any of these reflect the original edition I obtained shortly after the NJB's release in 1985. My copy is a blue cloth-covered hardback that came in a slipcase due to its rather large size. In fact, I would say that this is the thickest Bible I own, even larger than my newly procured TNIV Study BIble (review forthcoming). The off-white paper is thin, but thicker than your average Bible paper, and the text is represented in a a very nice single-column text. Cross-references are on the outer margins and verse numbers are only represented on the inner margins much like the original editions of the New English Bible. Study notes are included, but only on the right page, even when referring to verses on the left page. The notes are a combination of interpretation, background information, but very few of a devotional or applicative nature. Theologically, the notes are often left-leaning, and perhaps could be compared with those of the Oxford Annotated Study Bible, but with a Catholic flavor.
The New Jerusalem Bible is available for most Bible software packages including Accordance, Logos, Bibleworks, and Wordsearch.
To this day, when I need to do any extended reading of the deuterocanonical/ apocryphal books, I turn to the New Jerusalem Bible first (followed probably by the NRSV in preference). I commend this version to you for this use or for a very good translation to go along beside others in your study. If you are a Protestant who does not have a copy of a Catholic Bible, I recommend the NJB as the best of the primary offerings. And if you are Catholic and take your Bible study seriously, I would feel that the NJB is indispensable.
For Further Reading:
- NJB Publisher's Webpage
- NJB Wikipedia Page
- NJB Better Bibles Blog Page
- NJB Bible-Researcher Page
- NJB Online Text
Redacted: 08/05/2006
Up Next: The Good News Translation
Also Coming Soon: This Lamp Review of the TNIV Study Bible
|