Talk:New Jerusalem Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

It'd be a good idea to write, for each translation of the Bible, if it's in British or American English, and to provide a link to a page giving the list of countries whose bishops conference have approved the use of that version in liturgy, if any. --Henri de Solages 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Edition

When will the third edition of the JB be available in English, and how different is it ?

[edit] On the NJB, Inclusive Language and official Bibles...

A few articles on the Holy See, Bible translations and inclusive language problems... google with splash out a ton of results.. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=new+jerusalem+Bible+inclusive+language+vatican&btnG=Search http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1995/feb1995p14_791.html <-- About the Vatican on inclusive language and Bibles. http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm says "7. New Jerusalem Bible (1990). A revision of the Jerusalem Bible directly from the original languages. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy, but is considered a very literary text, and comparable in quality to the NRSV in scholarship." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CptKirk (talk • contribs).

My concern about the language you've added here and to the Jerusalem Bible Article is to make sure it is accurate. For example, define "an official Catholic Bible." The New Jerusalem Bible is in fact used officially by the Church in much of the English-speaking world. It received the censor's nihil obstat and the Archbishop of Westminster's imprimatur when it was published in 1985. More to the point, here's a statement directly from the Liturgy Office of the Catholic Church in England and Wales stating, "The Bishops' Conference of England and Wales has approved the following versions of Scripture for use in the Liturgy," and going on to name the New Jerusalem Bible. Yes, there is an asterisk explaining that it "may not be used to produce a Lectionary without the express permission of the Conference," but now we're getting into the footnotes. Your unannotated list of weblinks does not provide any demonstration that (1) the NJB has been denied official status in general, (2) that its use of inclusive language, where it does use inclusive language, has debarred the translation from being "official" per se. The link you've added as a reference to this article's text does not even mention the New Jerusalem Bible! (It is well known, in any case, that the NRSV goes much further than the NJB in inclusive language.)

Finally, I fail to grasp the rationale of your deletion of the external links. What could be more relevant to this article on a Bible translation than a freely available online copy of much of that translation? Or than an article by the man who did the lion's share of the work on the NJB, explaining aspects of its history that are not available elsewhere?

In a nutshell, if we're going to add material to the article, it has to be correct information, verifiable from a reliable source, and precisely stated. I hope it is clear from my comments why the edits in question don't meet that standard. Any edits that do will not meet with resistance from me; I have no agenda here except preserving the article's factuality. Do the research to produce an accurate statement of what authority, with what motivation, and what practical effects has placed a stricture on the use of this translation. Wareh 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on keeping standards but I don't think we can avoid that the * which says "These versions may not be used to produce a Lectionary without the express permission of the Conference." is there for good reason. This is because the other sacred scriptures which don't have the * can be used without consultation. The point being, the RCC objects to some verses in the NJB and that is why it is there. It OBJECTS to parts of this particular Bible. It doesn't considered some parts sacred scripture. And that is the key to understanding why it is not an official Bible. I feel this is demonstrated by the Pope best who was made statements about this very issue in the reference I pointed out. I know it doesn;t say the NJB but obviously it is for the same reason which seems to be mentioned on quite a few cites. I understand that the people who put the NJB together don't like this, personally I was shocked to find out myself, but that's life. We always have the official JB and who knows maybe some day a new JB will come out without inclusive language. Until that time this article should at least cover the topic of this inclusive language problem that the Church has with Bibles. (CptKirk 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

This rather doesn't answer the question. How is it that inclusive language renders the NJB a "non-official translation" in the Church's eyes? Once again, the NRSV has more inclusive language than the NJB, and it is a standard source for a great many English-language lectionaries. Slac speak up! 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sacred Scripture is no longer Sacred Scripture if there is a problem with the translation or the translation method. Can u subscribe to this or not? The Book of Genesis is not the Book of Genesis if the Church thinks it a corrupted translation. For example Exodus in the NJB would be seen as corrupt version of Exodus, and not the Book of Exodus, even if it is just some verses. When a corrupt version of Exodus is then used as part of a 'bible' then the instance of the Bible is corrupted. This is the core reason why many Protestant Bibles are rejected as Sacred Scripture, right? Even the highly praised RSV had to go through a CE revision, to be deemed fit for Church usage. For example we got rid of all the other English Bibles and maybe lost the original material, then the Church would be seriously in error reproducing inclusive language that was never in the original and may give grounds to future critic that the Church corrupted the Bible. While I accept that the verses in question are probably not so many and the NJB contains BETTER translations than the JB, the Church still wants to see exactly what you are quoting and will probably ask that the inclusive languages verses be replaced by the ones from the JB or RSV-CE. I don't claim to be 100% right, but I know this is the deal with the NJB when citing it as a reference for Church publications. (CptKirk 05:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I think we're still going around in circles a bit here. What's the definition of "official"? If we were to define it, it would have to be based on nihil obstat and imprimatur. Further than that we couldn't really go, other than to note in passing that the latest Vulgate is endorsed by the Church, as are scriptures in the original languages. As for Protestant translations, quite a few of them - the NRSV springs first to mind - are used by the Church. Protestant editions are not, since typically they exclude the Deuterocanonical books (one notable exception to this are the earliest editions of the KJV). Nothing that receives a valid imprimatur contains doctrinal error, by definition.

I'm not really sure what to say to the last part of your post - it seems it might be based on personal opinion. Again, I say that the Church makes use of inclusive-language translations in English-language liturgy, so I don't know what singles out the NJB. The question of whether or not to use inclusive language is really one of style rather than one of accuracy - certainly the Church would not hold, for example, that Saint Paul only addressed men in his writings, and that the 9th commandment applies only to men. Slac speak up! 11:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not going to be reliable and factual if it is based on "but obviously," etc., without any record that this is the case. I think it would be quite a challenge to find an official Catholic source endorsing the view that the NJB contains a "corrupt version of Exodus" (when, as Slac points out, the book's imprimatur certifies that it "is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error"). Without sources, both the claim that the NJB has been officially declared "unofficial" and the claim that official objections have been made to its inclusive language will have to count as speculation and cannot stay in the article. Writing OBJECTS in all caps does not produce an actual source for the still-unsourced claim, "the RCC objects to some verses in the NJB." (And this is too vague anyway: we need the specific and correct term for a specific, documented policy or announcement.) On the other hand, we do have a reliable source (the English/Welsh Bishops) for one (and as far as I can tell, only one) of CptKirk's additions. But so far, the statement as supported by our source is so weak and uninteresting that I don't see what it adds to the article: "In England and Wales, the New Jerusalem Bible has been approved for use in the Liturgy, but may be used to produce a Lectionary only with the express permission of the Bishops' Conference." (If you think about it, the fact that they reserve the right to grant such permission to themselves by itself disproves CptKirk's insinuation that there is some kind of official decree to keep this from happening.) Really, if the article is going to address the liturgical adoption and exclusion of the NJB, it needs accurate information from several countries (Canada springs to mind). Wareh 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is a dilemma over what is official, but the dilemma has nothing really to do with the official declarations on these bibles and other related literature, as I will show. You are correct in pointing to the nihil obstat which is a declaration of the item being free from Catholic doctrinal or moral error and the imprimatur that says the same thing. However we must also note within context that neither supersedes the authority of a Bishop. What is an official Catholic Bible? The answer to that is whatever YOUR Bishop tells you are the official Bibles. If he gets it wrong, you can show him otherwise, but in the end if he is adamant about something, you can only really see the Magisterium correcting him on what YOUR official Bibles should have been.

• What do you think of this?

A Bishop can stop his congregation from using a Bible, and correct Catholics who do use it. He can also push a Bible too. We can read this in the text itself "The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed." This is interesting isn’t it? A person’s Bible interpretation may not reflect the views of their Bishop. Once we understand this I think the next point can be made.

• Many Bishops and head prefects have come out against “inclusive language” in sacred scripture. For this reason we see the warnings in the footnotes on the approved Catholic Bible list. I believe the NJB is probably an official Bible after all, so that part of the article will have to be reworded. Maybe we should note the same footnote warning that is supposed to be seen by the theologian who is putting together an article for Church usage. A Bishop is supposed to enforce this stuff isn’t he? Even more persuasive is the fact that a number of instances of these relevant commissions were chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope!
• The NRSV use by the Catholic Church in Canada was actually started without permission by Canadian Bishops, on their own authority, without the permission of Holy See. However the Holy See allowed Canadian Bishops to make interim use of the NRSV, which is only a temporary usage, and restricted to Canada [1].
• We are seeing (1)Catholic Bibles that are approved for liturgical use. (2)Catholic Bibles that are approved for litugirical use with restrictions (this is what the NJB falls under). (3)Catholic Bibles that are not approved for liturgical use. More importantly all of these conditions are subject to change from country to country. (CptKirk 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Okay, you're saying, "What is an official Catholic Bible? The answer to that is whatever YOUR Bishop tells you are the official Bibles." That was the point of my citing a Bishops' Conference. The problem here is that we would need a lot of (lacking) information about the approvals given or withheld by a great number of Bishops in several different countries. If we make a blanket statement, then we're in real danger of missing the fact that some Bishop may well have approved it; as you say, it doesn't really matter whether his decision to do so "enforces" a general sentiment held among Vatican officials, as his authority will stand unless something very specific and official happens higher up (and no one here has cited any such conflicts re the NJB). If we had a lot of information about the English-speaking world's Bishops' actual policies about the NJB, then, perhaps, we could add a section on "Approval of the New Jerusalem Bible for Liturgical Use," giving some kind of accurate synoptic information on where it has been approved, or not, with what qualifications. So far we have zilch on this, but I encourage you to do the research to get more. In my opinion, which I hope you'll seriously consider, our goal should be a simple sentence: "In {provinces X Y Z of the Church} Bishops' Conferences have approved the NJB for the Liturgy but have so far withheld their permission for Lectionary use." Note that, as of now, we don't even have the evidence that the English and Welsh Bishops' Conf. has withheld their permission; I suspect it's the case, but we'll need confirmation. I'll go ahead soon and restore these passages to their prior state. When you do find the still-missing documentation to improve the article's information, it can be inserted in a neutral and factual way (I hope, with consensus and discussion on this talk page). Wareh 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some interesting developments

Yes something like that would probably resolve this. I have removed the official stuff and included instead a reference to the footnote in [2] about seeking permission before use business for the meantime. Obviously your solution is much more the muscle because it is precise. However getting that info is hard work it seems. http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en for Vatican.va reveals nothing on the phrase New Jerusalem Bible which is bad news in that department because Holy See usage on their official Vatican published stuff would mean a lot. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19800416it.html for example uses the JB. However then something sprang to mind. What is the Holy See’s statement on Bibles that have inclusive language. It appears it has rejected Bibles that contain inclusive language and that the various criteria involved is apparently part of some ‘secret norms’ that Bishops are informed about. Nice move isn’t it? Only they know what is wrong with each Bible and which parts are in question. I think finding a Bishop who read the following Vatican statements would know the fate of the NJB in terms of liturgical use. We shouldn't really say it is for liturgical use I feel on the bases of the following statement even though I edited the article to reflect liturigical quality with conditions. I feel that we may need to include inclusive language Bibles are firmly rejected by the Holy See except in special circumstances (as in the NRSV in Canada).

• I quote “Editor's Note: While not mentioning the term "inclusive language" as such, the Holy See has conclusively rejected the possibility of inclusive language devices for biblical translation. The so-called "secret norms" for translation of biblical texts for use in the liturgy were sent to all bishops two weeks before their June meeting in a confidential packet of documentation on the proposed Lectionary for Mass. (The Vatican norms were published in the July 4, 1997 issue of the National Catholic Reporter.) So I feel maybe the reference we cited here that says the NJB is for liturgical use is in error. There is a major article on it here... [3] Here IS another link which seems to mention The Vatican Norms. [4] (CptKirk 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

The reference you've cited again says nothing about the New Jerusalem Bible; it's an inference you're drawing. The inference may well be right, but we still need all to keep looking for something official that makes this connection. Meanwhile, our only source so far makes it clear that, in fact, the Bishops hold the power to approve parts of the NJB for Lectionary use (and for all we know may even have granted it in some instance). I'm not the one who reverted to my last edit (it was from an anonymous IP), but I think that's the right move until we have sources giving more interesting information. As long as our sources don't mention the NJB & are about general Vatican principles and statements about inclusive language, they belong in a more general article than here (say, an article about Bible translation philosophies). Note that your article from adoremus.org ends with a section entitled "Conflict Unresolved?" That's the whole point: this is not a clearly resolved issue, and we've yet to see any definitive result of how the conflict between competing views will be negotiated. Obviously, it remains possible that either side may move towards compromise, which the "Vatican Norms" seem to allow considerable room for. Wareh 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We are excluding here is that official Bibles for liturgical use are stated by the Holy See. The NJB does not have this declairation as (1)there is no official document that states the NJB is for liturgical use. There is one web site that covers it for liturgical use with restrictions. (2)There do not appear to be any instance of the NJB being used in any liturgical works as far as I can tell. (3)The vatican has spoken clearly against inclusive language Bibles. (4)The NRSV is the only inclusive language Bible that has been given a temporary special test run in the Canadian liturgy. (5)Really right now the NJB can only be called a 'Catholic Bible' and really the article should pair back on any Catholic orientation as to its quality. (CptKirk 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC))