Talk:Jerusalem Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] A new claim disputed

I would like to dispute the statement in the article that, "The translation uses the dynamic equivalence philosophy...". The dust jacket says it's a literal translation. Image:Jerusalembible-insidecover.JPG Michael2 10:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three other claims disputed

[edit] Original dispute

I would like to dispute three statements on this page.

FIRST STATEMENT: .... J.R.R. Tolkien (although his primary contribution was the translation of Job).

I am 85% certain that Tolkien's contribution was Jonah, not Job.

However, the editing history of this page reveals that this page has gone back and forth on this matter, without ever having sources cited or a discussion on the Talk page. I don't want to contribute another round of this pointlessness. Rather, I will request that someone cite their sources for "Job", if this is your claim.

My sources for Jonah are from Letter 294 in Tolkien's collected letters.

SECOND STATEMENT: The translation itself has been admired for its literary qualities, perhaps in part due to its most famous contributor, J.R.R. Tolkien....

This is absurd. Tolkien was not particularly famous outside of college geek circles until the early 1970's, whereas the JB was a bestseller among Catholics from the date it was released. And Tolkien wasn't universally accepted as a genius until the 1980's or so, by which time the New Jerusalem Bible had been released.

We most certainly should mention Tolkien's role in this Bible, but he can't be given credit for its reputation any more than he can be given credit for the reputation of the Oxford English Dictionary (which has a much greater amount of Tolkien writing in it than the JB does).

THIRD STATEMENT: The English translation was an original translation of the Hebrew and Greek, not a translation of the French, as some critics have charged. However, in passages with more than one interpretation, the French is generally followed....

I am 70% certain that the English New Jerusalem Bible was indeed translated primarily from the French. As just one piece of evidence, consider: Tolkien may have known a little Hebrew but he was not a Hebrew scholar by any means.

Here is one source for this information: fan posting from 2004. This poster asserts that the translation was done from the French by each translator (including Tolkien), and when this was done the General Editor compared the result to the Hebrew. If this is correct (and I submit it's the only way that non-Hebrew reading Tolkien could have participated) then the English translation was most certainly a translation of the French, even though it was corrected by comparison with the original languages. (By way of comparison, the Douay-Rheims Bible is acknowledged to be a translation from the Vulgate, despite the fact that it was compared with the original languages.)

If you disagree, can you cite any sources? Lawrence King 07:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Claims responded to

First Claim You're correct, Tolkien did not translate Job. I think I've corrected it before, but someone, who claims sources, keeps changing it back. Tolkien stated in his letters, as someone pointed out in the article's history, that he translated Jonah.

Second Claim The statement isn't false just because he wasn't famous at the time. He's famous now, so he's the most famous contributor. What's not known is if he had much influence. He only translated one book, but he may have had a more general influence over the style of the whole. [[1]] suggests that he did. Anyway, the word 'perhaps' is in there.

Third Claim You're dead wrong. Well, mostly dead. First, the article above says that "the translation is based upon the Hebrew and Greek as interpreted by the French version." Only the introductions and footnotes were translated from the French.

That's not the whole story though. The third paragraph of the Editor's Forward of the Jerusalem Bible states: "The translation of the biblical text itself could clearly not be made from the French. In the case of a few books in the initial draft was made from the French and was then compared word for word with the Hebrew or Aramaic by the General Editor and was amended where necessary to ensure complete conformity with the ancient text. For the much greater part, the initial drafts were made from the Hebrew or Greek and simultaneously compared with the French when questions of variant reading or interpretation arose." This explains how Tolkien, who I believe only claimed to translate a draft of Jonah, contributed to the translation.

Also, when you mention the New Jerusalem Bible, I'm not sure if you're refering to this or the 1985 translation, but the New Jerusalem Bible was translated entirely from the Hebrew and Greek.

I'm going to go ahead and change Job back to Jonah, and hopefully we can have the dispute box removed soon. [Comment posted at 11:45 28 January 2006, by 24.124.84.133.]

[edit] Response to response

1. Excellent. If someone changes it to Job again... well, we can deal with that when it happens.

2. I find the article you linked to quite unpersuasive. First, there's no date or signature on it; presumaby it was written by Mr. Marlowe (the site's editor) and is therefore quite recent. In particular, Marlowe gives no source for his claim that Tolkien influenced the style. The links I posted above suggest that Tolkien did a small amount of work on Job and on some of the Psalms. That's not enough to influence the style overall. Nonetheless, after re-reading the original sentence (which as you point out has a "perhaps", and more importantly the entire parenthetical phrase after it mitigates the claim. So, even though I wouldn't have phrased the sentence like this myself, I withdraw my objection.

P.S. I have no idea whether you endorse all the claims in the page you linked to, but I was tempted to digress by disputing his claim that the Masoretic text is always the most reliable reading, as well as his (implied) claim that Christians ought to prefer that text. *grin*

3. Rather than argue about whether the original phrasing was correct, I changed the phrasing to reflect the statement that you quoted here. Let me know if you think my changes look good! Lawrence King 05:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to ...

Actually I'm an atheist, so I'd say a critical approach to the Hebrew scriptures makes the most sense. Anyway, Marlowe's site does have a lot of information, especially on specific translations. As for Tolkien, he was probably just thrown in there to get more traffic for the article.

I'm going to go a head and take off the disputed tag, since I don't know of anyone who's disputing the article. [Comment posted at 00:31 29 January 2006 by 24.124.84.133.]

Sounds great. I like disputes where everything gets resolved! Lawrence King 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tolkien's Contribution

From the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien: "Naming me among the 'principal collaborators' was an undeserved courtesy on the part of the editor of the Jerusalem Bible. I was consulted on one or two points of style, and criticised some contributions of others. I was originally assigned a large amount of text to translate, but after doing some necessary preliminary work I was obliged to resign owing to pressure of other work, and only completed 'Jonah', one of the shortest books." So according to the very modest Tolkien himself, he had a very small influence on the overall style of the work. Although I am a big Tolkien fan, I don't like the sentence about his apparently large contribution. It's misleading. Lynchical 07:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Not a translation of the French"

If the General Editor verified every word, then I think it's fair to refer to the Jerusalem Bible's book of Jonah as "a translation of" whichever sources the General Editor verified against, even if Tolkien never saw those sources.

Suppose I start with a copy of Genesis from Luther's German Bible, carefully verify every word against Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint, and change every word that doesn't match. The result would be a German Genesis in which most of the words are Luther's; but the ages of the patriarchs when they begat other patriarchs, and every other point of variance, would agree with Brenton and thus with the Septuagint. Even Brenton's mistakes would be included in my new German Genesis. Wouldn't it be appropriate to call it a German translation of Brenton, even though most of the words were written by someone who died before Brenton was born? -- 68.101.70.80 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compare KJV, Tanach, and Septuagint to Jerusalem

from KJV Ecclesiatates 7:26: And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her. 27: Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: 28: Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. 29: Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

from Jerusalem Bible Ecclesiatates 7:26 And I find woman more bitter than death, she is a snare, her heart is a net, and her arms are chains. The man who is pleasing to God eludes her, but the sinner is captured by her. 27 Behold, this have I found, says Qoleleth, having examined on thing after another to draw some conclusion, 28 which I am still looking for, although unsuccessfully: one man in a thousand I may find, but a woman better than other women, never.


The Jerusalem Bible makes it sound like all women are a snare to men, and that no woman is any better than any other.


from the Artscroll Stone Tanach Ecclesiastes 7:26 And I have discovered more bitter than death: the woman who is snares, whose heart is nets, whose arms are chains. He who is pleasing to God escapes her but the sinner is caught by her. 27 This is what I found, said Koheles, adding one to another to reach a conclusion, which yet my soul seeks but I have not found. One man in a thousand I have found, but one woman among them I have not found.

from the Septuagint (Brenton English translation) Ecclesiastes 7:27 Amd I find her to be, and I will pronounce to be more bitter than death the woman which is a snare, and her heart nets, who has a band in her hands: he that is good in the sight of God shal be delivered from her. 28 Behold, this I have found, said the Preacher, seeking by one at a time to find out the account, which my soul sought after, but I found not: for I have found one man of a thousand; but a woman in all these I have not found.

[edit] About the French

I am almost certain that none of it was translated from the French. It is my understanding that multiple ancient manuscripts were used to compile the French version and that it is this same METHOD used to create the English version. It is my understanding that the NJB was revised in much the same way. Here are some sources that are not wiki citation quality but at least have some references... http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerusalem-bible.html and http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-jerusalem-bible.html (CptKirk 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Official status and inclusive language of New Jerusalem Bible

My concern about the language CptKirk has added here and to the New Jerusalem Bible article is to make sure it is accurate. For example, what is "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. What we are lacking is 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 CptKirk added to the NJB article 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.) 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 edit in question doesn't meet that standard. Any edit that does will not meet with resistance from me; I have no agenda here except preserving the article's factuality. But someone will have to do the research to produce an accurate statement of what authority, with what motivation and what specific practical effects, has placed a stricture on the use of the NJB. Wareh 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will just repeat too what I wrote on the other article for the sake of consistancy. 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)) (CptKirk 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC))
It is inconvenient to try to conduct the conversation in two places. Anyone seeking the background for the treatment of this issue in this article should be sure to look at Talk:New Jerusalem Bible, where I hope a well-informed and careful consensus will emerge. Wareh 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Any sources for the claim that it is considered to be one of the best English bible translations of the 20th century?