NJB (New Jerusalem Bible)
Online access to the NJB.
about the NJB:
"This translation, often used in the Catholic Church, follows the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. For the Old Testament the "Masoretic Text" established in the 8-9th centuries AD by Jewish scholars, is used. Only when this presents insuperable difficulties have emendations or other versions, such as the ancient Greek translation begun in 200 BC at Alexandria, the "Septuagint" (LXX), been used."
about the NJB:
"This translation, often used in the Catholic Church, follows the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. For the Old Testament the "Masoretic Text" established in the 8-9th centuries AD by Jewish scholars, is used. Only when this presents insuperable difficulties have emendations or other versions, such as the ancient Greek translation begun in 200 BC at Alexandria, the "Septuagint" (LXX), been used."
posted by Wayne Leman at 2:48 PM
5 Comments:
Luke 20:34 "the children of this world"
This wording does not accurately communicate the meaning of the original Semitic idiom which refers to 'people who are now living.'
Ps. 116:5 "our God is tenderness"
My understanding of English is that it is not appropriate to use a predicate nominal, "tenderness," like this. (E.g. I don't think we could say "Bob is affection," or "Sally is wisdom.") Instead, it would be appropriate, according to English grammar, to use a predicate adjective in Ps. 116:5:
"our God is tender"
Unless of course it was talking of the personification of this trait, such as "God is love." I don't have my copy here to check, so I don't know if this is an accurate understanding of this usage.
If I remember right, I think the JB (which the NJB descended from) was originally a french translation, that was then re-translated into english. This might account for some of the problems that are seen. The Jerusalem family of bibles does a great job showing the literary quality of the scriptures, especially the O.T.w
With all respect to chad above, one frequently hears that the NJB was translated from the French, rather than the original languages. The General Editor's Foreword to the 1985 Doubleday edition states (p. v):
"The biblical text of the first edition was occasionally criticised for following the French translation more closely than the originals. In this edition the translation has been made directly from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. Only where the text admits or more than one interpretation has the option been chosen by the Bible de Jerusalem been followed, unless permission to adopt another view was granted by the editors of that work."
As to that last sentence, this statement by the general editor may be helpful.
I am very much a consumer of biblical scholarship rather than a producer. Still, I have sometimes earned my living by translating a (very non-biblical) language into English, and to say that anything was translated from another translation rather than from its original language is much more damning than some might think.
regards,
JPB
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home