Just a computer viewing point: the best way to read this is to click on any one of the pictures and that will bring up a big readable screen showing the particular "pair" and at the bottom will give the other five of the six "pairs" to be clicked on.
I'm glad that the "new" passages seem similar to the old 1966 version. I think it reads well.
By the way, Fr. Nicolas King gives a favorable review of the New Testament and Psalms at http://www.thetablet.co.uk/books/10/12895/the-revised-new-jerusalem-bible-new-testament-and-psalms-is-an-outstanding-piece-of-work-by-henry-wansbrough
First, I am grateful to be afforded these comparisons; this exercise is very useful to me. That said, I am sorry to say that I find the language in the RNJB passages more wooden/stilted than in the JB. It doesn't flow as nicely. I guess this has to do with it being more of a literal translation. Just for fun, I also compared these passages with the NRSV; and, as I usually do, I found the NRSV also stilted. I’ve never found the NRSV to have much “soul”, even though I respect it and believe it to be a very responsible translation. I’m just more on the dynamic/functional equivalence end of the scale. I still have high hopes for the RNJB, but it's not a good start for me.
I am growing to like the RNJB as a translation, and what is surprising me, compared to its predecessors, is how assiduously literal it is. It is more like what the NABRE has turned into over the years. Father Wansbrough was kind enough to answer some questions I had about the NJB many years ago by email.
On the basis of these readings, I also agree that the JB reads more natural and has a better flow and metre to it. Not that there is anything particularly jarring about the RNJB.
I hope that the RNJB (when it is completed) will fill a nitch in between the RSV-2CE and the NABRE, a little more modern than the former and a little more international (English) than the latter!
I like the sound of the older version but the newer translations seems more literal (at least compared to the Latin). That is probably what most people want and expect.
In my devotional reading, I alternate between the Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV. I am not a NABRE hater but it is not a translation that I love and it doesn't sing to me. With the RNJB, I was hoping for a translation that would be both accurate and readable, so that it would become my main translation. And I think most likely it will fill that void, but still it will take some time to become acquainted with this edition.
I also dream that it may replace NAB in the U.S. lectionary. Yes, I know that almost certainly will not happen.
Michael Demers, I don't know if Americans prefer the NABRE over other versions. If you look at what sells, you wouldn't think so. I would also suggest the fact that nobody hears in church what he or she reads at home, means that there isn't there is a disconnect between readings at Mass and personal readings.
Andrew, just wondering what country you are commenting from? I know that many of us are used to the older Imeprial measurement system and the UK still uses the Imperial system. But Ireland has switched to the metric system as, I think, have Australia and New Zealand. I know that miles sounds more “Biblical” but many people living in the region that I am proposing adopt the RNJB are simply unfamiliar with the older Imperial measurements. Like so many other areas of translation the translator is forced to make a choice and going for the more modern measurement that is preferred by milllions of people is not necessarily the worst choice.
Just a computer viewing point: the best way to read this is to click
ReplyDeleteon any one of the pictures and that will bring up a big readable screen showing the particular "pair" and at the bottom will give the other five of the six "pairs" to be clicked on.
I'm glad that the "new" passages seem similar to the old 1966 version. I think it reads well.
By the way, Fr. Nicolas King gives a favorable review of the
New Testament and Psalms at
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/books/10/12895/the-revised-new-jerusalem-bible-new-testament-and-psalms-is-an-outstanding-piece-of-work-by-henry-wansbrough
Yes, the hope is that they will click the image. It, in the end, will make it easier to read. Thanks for the link to the King review.
DeleteFirst, I am grateful to be afforded these comparisons; this exercise is very useful to me. That said, I am sorry to say that I find the language in the RNJB passages more wooden/stilted than in the JB. It doesn't flow as nicely. I guess this has to do with it being more of a literal translation. Just for fun, I also compared these passages with the NRSV; and, as I usually do, I found the NRSV also stilted. I’ve never found the NRSV to have much “soul”, even though I respect it and believe it to be a very responsible translation. I’m just more on the dynamic/functional equivalence end of the scale. I still have high hopes for the RNJB, but it's not a good start for me.
ReplyDelete- Keith S.
I am growing to like the RNJB as a translation, and what is surprising me, compared to its predecessors, is how assiduously literal it is. It is more like what the NABRE has turned into over the years. Father Wansbrough was kind enough to answer some questions I had about the NJB many years ago by email.
ReplyDeleteOn the basis of these readings, I also agree that the JB reads more natural and has a better flow and metre to it. Not that there is anything particularly jarring about the RNJB.
ReplyDeleteI hope that the RNJB (when it is completed) will fill a nitch in between the RSV-2CE and the NABRE, a little more modern than the former and a little more international (English) than the latter!
ReplyDeleteSince I don’t use the Jerusalem Bible in the Lectionary, I enjoy comparing the RNJB with the NJB to see what changes were made!
ReplyDeleteI like the sound of the older version but the newer translations seems more literal (at least compared to the Latin). That is probably what most people want and expect.
ReplyDeleteIn my devotional reading, I alternate between the Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV. I am not a NABRE hater but it is not a translation that I love and it doesn't sing to me. With the RNJB, I was hoping for a translation that would be both accurate and readable, so that it would become my main translation. And I think most likely it will fill that void, but still it will take some time to become acquainted with this edition.
ReplyDeleteI also dream that it may replace NAB in the U.S. lectionary. Yes, I know that almost certainly will not happen.
Michael Demers, I don't know if Americans prefer the NABRE over other versions. If you look at what sells, you wouldn't think so. I would also suggest the fact that nobody hears in church what he or she reads at home, means that there isn't there is a disconnect between readings at Mass and personal readings.
ReplyDelete'Kilometres' jars badly in the RNJB. It's anachronistic - certainly not what the Evangelist wrote or the way he thought.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, just wondering what country you are commenting from? I know that many of us are used to the older Imeprial measurement system and the UK still uses the Imperial system. But Ireland has switched to the metric system as, I think, have Australia and New Zealand. I know that miles sounds more “Biblical” but many people living in the region that I am proposing adopt the RNJB are simply unfamiliar with the older Imperial measurements. Like so many other areas of translation the translator is forced to make a choice and going for the more modern measurement that is preferred by milllions of people is not necessarily the worst choice.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I found the metric measures jarring to my sensibility.
ReplyDelete