N.B
there are many options for Pentecost. For the purposes of this comparison, I have
selected three readings from the Mass of the Day. The Old Testament of the RNJB has not been
published yet. These readings are simply for study and comment.
First
reading
Original
Jerusalem Bible 1966 as found in the Current JB edition of the Lectionary
Acts
2:1-11 (no changes to Biblical text in
Lectionary)
1
When
Pentecost day came round, they had all met in one room, 2 when
suddenly they heard what sounded like a powerful wind from heaven, the noise of
which filled the entire house in which they were sitting; 3 and
something appeared to them that seemed like tongues of fire; these separated
and came to rest on the head of each of them. 4 They were all filled
with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak foreign languages as the Spirit gave
them the gift of speech.
5
Now there were devout men living in Jerusalem from every nation under
heaven, 6 and at this sound they all assembled, each one bewildered
to hear these men speaking his own language. 7 They were amazed and
astonished. ‘Surely’ they said ‘all these men speaking are Galileans? 8 How
does it happen that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; people from
Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and
Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya round Cyrene; as well as visitors from
Rome – 11 Jews and proselytes alike – Cretans and Arabs; we
hear them preaching in our own language about the marvels of God.’
Revised
New Jerusalem Bible 2018
Acts
2:1-11
1 When
Pentecost day had come, they were all together, 2 when suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a
rushing wind, filling the entire house in which they were sitting; 3 and there appeared to them tongues
as of fire; these separated and came to rest on the head of each of them. 4 They were all filled with the Holy
Spirit and began to speak different languages as the Spirit gave them power to express
themselves.
5
Now there
were devout men living in Jerusalem from every nation under heaven, 6 and at this sound they all assembled, and
they were bewildered because each one heard them speaking his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, ‘Are
not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8
How is it
that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites, residents of
Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of
Libya belonging to Cyrene, visitors from Rome – 11
Jews and
proselytes alike – Cretans and Arabs, we hear them speaking in our own
languages about the marvels of God.’
There
is not much to comment on here. The
translations are very alike. The RNJB is
a more precise translation. Note the use of “men” in V.5 for the Greek andres. Again this shows a moderate use
of inclusive language. Wansbrough retains the exclusive word “men” as this is
the more exact translation. Here St. Luke uses a word that means men to the
exclusion of women. Historically it is probable that no men were in the assembly
that St. Luke describes. Therefore
Second
reading
Original
Jerusalem Bible 1966 as found in the Current JB edition of the Lectionary
Galatians
5:16-25 (no changes to Biblical text in
Lectionary)
16
If
you are guided by the Spirit you will be in no danger of yielding to
self-indulgence, 17 since self-indulgence is the opposite of the
Spirit, the Spirit is totally against such a thing, and it is precisely because
the two are so opposed that you do not always carry out your good intentions. 18
If you are led by the Spirit, no law can touch you. 19 When
self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious: fornication, gross
indecency and sexual irresponsibility; 20 idolatry and sorcery;
feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements,
factions, 21 envy; drunkenness, orgies and similar things. I warn
you now, as I warned you before: those who behave like this will not inherit
the kingdom of God. 22 What the Spirit brings is very different:
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, 23 gentleness
and self-control. There can be no law against things like that, of course. 24
You cannot belong to Christ Jesus unless you crucify all self-indulgent
passions and desires.
25
Since the Spirit is our life, let us be directed by the Spirit.
Revised
New Jerusalem Bible 2018
Galatians
5:16-25
16
Be guided by
the Spirit, and do not fulfil the desires of the flesh. 17 The desires of the flesh are against the
Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh: they are opposed
to one another, so that you may not do whatever you please. 18 If you are led by the Spirit, you are not
subject to the Law. 19
The works of
the flesh are obvious: sexual vice, impurity and sensuality; 20 idolatry and sorcery; antagonisms and
rivalry, jealousy, bad temper, quarrels, disagreements, 21 factions and malice, drunkenness, orgies and
all suchlike, about which, I tell you now as I have told you in the past,
people who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 On the other hand the fruit of the Spirit is
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 gentleness and self-control; against such
things there is no law. 24
Those who
belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with all its passions and
desires.
25
Since we are
living by the Spirit, let our behaviour be guided by the Spirit.
I
think that an honest comparison of the two translations is perhaps the clearest
argument in favour of adopting the RNJB to replace the JB in the
Lectionary. The JB is not bad, but its
avoidance of the word “flesh” for the Greek sarx
is a very significant fault. “Indulgence” kind of says the same thing, but it
lacks the clarity and the poetry. Likewise the interplay between “Flesh,”
“Spirit” and “Law” are much clearer in the RNJB.
Gospel
Original
Jerusalem Bible 1966 as found in the Current JB edition of the Lectionary
John
20:19-23 (words omitted from the Biblical
text in the Lectionary are stricken through)
19 In the evening of that same
day, the first day of the week, the doors were closed in the room where the
disciples were, for fear of the Jews. Jesus came and stood among them. He said
to them, ‘Peace be with you’, 20 and showed them his hands and his
side. The disciples were filled with joy when they saw the Lord, 21 and
he said to them again, ‘Peace be with you.
‘As the Father sent me,
so am I sending you.’
22 After saying this he breathed on
them and said:
‘Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 For those whose sins you forgive,
they are forgiven;
for those whose sins you retain,
they are retained.’
Revised
New Jerusalem Bible 2018
John 20:19-23 (words
omitted from the Biblical text in the Lectionary are stricken through)
19 In the
evening of that same day, the first day of the week, the doors were
closed in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews. Jesus came
and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace
be with you,’ 20
and, after saying this, he showed them his
hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord, 21 and he
said to them again, ‘Peace be with you.
‘As the Father has sent me,
so am
I sending you.’
22 After
saying this he breathed on
them and said:
‘Receive
the Holy Spirit.
23 If you
forgive anyone’s sins,
they
are forgiven;
if you
retain anyone’s sins,
they
are retained.’
The
translations are very similar. The final
instruction in V.23 is now conditional in the RNJB. This is the same
translation as in the RSV/NRSV, the NAB and the KJV/DR are closer to the
original JB translation. This is more an editorial decision.
With
this comparison, our series is complete.
Next week there are Old Testament readings and we will have to wait the
publication of the full RNJB later this year to compare those readings.
Obviously it is essential to see the Old Testament before making a final
decision, but I believe that these 8 sets of readings that we have compared
since Easter have shown what a RNJB lectionary would look like. I commented
already on the issue of Rome preferring a single Biblical translation for use in each region Given this preference, I personally believe
that the interest of the faithful in the countries where the Jerusalem Bible is
currently in use would be best served if their bishops adopted a new Lectionary
using the Revised New Jerusalem Bible.
The bishops have already decided that the current Jerusalem Bible Lectionary is
no longer fit for purpose. Not only is
this new translation a much more exact and faithful translation that its
predecessor, it also has the great advantage of pastoral continuity as it does
not sound radically different to its predecessor. Adopting it would help maintain what St.
Augustine described as the tranquillitas ordinis or
tranquillity of order in the Church. I think this is particularly important
given the radical manner in which the translation of the Roman Missal was
changed a few years ago. Pastorally I do not think that it would be good to
adopt a totally new translation of the Bible as the basis of a new Lectionary
in those countries where the Jerusalem
Bible Lectionary is already in use.
Neil Xavier O'Donoghue is a priest of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. He currently ministers in the Archdiocese of Armagh, Ireland, where he serves as vice rector at Redemptoris Mater Seminary. He has studied at Seton Hall University, the University of Notre Dame, and St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. He holds a Doctorate in Theology from St Patrick’s College, Maynooth.
7 comments:
Thank you Fr Neil for each of these weekly comparisons. I agree that tranquility is something that should be the key motivating factor when choosing a new bible for the lectionary, and having seen how the RNJB stacks up with the JB, I think it would be a much better option right now. But, hey, I am an American so we have what we have.
We seem to be going out of our way to vouch for the RNJB for Lectionary use, but I believe this is the right thing to do, since, IMHO, the 1966 JB was way-y-y-y-y too colloquial in most areas. (I purchased a used hardbound 1966 JB with full study notes, etc. about 15 years ago - and shortly thereafter gave it away.) Could someone please explain how one could translate the date given in the book of Tobit, whether from Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek as "March the seventh"? And there are scores of other places where the renderings are too breezy and free. The Pentecost readings are good examples. I do wish, however, that when making the pitch to have the RNJB replace the JB for Lectionary use, we'd stop saying that the former is not much different than the latter. It certainly is - and for the better!
Even the 1985 NJB is more sober in its renderings than the JB. For whatever reason, though, this edition never caught on. Anyone care to speculate as to why? It can't be the inclusive language; the NJB's use is quite sparing and relatively mild compared to the much-ballyhooed NRSV or RNAB.
And as for the recent revision of the Roman Missal: it was darned well needed! There was little traceability in the ICEL translation back to the Latin, especially for Eucharistic Prayer I. "O Happy Day" when the earlier ICEL translation was deep-sixed.
Dear Red Baron,
thanks for the comment. Regarding the NJB, to my knowledge, nobody ever suggested using it in an official liturgical book, and given that that RNJB is now available, the question is moot. In many areas, the NJB is clearly an improvement on the JB, but it does have some funny readings. It doesn't use the word church ("you are Peter and on this rock I will build my community") or flesh ("the spirit is willing but human nature is weak"). There were a good number of such unusual readings (they weren't wrong, but they were kind of jarring on the ear. In the end I simply think that the RNJB builds on all the improvements of the NJB, but doesn't have the unusual translation choices that it used. Therefore it is a better choice for the liturgy.
For a couple of years, the New Jerusalem Bible was my favorite version. It was the obvious alternative to the sterile New American Bible (1986 NT), but I eventually found the NJB to be too clunky. The examples given above are typical, but I also found the inclusive language of the Psalter to be equally unnatural and disturbing. Among other issues, it can obscure the Messianic prophecy that is found throughout the Psalms.
I found Red Baron's comments to be interesting, especially regarding the RNAB. I'm presuming this abbreviation refers to the current Revised New American Bible. Comparing this Bible with the NJB, I would say the RNAB's inclusive language is milder, especially regarding the Psalms.
I've been comparing these selections to those in the NABRE and I noticed that with the selection from Acts, the Holy in Holy Spirit isn't capitalized in the NABRE. Does anyone here know why that is?
Jerry, capitalization is a matter of style and English usage. The original Greek manuscripts are in BLOCK CAPITALS with no spaces or punctuation (reading was an art back then). So capitalization is a matter for the editors of the individual translations to decide. Years ago there was a tendency to capitalize lots of words, today less so.
Thanks.
I'm interested in a deeper look at Acts 2:5
"5 Now there were devout men living in Jerusalem from every nation under heaven,"
You say: "Note the use of “men” in V.5 for the Greek andres. ...Wansbrough retains the exclusive word “men” as this is the more exact translation. Here St. Luke uses a word that means men to the exclusion of women." [You go on to say, "Historically it is probable that no men were in the assembly that St. Luke describes. Therefore" - I presume this is a typo & you mean "no WOmen were in the assembly" - and I don't know what you mean by ending with "Therefore".]
But I have two primary points:
1) In Strong's G435 ἀνδρός is "used generically of a group of both men and women"
2) what has happened to "Ἰουδαῖοι" in Luke's sentence? Why has it been dropped completely?!
These weren't simply "devout men living in Jerusalem" - Luke is explicit these were Ἰουδαῖοι ("Jews" NRSV, for example) living in Jerusalem. We can debate about if they were only males (my first point) but the best textual argument is for the inclusion of Ἰουδαῖοι in the original...
Looking forward to your reflection
Blessings
Bosco
liturgy.co.nz
Bosco
Post a Comment