Talk:Jerusalem Bible

message: 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.
thumb|right
Michael2 10:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new claim disputed 

message: === 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)
replies: text: Sounds great.  I like disputes where everything gets resolved!  Lawrence King 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three other claims disputed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to response 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to ... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tolkien's Contribution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Not a translation of the French" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About the French 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Official status and inclusive language of New Jerusalem Bible 

message: Should mention that it was the first translation to incorporate "Yahweh" into the translated text -- an innovation which had a somewhat mixed reception...  -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tetragrammaton translation

message: Should also mention that this was the first widely-disseminated Catholic translation of the Bible into English to receive significant respect from non-Catholics (as opposed to the old Douai version, which never really did). AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception context

message: If anyone has information regarding the Spanish-language Jerusalem Bible, that would be really useful here--71.111.194.50 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Jerusalem Bible 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150724114610/https://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf to http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150322195330/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/booklets.htm to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/booklets.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified