The New Jerusalem Bible & the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, compared

In 1943, Pope Pius XII promulgated Divino afflante Spiritu, encouraging the translation of the Bible on the basis of original Hebrew & Greek texts. Prior to Divino afflante Spiritu the Latin Vulgate had served as the textual basis for Catholic translations of the Bible; this new directive from the pope inaugurated the modern era of Catholic biblical scholarship.

The French Dominicans at the École Biblique in Jerusalem answered the call, publishing a French translation of the Bible—La Bible de Jérusalem—in 1956.¹ In addition to the text itself, La Bible de Jérusalem offered scholarly introductions to each book & extensive notes to the text. Ten years later an English translation—the Jerusalem Bible—appeared. More a translation of the French text of La Bible de Jérusalem than the Hebrew & Greek, the primary contribution of the Jerusalem Bible was to make available French biblical scholarship to an English readership. Still, as the first complete translation of the Bible into modern English, the Jerusalem Bible was received eagerly among English-speaking Catholics (& even some Protestants).

Still, advances in biblical scholarship & a need for a proper translation of the Hebrew & Greek texts called for an update to the Jerusalem Bible. In 1985 the New Jerusalem Bible appeared, translating directly the Hebrew & Greek texts while still taking inspiration from the French edition.

Then, in the early 2000s, the African bishops asked for a more affordable edition of the Jerusalem Bible, which brought to light the need for another update to the New Jerusalem Bible. The fruit of that update is the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, published recently (2019) by Darton, Longman & Todd under the direction of Henry Wansbrough. The RNJB was produced according to the following three principles:

1. The text should be translated with an ear more for proclamation aloud than silent reading.
2. The translation should be produced according to a philosophy of formal equivalence rather than dynamic equivalence.
3. The translation should reflect the fact that the biblical message is addressed to women & men alike.

While I’ve not spent much time with it, I’ve recently become very interested in the Jerusalem Bible tradition of biblical translations. Considering this translation came about as a response to Divino afflante Spiritu & so originates in a solely Catholic initiative,² the Jerusalem Bible strikes me as a quintessentially Catholic tradition of translation, produced during a period of renewal in Catholic theology.³ From what I understand (& in my own limited experience reading translations in this tradition) it enjoys a better reputation for its literary quality than, say, the New Revised Standard Version or the New American Bible (Revised Edition). Could the Revised New Jerusalem Bible be the end of my search for a preferred Bible translation?⁴

I began to look more carefully at the RNJB I bought a year or two ago, & I wondered at how its translation compared to the NJB (whose literary quality & theological richness is celebrated). I especially wondered how the shift from the dynamic equivalence of the NJB (meaning-for-meaning) to the formal equivalence (word-for-word) of the RNJB affected the translation. So I decided to compare some passages.

Genesis 1:1–3

Very similar. I kind of like the NJB’s “a divine wind” over the RNJB’s “spirit of God.”

Exodus 3:7–14

You can see here the RNJB’s “reading aloud” principle in the way it avoids quotations without first introducing the speaker. Again I like some of the NJB’s phrases (“from the clutches of the Egyptians”), but the use of “the LORD” for the tetragrammaton is a massive improvement on the part of the RNJB.

Matthew 6:9–13

The Lord’s Prayer that I have memorized is, I think, a slightly modernized form of the one appearing in the King James Version (“Our Father, who art in heaven …”). That language is so familiar to me, I can’t help but feel a little uncomfortable reading this one. But I do kind of like the use of “debts” here rather than “trespasses.”

Luke 1:46–55

Some lines I prefer the NJB (“he has routed the arrogant of heart”) & some I prefer the RNJB (“he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his servant”). I wonder what Greek word underlies what the NJB translates as “faithful love” & what the RNJB translates “mercy”?

John 1:1–5, 14

John’s Prologue reads as nearly identical in both translations, with the only substantial difference being the preference for inclusive language (“people” rather than “men”) in verse 4.

John 3:16

I have to say, I don’t particularly like how either version translates the first half of this verse; I prefer the KJV’s “For God so loved the world …”, but that may be because it’s familiar (like the Lord’s Prayer above)

Philippians 2:5–11

Here I think we see more sharply the differences between dynamic & formal equivalence. Compare especially verses 7 & 8. I think the NJB’s “But he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming as human beings are; & being in every way like a human being, he was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross” reads much more nicely than the RNJB’s, but I take it the RNJB is closer to the Greek.⁵

Conclusions

Acknowledging that these comparisons are far from exhaustive, it doesn’t seem like the shift from dynamic to formal equivalence has had a huge impact on translation choices, with some relatively small exceptions. With those exceptions in mind I have to say that I tend to prefer the NJB’s renderings to the RNJB,⁶ though the inclusive language of the RNJB & the use of “the LORD” for the tetragrammaton are points in favor of the RNJB.

Is the (R)NJB my new preferred translation? Maybe for now. I’d like to do a more extensive comparison of the (R)NJB to other versions, especially the English Standard Version - Catholic Edition & the Knox Version, before making any final determinations. But that’s a project for another day.