Jerusalem Bible or 1975 Bible In Order (keep it civil!)
Comments
-
So why don't you join "The Bible Scholars Forum" for free and read Jeremy's 530 posts there. You will find a great deal of them relate to the Peshitta, and the fact that he considers it predates the Geek .
0 -
JHM said:
So why don't you join "The Bible Scholars Forum" for free and read Jeremy's 530 posts there. You will find a great deal of them relate to the Peshitta, and the fact that he considers it predates the Geek .
I don't need to read that someone claims to be able to turn lead into gold and all of his arguments for that in order to know that he can't do it. Why should I waste my time? I know that we have Greek papyri containing portions of the NT antedating the Peshitta.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Hardly worth the bother of replying to these posts, BUT :
Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary says : Antedate 1) precede in time 2) assign to a date earlier than the actual one.
So I believe you are using the second definition of "Antedate" Mr. Somsel in claiming that the "Greek" is older.
If you PMed me an email address to send them to, I could send you copies of Jeremy's translations of the Peshitta complete with footnotes showing why the Peshitta predates the "Greek"
Both of you, believe what you will; but there will soon come a day when you learn you are wrong.
0 -
JHM said:
Both of you, believe what you will; but there will soon come a day when you learn you are wrong.
How do you know you won't be the one who someday learns you are wrong? People who make brash statements like the above are usually overly arrogant, and God has quite a tendency to come in and knock them down a peg. (I'm aware I might be wrong on the reliability of your source, though personally I don't care about this Aramaic/Greek issue at all, nor which English translation is the most "accurate" so I'm not looking into it. I am OK with reasonably accurate translations that bring me close to God. It was more the tone of your presentation that came across as worthy of challenge, not the content.) Or else he just abandons them to their closed mindset and lets them go on thinking they know it all. If you seriously want to be in relationship with God though, and you are earnestly seeking to love him more and let him shape you into the person he created you to me, you will surrender to his ways with you.
In order to grow in the faith, we all need to be teachable, but learning from people who are humble about what they don't know yet is far more likely to yield a teachable spirit and true growth in wisdom. Your scholar friend Jeremy seems pretty sure of himself, and that seems to have rubbed off onto you (or maybe you had that trait already and sought out someone such as himself to tell you what you wanted to hear in the tone in which you like to hear it). It might make you feel an enormous sense of self-confidence, but it might not be the best for you in the long run.
0 -
JHM said:
Hardly worth the bother of replying to these posts, BUT :
Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary says : Antedate 1) precede in time 2) assign to a date earlier than the actual one.
So I believe you are using the second definition of "Antedate" Mr. Somsel in claiming that the "Greek" is older.
If you PMed me an email address to send them to, I could send you copies of Jeremy's translations of the Peshitta complete with footnotes showing why the Peshitta predates the "Greek"
Both of you, believe what you will; but there will soon come a day when you learn you are wrong.
So, you looked it up in your Funk & Wagnalls—shades of Rowen and Martin's "Laugh-in." I was actually using "antecedent" in the first sense—the Greek documents precede the Aramaic/Syriac in time. A bit of advice for you: Never claim to pass judgment on which is a more accurate translation when you don't know the languages involved. BTW: This is the second time you have written "Geek" for "Greek." I suggest that you learn the name of the language at the very least. It has been around 1900 years since the NT writtings were penned. Nothing has given any indication to date that the Syriac was the basis for the "Geek," and I doubt that it ever will so I will not learn that I am wrong. You, on the other hand, would never admit to being wrong since you are so committed to your pet theory so you also will never learn that you are wrong.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
BTW: We have fragments of the Gospel according to John that might qualify as a first generation copy. Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall's.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I am not a scholar of ancient languages I have read a few things that have suggested Aramaic was first but only in places that seem less than highly reputable. The majority of scholars seem quite certain that the greek was the original language I have read several scholars hypothesis that there may be an Aramaic version of Matthew predating the greek, but the certainty is not there. I find it a little distressing that a thread wishing to promote the JB, a magnificent translation, has diverged into a discussion in which both sides will only dig in deeper and I fear comes dangerously close to theological debate which is not what the Logos forums were designed for and specifically against forum rules.
-Dan
0 -
-
Unix, when a thread as gone off topic in the sense of becoming nasty, I would prefer that you start a new thread rather than bumping a nasty thread returning it to life.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I understand Your concern. Just reading a few of the posts it seems they were discussing Mt, and I wouldn't judge most Bible versions according to how they translated that particular book in the Bible - I value other Gospels more highly:
MJ. Smith said:Unix, when a thread as gone off topic in the sense of becoming nasty, I would prefer that you start a new thread
EDIT: an idea to keep down costs, would be to omit the Psalter from it, since the Psalter that is now in use in the U.K. and some other countries has been released to pre-pub separately: The Grail Psalms (2 vols.).Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 -
Unix said:
EDIT: an idea to keep down costs, would be to omit the Psalter from it, since the Psalter that is now in use in the U.K. and some other countries has been released to pre-pub separately: The Grail Psalms (2 vols.).
This would not go down with me - I want the Jerusalem Bible not just parts of it. Sorry. The Grail Psalms are an independent resource that I would also like ... along with a number of other psalters.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I'll add my interest for the 1975 Bible In Order. (Or the Jerusalem Bible Reader's Edition.)
I found a post which cites something interesting about the Jerusalem Bible: http://www.christianforums.com/t7645280-7/#post60419540
Logos, please realize that it differs a lot from the NJB by being less Catholic and noticeably less conservative, give the JB a shot!
L2 Catholic new; Used: ODCC L5 Reformed Silver L6 Full Crossgrade; L6 Chinese Bronze new; L6 Ancient Literature Feature Expansion Collection (25 vols.) new, no dynamic pricing. Before packs had 100 books incl. AYBRL new
0 -
NÖ said:
Logos, please realize that it differs a lot from the NJB by being less Catholic
Er... ah... as the JB is the translation used for the Catholic lectionary in England, Wales ... and is primarily a product of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) how is it "less Catholic"? I think the bishops think of it as "more Catholic" than the NJB as the lectionaries have remained JB.[:)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Unix said:
EDIT: an idea to keep down costs, would be to omit the Psalter from it, since the Psalter that is now in use in the U.K. and some other countries has been released to pre-pub separately: The Grail Psalms (2 vols.).
To publish the updated JB with the Grail Psalter would best be achieved by publishing the CTS New Catholic Bible - a move that would be especially appreciated by the European market although I would also love it.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I would also be interested in getting the Jerusalem Bible in Logos.
0 -
I can't speak to the earlier JB since I don't have it. Nor can I speak to present preferences among the denominations. My preferences are not superior to theirs.
But if JB is better than NJB, I'm all for it. I've been very disappointed with NJB. I know Unix isn't too excited with Matthew, but Mat 5:3 is a good example (among many more).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
I can't speak to the earlier JB since I don't have it. Nor can I speak to present preferences among the denominations. My preferences are not superior to theirs.
But if JB is better than NJB, I'm all for it. I've been very disappointed with NJB. I know Unix isn't too excited with Matthew, but Mat 5:3 is a good example (among many more).
The JB is good, I find NJB better, it is mildly gender inclusive (assuming you consider brethren a term to include females). NJB is a more formal translation, while the JB is looser. Here are a couple of online reviews of the NJB.... http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-jerusalem-bible.html http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2009/02/new-jerusalem-bible-review.html (I do realize this link is talking about the JB in particular and the first link gives a small example of the text, but it's conclusions seemed unfair to me so I wanted to balance it out.
-Dan
0 -
Thank you, Dan. Your researcher reference introduced a whole raft of 'issues'(!).
First, I didn't know the Logos NJB was missing the translator notes; instead a few cross-refs here and there. Too bad, both the older and new JB have interesting notes. The comment from your article is really funny concerning the notes.
Second, the accusation that JB might have been a bit loose with the OT, I'd think would be a plus. Alternative translations are always good for identifying problem passages. No self-respecting comparison-er would blindly accept anything that didn't match the KJV.
Third, JB is Mother Angelica's favorite translation. I agree (except for YLT maybe). Of course, I only read Heb 1:1-4.
Fourth, altering the target of the writings (men of course) by NJB may eventually be associated with the mulitplicity of modern day problems engendered by the same gender removed (joking as usual).
And lastly, I very much doubt Logos would do a JB, if it can't do a proper NJB (with notes). I couldn't even be assured that the Amazon or Kindle versions had translator notes.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
And lastly, I very much doubt Logos would do a JB, if it can't do a proper NJB (with notes). I couldn't even be assured that the Amazon or Kindle versions had translator notes.
There is somethings to be said of that. There are FULL editions and Readers editions. (Think NIV STUDY BIBLE verses NIV PEW Bible). The NJB that Logos has is the readers edition. Traditionally the Readers edition was made to have a more compact version. I own three copies of the JB an family size Bible with the Dali plates, which was my fist copy... I then was able to locate a small imitation leather readers edition (basically a paperback size), and finally I found a full copy of the Hard back with it;s study notes and slipcase). Now I have a leather hardback of the NJB, I also had purchased and still own a readers edition. The initial readers edition of the NJB was printed on such thick paper as to to be 1.5 times the thickness of the regular edition. Needless to say I was very disappointed but have kept it all these years (I had purchased it from CBD and had just assumed it was going to be more compact, especially considering the description implied compactness was the reason behind the readers edition).
-Dan
0 -
Thank you, yet again, Dan. I was hoping the Kindle version but it's both NJB and 'reader'. So I'll but JB on the backburner for a while. It's too bad some of these older translations are hard to obtain digitally. (Not to mention the big-boy CP group that looks to be out in the Sahara).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Dan Francis said:
There is somethings to be said of that. There are FULL editions and Readers editions. (Think NIV STUDY BIBLE verses NIV PEW Bible). The NJB that Logos has is the readers edition. Traditionally the Readers edition was made to have a more compact version. I own three copies of the JB an family size Bible with the Dali plates, which was my fist copy... I then was able to locate a small imitation leather readers edition (basically a paperback size), and finally I found a full copy of the Hard back with it;s study notes and slipcase). Now I have a leather hardback of the NJB, I also had purchased and still own a readers edition. The initial readers edition of the NJB was printed on such thick paper as to to be 1.5 times the thickness of the regular edition. Needless to say I was very disappointed but have kept it all these years (I had purchased it from CBD and had just assumed it was going to be more compact, especially considering the description implied compactness was the reason behind the readers edition).
One of the reasons I want to get a digital edition of the Jerusalem Bible is that my Reader's Edition is enormous! It's even paperback too, but it's the size of a large study Bible.
0 -
elnwood said:
One of the reasons I want to get a digital edition of the Jerusalem Bible is that my Reader's Edition is enormous! It's even paperback too, but it's the size of a large study Bible.
I hear you. And the Jerusalem Bible is one of the most important translations of the 20th century (the only major translation now missing out of Logos). Indeed i think the UK's catholic churches still us the JB as their sunday reading version.
-Dan
PS:Others may well correct me about the JB being the only major translation missing but I can not think of any others (Berkley, Moffat and the Smith-Godspeed are missing but none of these had as wide a use or the impact of the JB).
0 -
Dan Francis said:
PS:Others may well correct me about the JB being the only major translation missing but I can not think of any others (Berkley, Moffat and the Smith-Godspeed are missing but none of these had as wide a use or the impact of the JB).
I think I agree, the Jerusalem Bible is probably the most major modern translation still missing in Logos.
The J. B. Phillips New Testament and The Voice also aren't in Logos, which is surprising to me. The JW New World Translation is perhaps the most used Bible that isn't in Logos.
0 -
elnwood said:
The J. B. Phillips New Testament and The Voice also aren't in Logos, which is surprising to me. The JW New World Translation is perhaps the most used Bible that isn't in Logos.
I have Phillips New Testament in my old Online Bible which i still use on occasion...and someone had made the NWT available as a personal book before it was pointed out that it was a no no....(With Watchtower not Logos)....
I wonder if it being free was a requirement for Phillips release????
1972 New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips
The Bible text designated Phil is from The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips. Copyright (c) 1958, 1959, 1960, 1972 by J. B. Phillips. The electronic text and KJV verse synchronization is copyright 2000 by Larry Nelson. Published with permission of Mrs Vera Phillips and the J. B. Phillips estate. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
-Dan
0
