had the original Jerusalem bible, the version seemed done well, its the study notes that were lacking! As they were
"best of contemporary catholic scholarship!"
It is interesting that you would chose this verse as an example. Notice that the two versions are in the mostly exactly the same (colored blue above), except for a few words and word order in first phrase. The New Jerusalem version is more literal than the earlier Jerusalem translation: first, the word The Greek word for "Yes" (ναί) is not present; second, the NJB rendering of "this is how" (οὕτως meaning 'in this manner') is closer to the Greek than "so much that" of the original JB.
I have only read the NT in the Jerusalem version so I do not know if this is representative of the differences between the two.
Not really. Officially the D-R was still the primary Catholic English text until the NAB (in America). However, the RCC does sanction some other versions such as the Jerusalem, Knox NT, and Kleist-Lilly NT, and Christian Community Bible for examples.
My understanding is that the notes translated into English (1966) from the original French (1956); it was executed by Catholic scholars at Jerusalem. The NJB (1985) was a fresh translation.
A lot of my books have been scattered to the winds including most of my Bible translations. Thankfully most can be viewed on line.
Here are some snips from Psalm 139.
3 : you know every detail of my conduct
5 : You fence me in, behind and in front, you have laid your hand upon me.
6 : a height to which I cannot attain
8 : If I scale the heavens
12 : even darkness to you is not dark
15 : textured in the depths of the earth
16 : Your eyes could see my embryo. In your book all my days were inscribed, every one that was fixed is there.
3 : Let faithful love and constancy never leave you
5 : put no faith in your own perception
6 : acknowledge him in every course you take
7 : Do not congratulate yourself on your own wisdom
15 : nothing you covet is her equal
20 : Through his knowledge the depths were cleft open and the clouds distil the dew
35 : Glory is the portion of the wise, all that fools inherit is contempt
LOL, reading is not your strong suit.
I did not nor suggest the NJB was a functional equivalent version,
I said the remark was suitable for all functionally equivalent versions.
You said in post 13 "I enjoyed the pithy remark, suitable for all functional equivalent translations."
Your words clearly were directed toward the NJB and others of the same functional equivalent emphasis. But Marlowe said it is generally more literal. So you are stuck.
How about I meant what I said.
Too conservative for your "words mean what I want them to mean" liberalism?
One might conclude you do not realize one functional equivalent version could be more literal than others and less literal than still others.
Good grief.
Mr. Rippon finds fault with his own constructions.
Here is the pithy remark suitable for all functional equivalent translations.
The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.
Starting with the least adventurous versions, i.e. formal equivalence versions, and then comparing with other well accepted translations like the NET, HCSB, LEB and WEB is a good plan for "close study."