1966 Jerusalem Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter AttendeDomine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AttendeDomine

Guest
These are a couple of questions about the notes in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.

For those of you who love them: why do you love them?

For those who find some of them problematic: could you list some problems you’ve encountered?
 
I love mine. But it’s purely emotional. It was the translation the nuns used when I was in high school to teach us to pray with the Scriptures. Mine has lots of notes I have added regarding prayer requests, insights, etc. The same could be said with any translation.

FWIW, I find the flow of language in the JB to be smoother for prayerful reading than the NAB, for example. But the translation is not always precise so I also use a different translation for Bible study.
 
I like it; it’s on the dynamic side of the translation spectrum which makes for pleasant reading. Of course, it carries with it the drawback of any dynamic translation, which includes some odd phrasing here and there, or the stray word in an effort to be clearer. I wouldn’t use it as a primary Bible for study for that reason, but it’s a nice bedside Bible.

Its other issue is that it spells out the divine Name rather than use the traditional “LORD”, but this has been corrected in the CTS New Catholic Bible.
 
porthos11 said:
I like it; it’s on the dynamic side of the translation spectrum which makes for pleasant reading. Of course, it carries with it the drawback of any dynamic translation, which includes some odd phrasing here and there, or the stray word in an effort to be clearer. I wouldn’t use it as a primary Bible for study for that reason, but it’s a nice bedside Bible.

**Its other issue is that it spells out the divine Name rather than use the traditional “LORD”, **but this has been corrected in the CTS New Catholic Bible.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean the use of the name, Yahweh. That’s only an issue if one tries to use this translation in Liturgy or public worship. It’s not an issue for personal reading.
 
I particularly like the footnote explanations it has, and they are quite lengthy and good.

I also like the way it reads…smooth and easy.

I use to use it exclusively, but now I use it for footnotes because it no longer is the official approved bible of the church. But on some passages I will refer back to it to see how the passage is written, especially if a passage is a difficult one to make sense of.
 
I really like it. It was the first one I bought when I started to do some serious study. I use it in conjunction with the Haydock Douay Rheims.

I like the footnotes and I also like that it uses Yahweh instead of LORD. It makes it more personal for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top