Jerusalem Bible -- Liberal Commentary?

[Eichelbaum]

I know of a very good Priest who is very fond of recommending (and reading from) the 1966 Jerusalem Bible. In point of fact, he recommends this version almost exclusively for its notes.

Now, I know that the JB’s notes are much admired by folks. But I can’t help but to be struck by some of them, and I can only describe the notes as often being rather liberal.

I’m not a Bible scholar, and so I really can’t demonstrate what I mean with any deal of success. But I wonder if someone who is more knowledgeable than I am could point me in the right direction.

Are the JB’s notes a bit liberal in some places? Or do they just reflect ideas and theories that are almost beyond any doubt, while ignorant people, like me, just get a bit confused?

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

I know of a very good Priest who is very fond of recommending (and reading from) the 1966 Jerusalem Bible. In point of fact, he recommends this version almost exclusively for its notes.

Now, I know that the JB’s notes are much admired by folks. But I can’t help but to be struck by some of them, and I can only describe the notes as often being rather liberal.

I’m not a Bible scholar, and so I really can’t demonstrate what I mean with any deal of success. But I wonder if someone who is more knowledgeable than I am could point me in the right direction.

Are the JB’s notes a bit liberal in some places? Or do they just reflect ideas and theories that are almost beyond any doubt, while ignorant people, like me, just get a bit confused?

My guess is that your priest is a bit older and he grew up with the JB Bible. The notes are very 1960’ish.

No Bible footnotes that I know of are infallible unless they specifically refer to something that is infallible. Otherwise they are simply teachings that don’t deviate from Catholic teaching.

 

[Eichelbaum]

The notes are very 1960’ish.

But could they be described as being “liberal scholarship”?

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

But could they be described as being “liberal scholarship”?

Well they were written primarily by French Dominicans. The footnotes are pretty much literal translations of the French footnotes from the 1956 version of the La Bible de Jérusalem. I don’t like the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ because they change meanings from year to year and decade to decade.

Calvinists would probably describe them as ‘liberal’ though.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I seem to remember that the footnotes assumed the JEDP view of the authorship of the first five books of the Old Testament. If you believe that Moses was the sole author of all five books, then you might call the Jerusalem Bible commentary liberal.

 

[Eichelbaum]

Calvinists would probably describe them as ‘liberal’ though.

If you believe that Moses was the sole author of all five books, then you might call the Jerusalem Bible commentary liberal.

Here is what I’m getting at.

I’m concerned that some of the notes are a very watered-down version of what someone who is an atheist — and who seeks a purely naturalistic explanation for the text of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew religion in toto — would posit from a scholarly perspective.

I wonder, therefore, if I’m way off base here. Perhaps its conclusions, passe as they might be, are basically the mainstream of faithful Catholic exegesis.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Of particular note in the Jerusalem Bible is its translation of Exodus 21:22-25.

If when men come to blows, they hurt a who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, though she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall hand it over after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life . . . ."

**This translation implies that the life of a fetus is not equivalent to the life of the mother, and it is hard to interpret differently, though theologians do try.
Of course it is not the only way of translating this passage, and other Bibles show it differently. You will find some learned debate if you look for it.
The Jerusalem Bible does not seem popular in USA Catholic bookstores. You won’t find at the gift shop at Holy Hill in Wisconsin.

I myself use the J.B. exclusively.**

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

i.e. "a woman who is pregnant’ (sorry)

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

Here is what I’m getting at.

I’m concerned that some of the notes are a very watered-down version of what someone who is an atheist — and who seeks a purely naturalistic explanation for the text of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew religion in toto — would posit from a scholarly perspective.

I wonder, therefore, if I’m way off base here. Perhaps its conclusions, passe as they might be, are basically the mainstream of faithful Catholic exegesis.

The notes were written by Dominican Friars, not atheists.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Mother Angelica’s preferred version.

Nuff said.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Here is what I’m getting at.

I’m concerned that some of the notes are a very watered-down version of what someone who is an atheist — and who seeks a purely naturalistic explanation for the text of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew religion in toto — would posit from a scholarly perspective.

I wonder, therefore, if I’m way off base here. Perhaps its conclusions, passe as they might be, are basically the mainstream of faithful Catholic exegesis.

I am somewhat disturbed, frankly, by the characterisation. The Ecole Biblique was, and is, an exceptional institute of the academy. The faculty were remarkable; I say it in the past tense as I haven’t visited Jerusalem now in years. I certainly count my own academic work under several of their scripture scholars, in days long past, as one of the great blessings to me, both as a priest and as an academic. It was also singularly demanding.

The fact that they taught – and we students learned and in turn became professors ourselves – using the benefit of contemporary methodologies and applications that have an academic’s needed detachment along with a scientific dispassion is not at all equatable to something that would be posited by an atheist. Such a statement not only does not do justice to the scholars, it would be absolutely offensive.

I am also not sure how to understand “faithful Catholic exegesis.” When I am reading or reviewing a scholar’s texts, the conclusions posited I may not agree with and may even dispute, yet I would almost never say that the exegesis itself, being done by a Catholic, was not “faithful”; it is a fruit of scholarship.

An enrichment is derived from scholarly insights such as what are in the footnotes.

The case of Père Marie-Joseph Lagrange himself well exemplifies that scholarship is rightly the province of scholars and is a textbook example of the negative of impeding or frustrating it.

If one, sadly, must read the Scripture in translation and not in the original language, the Jerusalem Bible has the advantage of being extremely literal.

 

[Eichelbaum]

ISuch a statement not only does not do justice to the scholars, it would be absolutely offensive.

I am also not sure how to understand “faithful Catholic exegesis.” When I am reading or reviewing a scholar’s texts, the conclusions posited I may not agree with and may even dispute, yet I would almost never say that the exegesis itself, being done by a Catholic, was not “faithful”; it is a fruit of scholarship.

Thank you, Father; your comments are most helpful.

By “faithful Catholic exegesis,” I simply mean the sort of exegesis that a layperson could read with confidence, without fear that it is modernistic or that it poses an unnecessary tension with regard to revealed doctrine.

We laypeople are, for the most part, not scholars, and we have other vocations through which we struggle to grow in holiness. Perhaps I’m guilty of a certain degree of black-and-white thinking with regard to this, but I sincerely lack the time and education and energy to sort out scholarly insights of value from those which lack value from those which are neutral.

I therefore simply would like to know whether to trust in a particular resource, or whether its more suspect than another.

My apologies if I’ve expressed myself poorly. My invocation of atheism was certainly not an accusation against the good Dominicans. Being a member of a Dominican parish in the Province of St. Joseph in the United States, I have nothing but love and respect for our dear friars.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

It holds a nihil obstat and imprimatur you are safe reading it.

 

[Eichelbaum]

It holds a nihil obstat and imprimatur you are safe reading it.

In 1981, a book by Fr. Raymond Brown was published that was entitled The Critical Meaning of the Bible. On pg. 16 of that book, he asserted that the Bible can contain errors in it.

In 1986, Msgr. George Kelly’s* The New Biblical Theorists — Raymond E. Brown and Beyond* came out. This book clearly defended a more robust definition of Biblical inerrancy than Fr. Brown would assert, claiming therein that “Brown insinuates a denial of inspiration and inerrancy as the Church defines both”.

Both of these works contained an imprimatur … by the same Bishop, His Excellency Bp. Joseph Thomas O’Keefe. (Source.)

I ask you.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

Are you trying to find fault in the footnotes of the JB for some reason?

 

[Eichelbaum]

Are you trying to find fault in the footnotes of the JB for some reason?

Well, to be blunt, the Priest I mentioned in my opening post in this thread is a very dear person to me, and I respect his opinion immensely. I’m actually trying to find reasons to be more comfortable with the JB, since a lot of my initial reaction to some of its scholarship is rather of the nervous sort.

 

[TMC]

In 1981, a book by Fr. Raymond Brown was published that was entitled The Critical Meaning of the Bible. On pg. 16 of that book, he asserted that the Bible can contain errors in it.

In 1986, Msgr. George Kelly’s* The New Biblical Theorists — Raymond E. Brown and Beyond* came out. This book clearly defended a more robust definition of Biblical inerrancy than Fr. Brown would assert, claiming therein that “Brown insinuates a denial of inspiration and inerrancy as the Church defines both”.

Both of these works contained an imprimatur … by the same Bishop, His Excellency Bp. Joseph Thomas O’Keefe. (Source.)

I ask you.

You seem to suggest that there is some approved Official Catholic Interpretation for every Bible passage and that the imprimatur means that a bishop has compared the text to that Official Catholic Interpretation. That is simply not the case. There are a wide range of interpretations, theories, and exegesis, each of which may be compatible with Catholic theology. Catholicism is in that way a pretty big tent; there is considerable room for varying opinions on many things.

 

[TMC]

Well, to be blunt, the Priest I mentioned in my opening post in this thread is a very dear person to me, and I respect his opinion immensely. I’m actually trying to find reasons to be more comfortable with the JB, since a lot of my initial reaction to some of its scholarship is rather of the nervous sort.

There is nothing wrong with respecting his opinion and counsel, while still sometimes disagreeing with him.

 

[Eichelbaum]

Catholicism is in that way a pretty big tent; there is considerable room for varying opinions on many things.

I quite agree.

For me, the anecdote simply means this.

A particular scholar could have a very lax interpretation of the doctrine of the inerrancy and historicity of Scripture, while another could be more stringent on the issue.

Both can be considered to be technically within the realm of orthodoxy, and even receive an imprimatur for their writings, even if one of them might be utilized to come to rather unorthodox conclusions.

But nonetheless, a spectrum exists, and the existence of an impimatur doesn’t necessarily tell us where on this spectrum a particular work might be located, as you allude to.

Therein lies my question regarding the JB.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Well they were written primarily by French Dominicans. The footnotes are pretty much literal translations of the French footnotes from the 1956 version of the La Bible de Jérusalem. I don’t like the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ because they change meanings from year to year and decade to decade.

Calvinists would probably describe them as ‘liberal’ though.

I can’t read the footnotes in the French one, because it is downloaded on my phone. I prefer RSV-CE 1st edition (it was, unfortunately, destroyed, but I have trouble finding it) and I read the 2nd edition as my personal Bible. I don’t like the phrases “liberal” or “conservative” either when discussing religion. To the OP, in my RSVCE the footnotes are not perfect, but they are definitely not the worst I have ever seen. I have read a little bit of the English Jerusalem Bible at a local bookstore, and I do not recall ever reading the footnotes.