Jerusalem Bible -- Liberal Commentary?

[Eichelbaum]

Incidentally, I received today a copy of A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, published in the 1950’s, and being a work of some 43 scholars with Dom Bernard Orchard as its general editor.

The book is everything the JB notes are not, I have to say.

 

[TMC]

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.

Well, I would say the JB then is sort of right down the middle. It is considered sound from a Catholic perspective. It is no fundamentalist, but it is not particularly liberal either, at least in my view.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Incidentally, I received today a copy of A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, published in the 1950’s, and being a work of some 43 scholars with Dom Bernard Orchard as its general editor.

The book is everything the JB notes are not, I have to say.

I see.

I seldom find enriching any scholarly text which is so many decades old, unless in this instance one was making a historical survey of the state of scholarship in the immediate wake of Divino Afflante Spiritu.

Since you say that you are in a parish of Dominicans, you may wish to ask for their help in terms of find contemporary scholarship in biblical studies and biblical archaeology.

 

[Waynec]

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.**

Me too. I love it and find the notes great.

 

[JRRTFAN]

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?

I think the JB notes are quite good and orthodox. When the NEW JB came along they started to diverge, but either JB or NJB notes are a world ahead of the awful notes of the NAB!

 

[Beeline]

New Jerusalem Bible:​

I’ve owned the Study version of the New American Bible( NAB )and the notes are quite liberal and bad in certain places. I’ve read the thing 6 times front to back and I know I can’t be without a Study Bible ( i.e. copious notes)

But my study bible is a thick paperback and after some years its worn and I could possibly get another few years out of it, but carefully. …dog eared, crumpled pages, maps at back pulled out and retaped in several times, etc. etc. I have notes in the margins I’ve made and will transfer these notes over time to the new Bible.

So now thats its time for a new Bible, I ordered a New Jersusalem Bible.

Important: ( if you order blindly through Amazon or online)
Did some research on the New Jerusalem Bible(NJB), it is a study bible (i.e. has copious bottom dwelling notes).Didnt previously realize the NJB is a study bible because it is not usually titled as such. However, although its a study bible, it doesnt say so on the cover. There is a “Readers Version” this has no notes. And there are some versions named the same as the study version i.e. “The Jerusalem Bible”, but have no notes. Buyer beware, do your research. Amazon reviews have complaints from people who bought a certain version and have no notes.

As to whether the New Jerusalem Bible has liberal notes: it does!
bible-researcher.com/new-jerusalem-bible.html

The revision of the voluminous notes and introductions of the version simply follows the new French edition, and they represent the opinions of secular critical scholars. Skeptical views on the authenticity of various books, on the truthfulness of the biblical narratives, and even on the inspiration of the teachings of the Bible, are presented as if they were uncontroversial.
…
This is a Bible suitable only for students who are well established in the faith and capable of using it with discretion.

From the above quote, it would seem the New Jerusalem Bible(NJB) is just as nasty and liberal as the New American Bible(NAB). Basically with these kind of notes, you dont want to recommend this kind of Bible to a friend or neophyte.
Any how I survived the bad notes of the NAB, and learned to just follow tradition, if tradition says … a certain apostle wrote a certain book…there is more truth in that than much of the recent/newer/secular analysis which says he did not. I can’t honestly say that all new secular analysis is bad, but on the whole one should stick to tradition.

Although the notes may be bad, they can be ignored quite easily by someone with discernment. For one, I cant do without a bible that doesnt have study notes. So I take the good with the bad, and its mostly good, notes are a huge help!

 

[tvknight415]

If you’re concerned about the notes, get the reader’s edition and a separate commentary and call it happy. No rule says you have to use only one translation or edition.

I think the original JB is one of the nicest reading bibles out there. Is it a dynamic translation, so its more thought-for-thought than word-for-word, but the meanings come through clearly.

Ultimately, no translation is perfect.