Jerusalem Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter SacredHeartFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SacredHeartFan

Guest
I have the 1968 English Jerusalem Bible. It’s the reader’s edition so there are no footnotes. Is this an accurate translation?
 
Manny people thing is a classic. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible. JR Tolkien actually worked in that edition. No inclusive language them.
I heard there is going to be a new reprint. It was the standard English language Bible in the English speaking world outside the USA.
 
I guess yes.
Wikipedia article:
The translation itself uses a literal approach that has been admired for its literary qualities, perhaps in part due to its most famous contributor, J.R.R. Tolkien (his primary contribution was the translation of Jonah).[2]. The introductions, footnotes, and even the translation itself, reflect a modern scholarly approach, reflecting the conclusions of scholars who use historical-critical method. For example, the introduction and notes reject Moses’s authorship of the Pentateuch.
Click to expand...
The Jerusalem Bible was the first widely accepted Catholic English translation of the Bible since the Douay-Rheims Version of the 17th century. It carries the Church’s imprimatur as being correct in all matters of faith and doctrine. This means it is an official Catholic Bible. The Jerusalem Bible was considered such a high quality advanced English translation of the Bible that the Holy See used it in the European liturgy and the Mass. This reference for The Jerusalem Bible can be found in the introduction page of the Roman Catholic Missals as the source reference for the readings. It has also been widely praised for an overall very high level of scholarship, and is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants. The overall text seems to have somewhat of a “Mid-Atlantic” nature, neither overwhelmingly British nor particularly American, making it acceptable to both groups in most instances. Overall, it has come to be considered as one of the better English translations of the Bible made in the 20th Century.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Bible
 
I have that edition for I don’t remember how long, probably the 70’s. I love it. I bought the revised JB but I did not like it at all.
 
The Jerusalem Bible is a very dynamic translation, so don’t expect any “Biblish” phrases made familiar by the King James tradition.

Other than that, it’s a fine and easy read.
 
All translations of the Bible have weaknesses and strengths, and all translations are subject to legitimate, temperate, scholarly criticism. I often read in posts and articles on this subject opinions where one translation is exalted and other translations are debased. This is almost always an exaggeration.
 
The Catholic Truth Society of England have published a recent edition, with entirely new footnotes and updated cross references.

It is intended for the layperson to follow the liturgy, as there are tables of all the years readings at the back and so forth. But it is a normal Bible other than that feature.
I use it as my everyday bible, as it doesnt have the Jerusalem’s original Psalms, (which use Yahweh etc) but the Grail ones used in the English Liturgy. In other words, it’s the most ‘official’ and therfore arguably the most accurate English (as in British) version going.

See their site: cts-online.org.uk/ctsbible.htm

Or you can buy it on cenacle.co.uk.

Hope this helps!

Matt
 
have the Jerusalem’s original Psalms, (which use Yahweh etc) but the Grail ones used in the English Liturgy.
Click to expand...
Cultural question.
What is wrong with Yahweh in the Psalms?

Most Spanish language Catholic Bibles use Yahveh or a variation.
Only the protestant ones use Jehovah or Lord. Is a English tradition not to use Yahweh
 
inthecloud said:
Cultural question.
What is wrong with Yahweh in the Psalms?

Most Spanish language Catholic Bibles use Yahveh or a variation.
Only the protestant ones use Jehovah or Lord. Is a English tradition not to use Yahweh
Click to expand...
Liturgiam Authenticam stated that “Yahweh” was not to be used in the Liturgy.

With its measured use of inclusive language, I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) to its 1966 predecessor, the latter leaning way too much to the side of dynamic equivalence.

As far as the JB’s use in the Liturgy as “validation” that it must be “good”: in the USA, we use the RNAB in the Liturgy, and many of us in these threads wish we didn’t!
 
I believe this is the one that Mother Angelica always used for her TV shows. I remember her telling her listeners not to get the new one, because it had “inclusive language”.
 
I have to check the Lectionary in Spanish.
I know is based in the Jerusalem Bible in Spanish.
Maybe is only for Liturgical purposes the use of Lord, the same whay Jews use Adonai.
 
spangler1982 said:
I believe this is the one that Mother Angelica always used for her TV shows. I remember her telling her listeners not to get the new one, because it had “inclusive language”.
Click to expand...
Yes, the 1966 JB was Mother’s favorite bible, probably still is, and I do remember her telling her audience not to bother with the NJB. I had already bought mine years earlier, and, after hearing several samples of the JB on EWTN, I was glad I had the NJB.

Today I own one of each, full-size editions, with ALL the study aids, etc. I’ve compared many passages side-by-side. I could never quote from the JB with a straight face; it’s way too informal for me.

If I had the time I’d compile and post a list of all the infelicitous renderings in the JB. As far as the inclusive language issue: many of us have stated here repeatedly that the inclusive language in the NJB is measured and restrained compared to its rampant use in the RNAB and NRSV.
 
Manfred: Hypotheticaly if you had Carte blanche authority to change everything you thought was in error about the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, the RSV bible , and the Douay-Confraternity bible --how would all of those “corrected” bibles stack up against each other in your estimation?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Manfred: Hypotheticaly if you had Carte blanche authority to change everything you thought was in error about the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, the RSV bible , and the Douay-Confraternity bible --how would all of those “corrected” bibles stack up against each other in your estimation?
Click to expand...
Jerry,

I’m not clear what you mean by “error”, but if you meant “infelicitous renderings”, i.e., innovative, outlandish, tone-deaf, bland - well, I’m not sure I’d have enough time or energy to do so. Nor, for that matter, should I. You see, all I’d need to work on would be one translation that was already pretty close to what I thought was near-perfect. And, since I had carte blanche to edit as I saw fit, I would pick the New Jerusalem Bible.

First thing I’d do is remove even the mild inclusive language. Then I’d restore some of the more familiar, traditional, tried-and-true renderings here and there. I would probably dispense with any thee/thou/thine usage, although I myself actually prefer it. For the most part, this is the one Catholic bible that had some good scholarship wrt to its selection of manuscripts of the various books. The only place it went awry was with the incorporation of inclusive language (however restrained it may have been) and trying to be too avant garde with some passages.

The Douay and any of its revisions could not make critical use of ancient manuscripts since they must hew to the Vulgate. Many of the tried-and-true renderings, though, could be taken right from the Douay-Rheims or the RSV.

I consider the 1966 Jerusalem Bible too free for any serious consideration.

You realize I’m leaving myself open to catch flak for dissing the JB and showing partiality to the NJB. But I’ve been at this since 1986 and it’s not easy to shake off.

Thanks for asking, Jerry. :tiphat:
 
Does anyone know all the differences of the 3d edition of the Jerusalem bible–I hear it is in French–is there an English version of it anywhere?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top