Jerusalem Bible

[kalt]

I’m sure this has been asked before, but I’m running out the door and don’t have time for a search. If someone doesn’t mind answering this just one more time…

I found a copy of the Jerusalem Bible Reader’s Edition 1968. Is this considered a good translation? What’s the difference between this and The New Jerusalem Bible?

 

[Cajetan]

The JB Reader’s Edition lacks the full notes of the proper JB… and lacks the imprimatur. That’s an important bit of info for a lot of Catholics.

Anyway, the JB text is generally held to be a pretty good translation, albeit not a literal translation. Aiming for a more “poetic” rendition, the translators worked under the dynamic-equivalence philosophy. Still, as far as these go it’s one of the best around.

I don’t have any experience with the NJB.

 

[puzzleannie]

NJB has inclusive language, the other differences are discusses in some of the past threads and stickies above about bible versions

 

[Cranch]

Please read this article for detailed examples of the liberties taken in the Jerusalem Bible with the original texts. This paragraph is instructive:Although it was prepared by Roman Catholics, the version does not serve to promote traditional Roman Catholic doctrine. The translation is little influenced by dogma (if at all), and even the annotations are of an ecumenical-scholarly character. This is a consequence of the fact that the scholars who produced both the French and the English versions were guided by the same principles of modern secular scholarship that many Protestant scholars have adopted in the more liberal theological schools. Traditional Roman Catholic exegesis is therefore largely absent from the Jerusalem Bible, just as traditional Protestant exegesis is absent from the Revised Standard Version.
Perhaps this sounds good if one is a fan of “modern secular scholarship.” But then we read:One academic reviewer (Gleason Archer) has described the Jerusalem Bible’s emendations of the Hebrew text as “undisciplined and capricious,” and concludes that “the Hebrew text is completely at the mercy of these translators, who can alter it to mean whatever they choose it to mean, without following the scientific procedures worked out by competent textual critics.”

 

[Mattjolley]

The Catholic Truth Society of England have published a recent edition of the Jerusalem Bible, with entirely new footnotes and updated cross references. Their site describes it as follows:

The CTS New Catholic Bible

The Bible tailor-made for every Catholic

Confused about which Bible to choose? Bewildered by all the different choices? Here is a Bible tailor-made for every Catholic. It will lead you through the exact same English texts that the Church uses at each Mass, with brand-new notes and introductions edited by Vatican expert Dom Henry Wansbrough OSB.

CTS has created four carefully thought-out editions to suit every need and budget.

What’s New in the New Catholic Bible:

Alongside the Jerusalem and Grail translations authorised by the Vatican for use in the Liturgy:

New specially commissioned introductions, one for each book, giving the biblical and historical context

New specially commissioned liturgical introductions placing each book of the Bible in the Church’s liturgical year

New footnotes following the latest scholarship

New marginal references helping you get the most out of each passage.

New layout – using clear and modern fonts in easy-to-read single-column format

New text alterations, replacing the word ‘Yahweh’ with ‘the LORD’ as requested by Benedict XVI for all new Bibles

New directories of references for readings used in the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours, including the fuller two-year cycle for the Breviary.

(Taken from cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_SC100.html)

If you wanted the Jerusalem Bible because it uses ‘Yahweh’, then this version isn’t for you. But this one is entirely faithful to the liturgy of England, so uses Lord throughout.

All in all a great bible that is very readable but not at a price, unlike the NAB, which, from what I gather, many feel is readable but loses meaning and has awful notes! (I haven’t read it personally so I don’t know!)

The notes in this CTS Bible are great, too. It also comes with a table of readings for the weekday and sunday masses so you can easily access the readings for the particular day on which you’re reading.

See their site: cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/Our_Products_CTS_New_Catholic_Bible_21.html

Hope this helps, and No, I’m not a salesman, hehe. But I do own this bible, and it is excellent.

Matt

 

[Manfred]

I’m sure this has been asked before, but I’m running out the door and don’t have time for a search. If someone doesn’t mind answering this just one more time…

I found a copy of the Jerusalem Bible Reader’s Edition 1968. Is this considered a good translation? What’s the difference between this and The New Jerusalem Bible?

I own both a full-size JB (1966) and NJB (1985), and I prefer the NJB to the JB any day, inclusive language notwithstanding. The NJB’s use of horizontal gender-inclusive language is quite restrained compared to that of the RNAB or the NRSV.

Further, the JB is more of a paraphrase than the NJB, which corrected many inconsistencies and just plain lame renderings of the 1966 edition. E.g., in Tobit 2, we read of “March the seventh”; in 1 Cor. 16, we read “Sunday”; in Job, instead of “here is my taw”, we read, “Here is my mark, from A to Z.”

It never ceases to amaze me why a Lectionary based on the NJB was never prepared, while we in the USA and our friends in Canada have to bear with the RNAB and NRSV, respectively. Worse, an appallingly low number of CAF posters have anything good to say about the NJB. It just seems to be ignored, but for no good reason.

The Reader’s Edition of either bible deprives you of all the study material that should accompany a half-way decent modern-language translation. Without the study material, the JB just isn’t worth it, since you have a very dynamic-equivalent translation and few notes, cross-references, book intros, etc. to make it palatable.

If you find one and can afford it, by all means get a full-size (not the Reader’s Edition) NJB.

 

[Mattjolley]

the version of the Jerusalem bible I posted about has four maps in the endpapers, and detailed footnotes for the size it is. i think you can find page samples on the site i gave. it also has two introductions for each book. and since its a catholic bible, it goes out of its way to use catholic notes

 

[Manfred]

Please read this article for detailed examples of the liberties taken in the Jerusalem Bible with the original texts. This paragraph is instructive:Although it was prepared by Roman Catholics, the version does not serve to promote traditional Roman Catholic doctrine. The translation is little influenced by dogma (if at all), and even the annotations are of an ecumenical-scholarly character. This is a consequence of the fact that the scholars who produced both the French and the English versions were guided by the same principles of modern secular scholarship that many Protestant scholars have adopted in the more liberal theological schools. Traditional Roman Catholic exegesis is therefore largely absent from the Jerusalem Bible, just as traditional Protestant exegesis is absent from the Revised Standard Version.
Perhaps this sounds good if one is a fan of “modern secular scholarship.” But then we read:One academic reviewer (Gleason Archer) has described the Jerusalem Bible’s emendations of the Hebrew text as “undisciplined and capricious,” and concludes that “the Hebrew text is completely at the mercy of these translators, who can alter it to mean whatever they choose it to mean, without following the scientific procedures worked out by competent textual critics.”

Cranch,

I like the Bible Researcher’s site for its wealth of information and references. But he doesn’t say much good about ANY Catholic bible, be it the D-R, the (R)NAB (well, alright, who can fault him for this, really?), the JB, the NJB. And he has little use for the RSV. So where does this leave us?

 

[inthecloud]

<kjv 1611? :d

 

[Cajetan]

I like the Bible Researcher’s site for its wealth of information and references. But he doesn’t say much good about ANY Catholic bible, be it the D-R, the (R)NAB (well, alright, who can fault him for this, really?), the JB, the NJB. And he has little use for the RSV. So where does this leave us?

Well, he is a Calvinist, so that’s not surprising.

Nonetheless, I agree that it’s a very informative and useful site. I’m over there a lot.

 

[Cranch]

Cranch,

I like the Bible Researcher’s site for its wealth of information and references. But he doesn’t say much good about ANY Catholic bible, be it the D-R, the (R)NAB (well, alright, who can fault him for this, really?), the JB, the NJB. And he has little use for the RSV. So where does this leave us?

As you say, there’s a lot of good info. And from various sources in some cases. I do note some criticism of the NKJV, NIV and NEB as well. I think part of the site’s purpose is to focus on the problems of the different translations, the better to evaluate them. In the end we’re responsible for our own choice.

 

[garysibio]

I own both a full-size JB (1966) and NJB (1985), and I prefer the NJB to the JB any day, inclusive language notwithstanding. The NJB’s use of horizontal gender-inclusive language is quite restrained compared to that of the RNAB or the NRSV.

Further, the JB is more of a paraphrase than the NJB, which corrected many inconsistencies and just plain lame renderings of the 1966 edition. E.g., in Tobit 2, we read of “March the seventh”; in 1 Cor. 16, we read “Sunday”; in Job, instead of “here is my taw”, we read, “Here is my mark, from A to Z.”

It never ceases to amaze me why a Lectionary based on the NJB was never prepared, while we in the USA and our friends in Canada have to bear with the RNAB and NRSV, respectively. Worse, an appallingly low number of CAF posters have anything good to say about the NJB. It just seems to be ignored, but for no good reason.

The Reader’s Edition of either bible deprives you of all the study material that should accompany a half-way decent modern-language translation. Without the study material, the JB just isn’t worth it, since you have a very dynamic-equivalent translation and few notes, cross-references, book intros, etc. to make it palatable.

If you find one and can afford it, by all means get a full-size (not the Reader’s Edition) NJB.

I also like the NJB. It’s not perfect but none of them are. I find it interesting that often, when watching a program on EWTN, when the speaker says ‘such and such passage would be better translated this way’, the NJB frequently has it that way.

Gary

 

[BDewey]

Rely upon the annotated Notes…not the text. The Notes were (and are) excellent. Use the NRV-CE for your text. Mix’n’ match is the name of the game when it comes to Biblical exegesis in the English language.

Take this from somebody who spent years in the seminary and who knows Greek.

 

[porthos11]

The JB Reader’s Edition lacks the full notes of the proper JB… and lacks the imprimatur. That’s an important bit of info for a lot of Catholics.

What do you mean? The Reader’s Ediion possesses the same Imprimatur given the original JB (after all, the former is merely a subset of the latter.) + John Cardinal Heenan.

In any case, Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are no longer the required stamps of approval for Catholic Bibles under present Canon Law. Today, the requirement is approval by the Bishops’ Conference.

 

[Manfred]

… Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are no longer the required stamps of approval for Catholic Bibles under present Canon Law. Today, the requirement is approval by the Bishops’ Conference.

Many of us were not aware of this. When did this occur? Does it apply to translations for liturgical use or for translations in general? Are those that already have Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs “grandfathered” in?

 

[porthos11]

Many of us were not aware of this. When did this occur? Does it apply to translations for liturgical use or for translations in general? Are those that already have Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs “grandfathered” in?

This would have taken effect with the implementation of the 1983 Canon Law.

I am not a canon lawyer, but my take on it is that Canon 825 s.1 applies to all Bibles for use by Catholics. My educated guess is that this applies to new publications, not old ones still in print (e.g. original Jerusalem Bible; NAB; RSV).

It is, clearly, a higher requirement than a mere Imprimatur.