Jerusalem Bible

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

SacredHeartFan

Guest
I LOVE the Jerusalem Bible!!! It is the most accurate English translation comming from the oldest hebrew, aramic, and greek sources. It’s not like the NAB or DR or RSV that were translated from the Latin Vulgate. Mother Angelica uses it in her T.V. shows on EWTN. Who else likes the Jerusalem Bible?
 
Hi SacredHeartFan,
SacredHeartFan said:
I LOVE the Jerusalem Bible!!! It is the most accurate English translation coming from the oldest hebrew, aramic, and greek sources. It’s not like the NAB or DR or RSV that were translated from the Latin Vulgate. Mother Angelica uses it in her T.V. shows on EWTN. Who else likes the Jerusalem Bible?
Click to expand...
I have the Jerusalem bible and LOVE it. I have many other translations but still go back to the Jerusalem. I have the one printed in the 60’s with all the footnotes, I don’t think the one on EWTN has all the footnotes. I also found a hard copy on the net that I purchased. I am afraid that mine will just fall apart and I wouldn’t be able to buy another one. Hence, the purchase of the big hard covered bible.

JeanneH
 
it is and remains my favorite translation,esp NT, but until they reset the reader’s edition with larger type, forget it, I simply can’t struggle to read it any more. anymore I just don’t want a bible with notes, just the text, because that is the way I read and pray the bible. If I want to look something up I will use a reference book or go online.
 
JeanneH said:
Hi SacredHeartFan,

I have the Jerusalem bible and LOVE it. I have many other translations but still go back to the Jerusalem. I have the one printed in the 60’s with all the footnotes, I don’t think the one on EWTN has all the footnotes. I also found a hard copy on the net that I purchased. I am afraid that mine will just fall apart and I wouldn’t be able to buy another one. Hence, the purchase of the big hard covered bible.

JeanneH
Click to expand...
I have the 1966 Reader’s Edition. It’s actually in pretty good shape. I inherited it when my grandfather died. He couldn’t see well so he never actually used it anyway. The dust cover has been long lost but I don’t care about that. I want to get the Standard Edition, because mine doesn’t have that many footnotes. I am going to EWTN this summer and I want to buy the Word of God Bible cover that Mother Angelica uses.
 
SacredHeartFan said:
I LOVE the Jerusalem Bible!!! It is the most accurate English translation comming from the oldest hebrew, aramic, and greek sources. It’s not like the NAB or DR or RSV that were translated from the Latin Vulgate. Mother Angelica uses it in her T.V. shows on EWTN. Who else likes the Jerusalem Bible?
Click to expand...
The NAB and the RSV are based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, not on the Latin Vulgate.

As one of the looser translations, the JB is eloquent, but is not considered by scholars to be as accurate a representation of the source texts as the more literal versions.

The New Jerusalem Bible attempted (and partially succeeded) in correcting some of the inaccuracies of the JB.
 
Hi SacredHeartFan
. I want to get the Standard Edition, because mine doesn’t have that many footnotes. I am going to EWTN this summer and I want to buy the Word of God Bible cover that Mother Angelica uses.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you can still get the standard bible with the foot notes.
Have a great time at EWTN. What a trip that is going to be for you. You can purchase the Word of God bible cover with the bible that Mother Angelica uses on line from EWTN but what a treat to be able to buy it right at EWTN itself.

God Bless
JeanneH
 
SacredHeartFan said:
I LOVE the Jerusalem Bible!!! It is the most accurate English translation comming from the oldest hebrew, aramic, and greek sources. It’s not like the NAB or DR or RSV that were translated from the Latin Vulgate. Mother Angelica uses it in her T.V. shows on EWTN. Who else likes the Jerusalem Bible?
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the English version of the JB was translated from FRENCH. :whacky:
 
mercygate said:
It is my understanding that the English version of the JB was translated from FRENCH. :whacky:
Click to expand...
Actually the JB was a French Bible. People who spoke English demanded a copy of the Bible in English. They started the whole processe over directly from the Hebrew, etc.
 
SacredHeartFan said:
Actually the JB was a French Bible. People who spoke English demanded a copy of the Bible in English. They started the whole processe over directly from the Hebrew, etc.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that clarification. Much appreciation. :tiphat:
 
I have read some of the Jerusalem Bible and I like it more than the NAB. I still prefer the Douay-Rheims but I seem to take to the Jerusalem Bible real inspiring. I don’t know. It maybe due to the fact on the cover it says “Best Wishes, Fr. David Moore” The NAB is great for beginners and so is Jerusalem. I wish that maybe we’d use the Jerusalem instead of NAB in mass. Douay-Rheims is still the official English Bible of the Church but not often used in mass, only because it is the English version of the official version of the church the Latin Vulgate. I seemed to understand the Jerusalem Bible more than the NAB though.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I have read some of the Jerusalem Bible and I like it more than the NAB. I still prefer the Douay-Rheims but I seem to take to the Jerusalem Bible real inspiring. I don’t know. It maybe due to the fact on the cover it says “Best Wishes, Fr. David Moore” The NAB is great for beginners and so is Jerusalem. I wish that maybe we’d use the Jerusalem instead of NAB in mass. Douay-Rheims is still the official English Bible of the Church but not often used in mass, only because it is the English version of the official version of the church the Latin Vulgate. I seemed to understand the Jerusalem Bible more than the NAB though.
Click to expand...
It is? Well you would think they would put the DR on the vatican website rather than the NAB. It confuses me!
 
to tell you the truth I wish they had a parallel bible on the vatican site. This version I would recommend Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, Confraternity, Jerusalem and NAB. I think it would give a deeper meaning of where we were at with the language of the bible and it would enhance our understanding of the bible
 
tobinatorstark said:
I have read some of the Jerusalem Bible and I like it more than the NAB. I still prefer the Douay-Rheims but I seem to take to the Jerusalem Bible real inspiring. I don’t know. It maybe due to the fact on the cover it says “Best Wishes, Fr. David Moore” The NAB is great for beginners and so is Jerusalem. I wish that maybe we’d use the Jerusalem instead of NAB in mass. Douay-Rheims is still the official English Bible of the Church but not often used in mass, only because it is the English version of the official version of the church the Latin Vulgate. I seemed to understand the Jerusalem Bible more than the NAB though.
Click to expand...
In the US, we are no longer allowed to use the JB in the Liturgy; you can thank your bishops’ conference for that.

The D-R was translated from the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate; while the Vulgate was at one time the “official” bible of the Latin-rite Church, this is less so today, and there is, BTW, a new Vulgate, the Nova Vulgata, as of 1979, from which no English translation has been made, nor likely will be.
 
I never cease to be amazed at why there isn’t an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

Why would anyone fear it?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I never cease to be amazed at why there isn’t an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

Why would anyone fear it?
Click to expand...
Jerry,

Pius XII in 1943 issued Divino Afflante Spiritu, encouraging biblical studies and the making of vernacular translations for the original languages. True, he did not forbid for evermore new translations from the Vulgate. But no Catholic scholar wants to find himself with the stigma of “levity and sloth” for not having recourse on each and every occasion to the original language texts.

Have we done a decent job with translations from the original languages? Most of us don’t think so, but it’s not because of the source texts; it’s the fault of the somewhat liberal translators. In truth, the RSV-CE is far less liberal than any editions of the (R)NAB or (N)JB.
 
What if a scholar or a group of scholars consulted original language texts and made very few revisions to the Nova Vulgata and revisions that were non doctrinal in nature.

Would a translation of the Nova Vulgata like that pass muster with Divino Afflante Spiritu’s recommendation that original language texts be explored to find the true meaning of the scriptures?

In other words is it possible for a translation to have both the accuracy of the Vulgate on doctrinal matters and faith and morals and also accuracy in other areas of the bible by using original language text renderings that might be different than the Vulgate’s?
 
SacredHeartFan said:
I LOVE the Jerusalem Bible!!! It is the most accurate English translation comming from the oldest hebrew, aramic, and greek sources. It’s not like the NAB or DR or RSV that were translated from the Latin Vulgate. Mother Angelica uses it in her T.V. shows on EWTN. Who else likes the Jerusalem Bible?
Click to expand...
I do, and have one that’s old and a hand me down from a friend’s mom, and then I just bought a new one last spring as the other one was tattered and I wanted something new. 🙂
 
JeanneH said:
Hi SacredHeartFan

I don’t know if you can still get the standard bible with the foot notes.
Have a great time at EWTN. What a trip that is going to be for you. You can purchase the Word of God bible cover with the bible that Mother Angelica uses on line from EWTN but what a treat to be able to buy it right at EWTN itself.

God Bless
JeanneH
Click to expand...
I agree, I want the bible cover too but to buy it and have it shipped over would cost a lot. 😦 Altho, the dollar is so weak so maybe I should order it online and get it shipped over 😉
 
Jerry-Jet said:
What if a scholar or a group of scholars consulted original language texts and made very few revisions to the Nova Vulgata and revisions that were non doctrinal in nature.

Would a translation of the Nova Vulgata like that pass muster with Divino Afflante Spiritu’s recommendation that original language texts be explored to find the true meaning of the scriptures?

In other words is it possible for a translation to have both the accuracy of the Vulgate on doctrinal matters and faith and morals and also accuracy in other areas of the bible by using original language text renderings that might be different than the Vulgate’s?
Click to expand...
Jerry,

Liturgiam Authenticam suggested as much; to wit, translate from the original-language texts into the vernacular, but, where textual variants present insurmountable discrepancies, then go with the Nova Vulgata. That’s the good news.

Now the bad news: no one to date has done this! And no, the much-admired RSV-2CE doesn’t satisfy this criterion, either.
 
I love the Jerusalem bible:D
I am a revert to the church from evangelical/reformed background and let me tell you, it has been hard finding a good bible as a catholic. Go to any christian bookstore and they have so many versions to choose from, us catholics have only about 3-4 good versions to choose from. My wife purchased the 1966 soft leatherflex edition that comes with all the great notes, later i purchased a large leather cover from Bob Siemon’s design and it fit perfectly (FYI). The notes for this bible dont go overboard on the higher critical perspective and i found that in the NT they state that the Q gospel theory for the synoptics gospels is unlikely.
I find myself enjoying this bible every day for its great readability (similar to the NIV) and great notes that do support catholic doctrine (many on the web state it doesnt). Coming from a reformed background i find this bible a breath of fresh air. If any one would like to discredit this bible i would say that no bible is perfect, This bible is very balanced and again, not perfect.

My final analysis and conclusion these past 4 years re catholic bible translations is this:
🙂 DRB= hard to read even if you can read shakesperean english,
great notes but very few. Get the TAN editon if you like
to write or make notes since the Baronius and Loreto
editions will not allow this (very thin paper, no space)
😦 NAB= ok translation (inclusive language) not so great notes
since they challenge your faith at times.
:o RSV=Good translation, not many notes:confused: The
alternative is the Navarre commentaries and Scott
Hahn’s study bible (Ignatius study bible) release…2010
for NT, the entire bible…maybe 2025
NJB= good revision of the JB but inclusive language (notes are
balanced but some of the original JB notes have been
deleted.
GNT= great translation for children.
KNOX= a well done revision of the DRB, no notes

We will all have to wait for the Ignatius Study Bible to be released to have the study bible we have all been waiting for, our kids will truly enjoy it when they are adults.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top