Jerusalem Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter SacredHeartFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I love my Jerusalem Bible. It’s simply so easy to understand and the notes listing the cross references are fantastic. I was pleasantly surprised at how good this translation really is.
I usually use the RSV-CE for devotional reading and love that one as well. Though to feel like I get the full idea of what is trying to be communicated I read the JB although I hear it’s not always accurate in translation.
 
david126 said:
I love the Jerusalem bible:D
Click to expand...
I have the 1968 printing with a 3/1/68 forward hard-cover JB that I read since 1979 sometimes just reading the footnotes. I had to retire it in the late 1990’s for the 1985 NJB for fear of it becoming seriously damaged. Reading it in bed has not been the best for it’s binding and now the pages are yellowed with age and have that delicate touch. I think there is a 3rd JB in the works and will welcome it as I have the others.
 
I would love that. I have only the new hardcover readers edition, but would love a leather version of the JB. Heres to hoping!😃
 
If you go to Amazon.com UK there is i believe the third edition of the JB that changes the name YHWW to Lord, if my memory serves me right, it is called the CTS study bible. Most comments on the web are positive and best of all, IT IS LEATHERBOUND 👍
Look for the imitation leatherflex on ebay, this is where my wife purchased my copy, it usually comes in black or burgundy. God Bless.
 
It is true that last year the British ‘Catholic Truth Society’ published a version of the Jerusalem Bible with the divine name Yahweh replaced by ‘LORD’. The unfortunate problem I find with it is that the typeface is rather small, even in the presentation version. This version is otherwise identical to the original JB, apart from the Psalms, which are in the ‘Grail’ translation.

The best printing of the Jerusalem Bible is, I believe, the original Doubleday two volume issue (Old and New Testaments published in separate volumes). Interested readers may wish to seek this out on the Internet (I found mine on Abebooks ages ago, but they are not unfortunately easy to find).
 
Ron_Conte said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree the JB is a good flowing translation, but it does contain some bad bits of translation. As you said the NJB attempted to correct them but it went gender neutral which spoilt it.
 
Well, my first ever bible was the NLT (New Living Translation) and I loved it. But then some Catholic friends of mine said it wasn’t Catholic approved, so I bought the reader’s edition of the JB. It’s hardcover and I love it. But I miss little things from the NLT version like the words of our Lord in red… and verses numbered easier…
 
PaulChristopher said:
The best printing of the Jerusalem Bible is, I believe, the original Doubleday two volume issue (Old and New Testaments published in separate volumes). Interested readers may wish to seek this out on the Internet (I found mine on Abebooks ages ago, but they are not unfortunately easy to find).
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for this. I have the one volume Doubleday edition with a slipcase and notes, and also the “Salvador Dali” edition.

May I ask – were the two volumes in a single slipcase? Did they have dust jackets? I will start looking for one for myself.
 
imamom said:
Well, my first ever bible was the NLT (New Living Translation) and I loved it. But then some Catholic friends of mine said it wasn’t Catholic approved, so I bought the reader’s edition of the JB. It’s hardcover and I love it. But I miss little things from the NLT version like the words of our Lord in red… and verses numbered easier…
Click to expand...
I like the way the Jerusalem Bible (in the edition I have) has the verse numbers on the side so they don’t interrupt my reading. I don’t like verse numbers – I want to concentrate on God’s message, not on verse numbers.

I know some people like red letter editions for the words of Christ. I prefer black letter editions because (a) they are easier to read; and (b) all of Scripture is God-breathed – not just the words of the Savior.
 
Bible_Reader said:
Thank you very much for this. I have the one volume Doubleday edition with a slipcase and notes, and also the “Salvador Dali” edition.

May I ask – were the two volumes in a single slipcase? Did they have dust jackets? I will start looking for one for myself.
Click to expand...
Hello there

I bought the New Testament and Old Testament separately, so they weren’t in a slipcase. It is possible they originally were sold that way. Equally they probably originally had dust jackets, but mine are without. They are red hardbacks, 9.5" x 6.5". The Old Testament has 1587 numbered pages, the New Testament 462.

Good luck in your search.
 
Ron_Conte said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi, Ron Conte!

Is there an on-line source that lists these inaccuracies?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
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...
Hi, SacredHeartFan!

I love the Jerusalem Bible–I have a 1975 version in Spanish, it includes extensive footnotes and concordence; I have two versions of the NJB and an additional JB–all in English, all having less footnotes and concordence than the Spanish version.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
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 didn’t think the NAB or RSV were translated from the Vulgate? I always thought just the DR was. Am I missing something?

But to the original topic, I love the Jerusalem Bible, we English use it in our lectionary so it will always be my favorite translation, particularly with the changes the lectionary made (Yahweh changed to LORD, etc)
Matt
 
I only have a NT of the Jerusalem Bible and I like what I read. As far as its translations come from I don’t know. The NAB doesn’t follow the Latin Vulgate in most books, it does in a few. In fact most modern translations the Psalms are numbered following the King James Version and not Latin Vulgate as was the Douay-Rheims. The beloved Psalm 23 in King James is also Psalm 23 in NAB, but in the Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims it Psalm 23 that we know is actually Psalm 22. Psalms in 1-8 in both Latin Vulgate and King James are the same and they differ for a couple of Psalms then back the same and then a majority of them of the Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims are 1 behind King James and modern Catholic and Protestant versions, not sure how Jerusalem Bible is though. I would like to have a complete Jerusalem Bible sometime in the future. I liked the Gospel of Luke in Jerusalem Bible
 
Mattjolley said:
I didn’t think the NAB or RSV were translated from the Vulgate? I always thought just the DR was. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
You’re correct. Of these three, only the D-R is a translation of the Vulgate. The Ronald Knox version was also made from the Vulgate, "in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals."
 
I don’t know in english, but in spanish The Jerusalem Bible had an edition in 1975 and then in 1998. I was sad to find the different translations done in both versions. Is hebrew such a difficult language to translate accuretly?
 
tessi said:
I don’t know in english, but in spanish The Jerusalem Bible had an edition in 1975 and then in 1998. I was sad to find the different translations done in both versions. Is hebrew such a difficult language to translate accuretly?
Click to expand...
all languages are difficult to translate because the English language is so limited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top