Jerusalem Bible

[jurist12]

Yesterday I purchased the hardcover version of the Jerusalem Bible at a used book store. It is in good to excellent condition. It is the 1966 edition with all the notes and introductions. Is this a reliable translation and are the notes orthodox? Can I trust this version as one I can use as a main study Bible? Thank you for your answers. In Christ, jurist12

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

jurist12:

Yesterday I purchased the hardcover version of the Jerusalem Bible at a used book store. It is in good to excellent condition. It is the 1966 edition with all the notes and introductions. Is this a reliable translation and are the notes orthodox? Can I trust this version as one I can use as a main study Bible? Thank you for your answers. In Christ, jurist12

I have one. I don’t use it much and don’t like the translation. Get yourself a Douay or if you can afford one a Haydock (sp?) for real serious study.

 

[Evan]

The New American, the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition), and the Jerusalem are all acceptable bibles for Catholic bible study. My copy of the Jerusalem has great notes (study edition) and introductions. I like it so much better than our New American’s and Douay.

The problem with it is, the New Jerusalem was translated into French, and the French translated into English, with any problems settled by refering to the Greek and Hebrew. Rather than translating directly. But there doesn’t seem to be any slant for or against any particular theology.

The problem with the New American is that they have so many versions with the same name. I think the good ones were published around 1980. I have a New American from 1960’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and there are a lot of Politically Correct retranslations in the modern New American.

I don’t have an RSV(CE) so can’t comment on it, but I’ve heard it’s good. I also use the Navarra for reflection (not study).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

jurist12:

Yesterday I purchased the hardcover version of the Jerusalem Bible at a used book store. It is in good to excellent condition. It is the 1966 edition with all the notes and introductions. Is this a reliable translation and are the notes orthodox? Can I trust this version as one I can use as a main study Bible? Thank you for your answers. In Christ, jurist12

It is or was one of the very best versions, for Catholics, available. It might be a bit out-dated now, after almost 40 years.​

“Yes” to both questions. Doesn’t it have the Imprimatur or the Nihil Obstat anyway ?

I’ve been looking for a copy for years. ##

 

[FightingFat]

I mainly use the New Jerusalem Bible. It is a Catholic Bible and it’s my favourite to work from. I do have a few different ones, it’s interesting to compare and contrast!

 

[mayra_hart]

i have a question. i been doing a bible study of scott hahn an iam using the new jerusalem bible. is there is a different between footnotes between bibles and translations. thank you.

 

[asquared]

congratulations, you have made a real find, one of the best translations we have, and valid for liturgical use and personal study. you have the “old” Jerusalem bible. the “new” JB on the other hand was revised for inclusive language and some of the footnotes reworded or revised badly. This is my favorite version of the New Testament, especially John’s gospel.
The notes to various translations, NAB, RSV-CE etc. are not the be all and end all of bible interpretation, they are guides, and not meant to be exhaustive commentary. That is why having the various versions on hand is so useful for study, but you still need a good general commentary.

There are numerous threads here discussing the pros and cons of various translations. If they are approved by the Church you need have no scruples about using them.

 

[asquared]

mayra hart:

i have a question. i been doing a bible study of scott hahn an iam using the new jerusalem bible. is there is a different between footnotes between bibles and translations. thank you.

for the Scott Hahn bible studies he uses the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition, the Ignatius study bible series has the notes he uses, worth buying the individual books to accompany his studies. Then compare notes in other Catholic versions, and a good commentary.

 

[mayra_hart]

thank you iam doing his bible studies that are online. in the past i use to have someone to help me with the questions now iam on my own which is not easy. the new jerusalem bible i got it a few month ago. that was i was asking about the footnotes. one thing i have a king james in a box that i haven’t use are the footnotes are different there too? thank you.*You are all fair, O Mary,
and the original stain is not in you.
You are the glory of Jerusalem,
You are the joy of Israel,
You are the honor of our people,
You are the Advocate of sinners!
O Mary, Mary,
Virgin most pure,
Mother most merciful;
Pray for us,
Intercede for us with Our Lord Jesus Christ. *

 

[GWitherow]

There are only 3 Catholic translations (at least of the major translations) that do not have INCLUSIVE language. They are:

1. Douay Rheims (including the Confraternity Version)
2. RSV-CE
3. Jerusalem Bible (the old one, not the NEW Jerusalem Bible).

The Jerusalem Bible uses dynamic equivlance in it’s translation. That means it’s a “thought for thought” translation. It is better for devotional reading.

The DR and RSV-CE use formal equivalence as their translation technique. That means they are both more of a “word for word” translation. They are better for studying.

Only the DR (including the Confraternity Version) is free from liberal influences. Compare Isaiah 7:14 between the 3 versions. Only the DR gives us a Christian understanding as viewed by Matthew’s gospel. The other 2 translate the passage from a view that ignores the NT understanding (and an understanding portrayed in the Septuigent).

ON THE WHOLE HOWEVER, these 3 Bibles are the best Catholics have to choose from. Enjoy the translation and enjoy the study notes!

God Bless