Jerusalem Bible

[s4angel]

I must admit to some ignorance here as I am not sure as to what each of you is speaking of.

My turn to the catholic faith has much to do with the jeruselem bible. When first I was saved I asked for a few gifts with out knowing the cost.

#1 was to know what love is in the true sence of the word.
#2 was to know wisdom
and #3 was descernment. (sp)

My bible was the old jeruselem bible given to me by my Father handed down from my Grandmother.

I do not know about the rest of you but never have I read something that spoke to my heart as this bible does. I have been given many bible since but i always reach for this one bible even now when I have one less frayed and used.

It is not the translation but the one god gives us to speak to our hearts if we truly stop and listen.

I am curiouse about many things as most of you know:shrug: but what gets to me is the love that so clearly comes through to me when reading this particular bible. I wish everyone to feel the way I do when I opened the page.

 

[lak611]

Good question, because, if I remember correctly, the motu proprio makes provision for the readings to the congregation in the vernacular, as was always the custom, but I think that the translations may now be from the original languages. This, of course, is not good, because, not only will there be variance between readings in a 1962 missal and what the priest may be using, but it opens the door for the NAB/RNAB.

This happened before the motu proprio. I went to an indult TLM 4 years ago, and the priest used the RNAB.

 

[Manfred]

This happened before the motu proprio. I went to an indult TLM 4 years ago, and the priest used the RNAB.

:banghead:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi,

I’d like to see, and take part in, a discussion based round the Jerusalem Bibles, I know these exist for the RSV-CE’s, so i’ll describe my development with scripture as far as I feel is necessary, apologies in advance for the length!:

I used the New Jerusalem Bible in my A-Level studies a few years back, and grew quite attatched to this translation. Also, it carries an imprimatur, which is always good, depsite it not having traditional renderings such as ‘full of grace’ in Luke 1:28. By now i was around 18.

But once I immersed myself back into the faith around a year ago, which i was so happy about, I delved into the various catholic bibles around. I have grown towards the Douay Rheims and the RSV-CE2. So now I have all these bibles plus the NRSV Catholic Edition. (which i find quite weak as a catholic translation for reasons i wont go into here)

I’d say I use the NJB for my main reading and the others to cross reference it, since it doesn’t have those ageless passages like the DR has (by this i again mean things like Luke 1:28 that adhere to catholic tradition)

I try to use the Douay Rheims but often passages throw me so much I end up reaching for another translation to get a better hold of whats being said.
I guess its quite healthy to take in passages from a broad array of sources to determine your own feel for it, but on the other hand it could be argued that the use of one, authoritative bible has its rewards too.

Anyhow whilst at my cathedral yesterday I finally found the Original Jerusalem Bible, which is used in English masses. My post aims to see what people think of the Original Jerusalem Bible and the NJB, and what differences they have found between the two.

I know there are posts like this on the RSV CE so i thought i’d get one going for the Jerusalem editions. Any comments on how you feel that these editions carry the imprimatur despite lack of trad.catholic phrases and so on would be welcomed, as well as what you think these translations posess as far as strengths and weakneses go.

Sorry to take so long to get to my point!

Thanks,
Matt

The JB has excellent notes, which are very like those in the NAB. Both sets of notes are a generation old, so they could probably do with some revision.​

I thought that the NAB could have drawn attention to its translation of Gen. 10.10, which is based on an emended Hebrew text - the NEB is very good about that sort of thing. OTOH, every translation emends the texts at various points, & the producers of the NAB may have wanted to avoid confusing the reader. There is something to be said for alerting the reader to textual changes - & for not doing so.

As for the quality of the English: I know the JB has been highly praised for its literary qualities, but I found it disappointing on that score.

The version I use most is the New English Bible of 1970 - it’s not perfect, by any means; but I’m used to it & I like it (as it is not Catholic it has no Imprimatur; neither does any edition of the CCC I’ve seen - I have no idea why )

 

[lak611]

The JB has excellent notes, which are very like those in the NAB. Both sets of notes are a generation old, so they could probably do with some revision.​

I thought that the NAB could have drawn attention to its translation of Gen. 10.10, which is based on an emended Hebrew text - the NEB is very good about that sort of thing. OTOH, every translation emends the texts at various points, & the producers of the NAB may have wanted to avoid confusing the reader. There is something to be said for alerting the reader to textual changes - & for not doing so.

As for the quality of the English: I know the JB has been highly praised for its literary qualities, but I found it disappointing on that score.

The version I use most is the New English Bible of 1970 - it’s not perfect, by any means; but I’m used to it & I like it (as it is not Catholic it has no Imprimatur; neither does any edition of the CCC I’ve seen - I have no idea why )

I have the NEB also. I think it is better than the RNAB. I am still looking for a JB and NJB, both of which are difficult to find in the USA.

 

[Manfred]

This happened before the motu proprio. I went to an indult TLM 4 years ago, and the priest used the RNAB.

Here’s one of the “Twenty Questions” published by our beloved shepherds to aid us in reading and understanding the motu proprio:

1. When the extraordinary form is celebrated, what calendar and Lectionary may be used?

Whenever the extraordinary form of the Roman Liturgy is celebrated, the vernacular edition of the Lectionary for Mass may be used, while the calendar of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII is followed.

I sure hope most priests interpret “may” as “allowed”, but by no means “required”.

 

[lak611]

Here’s one of the “Twenty Questions” published by our beloved shepherds to aid us in reading and understanding the motu proprio:

1. When the extraordinary form is celebrated, what calendar and Lectionary may be used?

Whenever the extraordinary form of the Roman Liturgy is celebrated, the vernacular edition of the Lectionary for Mass may be used, while the calendar of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII is followed.

I sure hope most priests interpret “may” as “allowed”, but by no means “required”.

The priest did not use the vernacular Lectionary. He used the correct readings for the calendar of the TLM, but read from the RNAB. The handout of the propers that was given to the congregation had the readings from the D-R. That’s why I was puzzled by what I heard and checked my Bibles when I got home. I agree with you. I would much rather hear the readings from the D-R or Confraternity Bible in the TLM. Another parish that had an indult TLM at that time did use the D-R.

 

[Manfred]

Good question, because, if I remember correctly, the motu proprio makes provision for the readings to the congregation in the vernacular, as was always the custom, but I think that the translations may now be from the original languages. This, of course, is not good, because, not only will there be variance between readings in a 1962 missal and what the priest may be using, but it opens the door for the NAB/RNAB.

This is from Benedict XVI himself in the MP:

“Art. 6. In Masses celebrated with the people according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the Readings can be proclaimed even in the vernacular, using editions that have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See.”

Since the readings in the 1962 missal do NOT, for the most part, correspond to those in the currently-approved Lectionaries, then how should we interpret this? Given the situation with the RNAB, “editions” cannot possibly refer to the RNAB (or any other modern translation) in its entirety, right?

 

[lak611]

This is from Benedict XVI himself in the MP:

“Art. 6. In Masses celebrated with the people according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the Readings can be proclaimed even in the vernacular, using editions that have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See.”

Since the readings in the 1962 missal do NOT, for the most part, correspond to those in the currently-approved Lectionaries, then how should we interpret this? Given the situation with the RNAB, “editions” cannot possibly refer to the RNAB (or any other modern translation) in its entirety, right?

I would hope that this does not allow use of the parts of the RNAB that are not even allowed in the Pauline Mass to be used in the TLM.

 

[porthos11]

I would hope that this does not allow use of the parts of the RNAB that are not even allowed in the Pauline Mass to be used in the TLM.

On the other hand, I hope this at least allows the new RSV-2CE lectionary to be used at the Extraordinary Form.

 

[Pani_Rose]

Actually, the 1966 Bible is the Jerusalem Bible, not the New Jerusalem Bible.

Thanks, sorry that was a misthought That is what I meant was the Jerusalem Bible. Thanks again for the correction!

 

[Cranch]

Before we shout DEO GRATIAS here, remember that readings from the OT books could have been from the completed volumes of the Confraternity bible. These same, with slight editorial changes, would eventually be incorporated into the 1970 NAB. But at least we had no inclusive language to deal with!

I think you are right! The old St. Joseph Daily Missal came in a Confraternity version advertised as “Word for word as read from the pulpit.”

 

[Cranch]

This is from Benedict XVI himself in the MP:

“Art. 6. In Masses celebrated with the people according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the Readings can be proclaimed even in the vernacular, using editions that have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See.”

Since the readings in the 1962 missal do NOT, for the most part, correspond to those in the currently-approved Lectionaries, then how should we interpret this? Given the situation with the RNAB, “editions” cannot possibly refer to the RNAB (or any other modern translation) in its entirety, right?

I don’t know what percentage of the TLM’s 1-year cycle of readings is contained in the 3-year N.O. cycle, but any part that is not is a problem. I’d like to think this “recognitio” applies only to vernacular lectionaries previously used with the Missal of 1962, but I do not know if that is the case.

If Old Testament readings in Confraternity missals were in fact from the Confraternity bible, and not a new translation of the Latin for use in the Mass, then one development that seems to have already occurred in the past is the allowance in Mass of a vernacular not based on the Vulgate. This could point the way towards future options regarding the vernacular. The problem is this vernacular would not be a translation of the Latin next to it on the missal page!

 

[Manfred]

I don’t know what percentage of the TLM’s 1-year cycle of readings is contained in the 3-year N.O. cycle, but any part that is not is a problem. I’d like to think this “recognitio” applies only to vernacular lectionaries previously used with the Missal of 1962, but I do not know if that is the case.

If Old Testament readings in Confraternity missals were in fact from the Confraternity bible, and not a new translation of the Latin for use in the Mass, then one development that seems to have already occurred in the past is the allowance in Mass of a vernacular not based on the Vulgate. This could point the way towards future options regarding the vernacular. The problem is this vernacular would not be a translation of the Latin next to it on the missal page!

Well, let’s see: first, we’ll allow use of vernacular lectionaries - translated from the original languages - that have been accorded the “recognitio”; then, we add in a “few” new saints’ feasts and some new Prefaces. Before long, the Epistle and Gospel will be REQUIRED to be in the vernacular only; toss in a few other “innovations” from some on-the-edge celebrants, and before long, we have a “liturgical celebration” that is a hybrid of the TLM and the NO.

What, think it won’t happen? Don’t bet your pre-Vatican II St Joseph Daily Missal on it!

 

[Manfred]

I think you are right! The old St. Joseph Daily Missal came in a Confraternity version advertised as “Word for word as read from the pulpit.”

Yeah, well, the St Joseph I had replaced all the occurrences of thee/thou/thine with you/your/yours. Scratched my head several times every time I read that line.