The 1966 Jerusalem Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For anyone who uses, or who is wondering about the Jerusalem Bible, here is my opinion of it based on sixteen years’ experience.

I began using the JB in 1994 when I became a Catholic. I love this translation, despite its flaws, which are mercifully few in my opinion. The biggest mistake was to translate the Greek ‘makarios’ as ‘happy’ instead of ‘blessed’, particularly in the Beatitudes. You end up with the ultimate absurdity of ‘Happy those who mourn’. It just doesn’t work. I’ve trained myself to say ‘blessed’ whenever I see the word ‘happy’, just as in the Old Testament I translate ‘Yahweh’ as ‘the Lord’.

That aside, this is a wonderful translation - clear, fresh and vivid. The Word of God almost leaps up at you from the page as you read. This is a great Bible to use for spiritual reading and meditation and if, like me, you have the full edition with footnotes, you also have a useful commentary to help you make sense of difficult passages as well as explain theological nuances. In this edition there are also very good introductions to whole sections of the Bible, with subsections dealing with each book.

Reading the JB is considerably enhanced by the single-column format. This is a rare feature in Bibles, which are generally printed in double columns. This means that complex passages in, say, the letters of Paul are not broken up but ‘flow’ as you read them.

The JB is renowned for its literary quality. Its successor, the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) is considered more accurate but some of the fine poetry has been lost in the process. I use the NJB for serious study but, on the whole, I prefer the JB. It’s not all plain sailing. The JB does let itself down on occasion, but overall I think it is superior to most other translations, including the NAB. The JB is currently the translation used for readings in the missal in the U.K., Ireland and certain other English-speaking countries, but this is most likely to change with the introduction of the revised missal, possibly next year. The version chosen by the bishops in the U.K. for the revised missal is the NRSV, which I think is regrettable. Extensive amendments will have to be made to the text of the NRSV in order for the readings to comply with Vatican strictures about gender-inclusive language. This would also have been the case had the NJB been selected, but to a lesser extent. There is a third edition of the JB in preparation, publication date unknown.
 
I share your sentiment bermark (especially the comment about happy). Been waiting for the third edition for a long time. Wish the CTS Bible was readily availiable to us here in the USA.
 
The JB is renowned for its literary quality. Its successor, the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) is considered more accurate but some of the fine poetry has been lost in the process. I use the NJB for serious study but, on the whole, I prefer the JB. It’s not all plain sailing. The JB does let itself down on occasion, but overall I think it is superior to most other translations, including the NAB. .
Yeah, I think that’s a given. You’d probably be better off reading a NKJV than a NAB. It would most likely be better than the Prophecy obscuring, demasculizing, politically correct, diminishing of the Deity of Christ, heretical notes NRSV or NJB as well. Whats with Catholic translations…
 
Good question. Most Bibles published post 1970s reflect the politically correct climate of the age. It’s reprehensible that Bible scholars, of all people, have caved into this trend. One notable exception is the English Standard Version, published a few years ago which I believe is now available with the Deutero-Canonical Books (Apocrypha), so that might be worth investigating. From what I know of the ESV it is designed to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant churches. For now I think I’ll stick to my good ol’ Jerusalem Bible, quirks and all!
 
NJB’s Phillipians 2:6 is definitely Arian, i.e., heretical:The Douay-Rheims says:, which is a perfect translation of the Vulgate:and the Greek:(click each word for a definition). There is nothing about the Second Person of the Trinity not conceivably being equal to God.
WOW! I whipped out my DRC and you are exactly right. I never saw that before. It’s an amazing difference between the DRC and all modern translations I am familiar with.
 
Regarding KShaft’s response to my favourable comments about the Jerusalem Bible and my reply (both posted 21 August), may I make the following observations on the subject of political correctness?

Recently I picked up two leaflets in my church, each promoting Catholic organizations. The first, for The Knights of Columba (a Catholic fraternity for men), spells ‘Christian’ as ‘christian’ (twice). The second, for Pax Christi, an international Catholic movement for peace, spells ‘Bible’ as ‘bible’. In each case the organizations would have to be very careless indeed not to notice these discrepancies before going to print. So, what is going on? I know little about these organizations and no doubt both of them labour in various fields in the name of Christ, but their promotional literature is curiously flawed.

My question is: how far has the liberal agenda penetrated the walls of the Church, to walk along grand corridors, to occupy seats of power, to influence the faithful with their dubious and subversive notions? Although to some this may seem like a diversion from the subject, it is in fact directly relevant. To my knowledge the Jerusalem Bible is the only conservative modern-English translation available to English-speaking Catholics in the world. Is this a further illustration of my quandary, another indictment of the status quo?
 
Regarding KShaft’s response to my favourable comments about the Jerusalem Bible and my reply (both posted 21 August), may I make the following observations on the subject of political correctness?

.

. To my knowledge the Jerusalem Bible is the only conservative modern-English translation available to English-speaking Catholics in the world. Is this a further illustration of my quandary, another indictment of the status quo?
You need a look at the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1st and 2nd). Both of these are Catholic and both are more conservative, i.e., formal equivalence translations, than the JB or the NAB.
 
I’ve browsed the thread and my impression is that the JB isn’t a good translation for Bible study. Is that correct?
 
You need a look at the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1st and 2nd). Both of these are Catholic and both are more conservative, i.e., formal equivalence translations, than the JB or the NAB.
I totally agree with this, not that one would have to agree with it. It almost goes without saying that the RSV-CE is a more conservative (and definitely literal) translation.
 
I’ve browsed the thread and my impression is that the JB isn’t a good translation for Bible study. Is that correct?
Its got a lot of notes, some of them are good, some of them are heretical.
The Navarre or Ignatius is probably better for study…
 
I’ve browsed the thread and my impression is that the JB isn’t a good translation for Bible study. Is that correct?
It’s a good “thought for thought” translation but it’s too thoughty for me, although the notes in the original are astounding.
 
Thank you DWC RC, KShaft and JRRTFAN for your comments on the relative merits of the JB and RSV CE. I feel a train journey to London coming on. The only place I am likely to see a copy of the RSV CE is the Catholic bookshop next to Westminster Cathedral but it would need some serious persuasion for me to abandon the 1966 JB.

This debate does beg the question: Why was the RSV CE never adopted for use in the liturgy? As things stand it looks as if the NRSV is set to become the standard translation for Catholics in the English-speaking world. Outside of the USA, the New Jerusalem Bible is currently the best-selling modern English translation for Catholics but its popularity may be eclipsed by the wider usage of the NRSV.

It remains to be seen what kind of job the translators make of the third edition of the JB. This is still in preparation. In the end, friends, there is no perfect translation of the Bible. There is always going to be some quirk or disappointing aspect. The choice of translation is largely a question of personal preference and which Christian denomination you belong to. It also depends on what you want a particular edition for: personal reading, meditation or study. I’ve tried various translations and I still say the 1966 JB is hard to beat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top