The 1966 Jerusalem Bible

[demerzel85]

I have several copies of the original Jerusalem study Bible (demerzel’s PBS reprint). I like it, as far as dynamic translations go. I have no problem with dynamic translations; I believe they have their place alongside the formal translations.

Digress. The Christian Community Bible editions caught my attention.

You mean there have been multiple revisions already?

The CCB has had multiple editions and I have a 26th Edition one that I bought last year. But the reason why they have so many editions is because the put the liturgical calender inside.

Refer to: grigaitis.net/?doc=articles/community_bible.html on the inclusive language insertions in the CCB that are present in the newer editions but not when it first came out.

 

[LP4H]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what’s exactly wrong with the Good News Bible’s translation? Just asking because I have a copy. Well, it’s actually my brother’s, I’m pretty sure he got it from our old grade school, don’t know if they were upgrading, cleaning up, or what.

 

[demerzel85]

Hmm, perhaps there’s something you’re all trying to tell me, but I prefer not to rehash any earlier (albeit unfortunately lost) discussions re the NAB/RNAB unless it has some bearing on the thread’s main topic, the '66 JB.

For those of you who’ve read any parts of it, how do you feel about it? Does the text convey a sense of trustworthiness? Do you think the intent of the author comes through loudly and clearly? Do the notes add/subtract from the text itself? Are the renderings of such quality that passages are easily memorable and/or quotable?

The good thing about the 1966 JB is that in the commentary there are some verses where it gives the literal translation for you to compare with how they rendered it. But this is off course still rather limited. Compared to the blandness of the GNB, the 1966 JB is much more trustworthy. I remember during a talk, one of Paul’s letters was quoted, and only the JB very clearly expressed a deeper line of thought. Alas I am unable to recall the exact verse.

IMHO, as a dynamic equivalence its about the best around. If the NRSV somehow has every single bit of inclusive language removed, then well may be it’ll be on equal standing with the 1966 JB. As for the NJB, if you remove the inclusive language, then its a more accessible JB.

 

[Manfred]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what’s exactly wrong with the Good News Bible’s translation? Just asking because I have a copy. Well, it’s actually my brother’s, I’m pretty sure he got it from our old grade school, don’t know if they were upgrading, cleaning up, or what.

Today’s English Version aka The Good News Bible is a dynamic-equivalent translation, considered by many, myself included, as a paraphrase, and consequently unsuitable, because of its lack of precision and free style, for serious biblical study.

 

[Manfred]

The good thing about the 1966 JB is that in the commentary there are some verses where it gives the literal translation for you to compare with how they rendered it. But this is off course still rather limited. Compared to the blandness of the GNB, the 1966 JB is much more trustworthy. I remember during a talk, one of Paul’s letters was quoted, and only the JB very clearly expressed a deeper line of thought. Alas I am unable to recall the exact verse.

IMHO, as a dynamic equivalence its about the best around. If the NRSV somehow has every single bit of inclusive language removed, then well may be it’ll be on equal standing with the 1966 JB. As for the NJB, if you remove the inclusive language, then its a more accessible JB.

Oooh, some good stuff here! Much more trustworthy than, and without the blandness of, the GNB. I also agree that Paul’s Epistles, which are quite obscure in the Douay-Rheims, and still somewhat lifeless in the RSV-CE, can quite readily be understood in the JB, though some literal fidelity is lacking.

And why even bother with the NRSV? The RSV-CE is more formal and even more stylish in its renderings.

Excellent point re the 1985 NJB: the accuracy and consistency was much improved over the 1966 JB, but the inclusive language RUINED the whole thing! (I haven’t used mine in YEARS!)

 

[LP4H]

Today’s English Version aka The Good News Bible is a dynamic-equivalent translation, considered by many, myself included, as a paraphrase, and consequently unsuitable, because of its lack of precision and free style, for serious biblical study.

Ahh, I see. Thanks!

 

[salushonor]

Brethren,

I have yet to find a scholarly critical review by a Catholic of the 1966 Jerusalem Bible. I’ve read reviews written by evangelical (usually anti-Catholic) Protestants who actually were bible translators for versions such as the New American Standard or the New International Version.

The 1966 JB was Mother Angelica’s “favorite teaching bible” and, until its use in the liturgy was prohibited by the US bishops (God bless 'em!), was also used in the EWTN daily Mass. Admittedly, the fact that a particular translation was deemed worthy of use in the liturgy does not mean that translation is sound; if this were true, I would have to look with kindness on the New American Bible, which most contributors to this Forum (myself included) just cannot do.

I’d be more interested in what is said/written about the translation itself, its actual renderings. The 1966 JB is renowned for its notes, book introductions, cross-references, etc.

Any references would be appreciated, as would reactions from those of you who’ve read through and/or use the 1966 JB regularly.

Manfred

I don’t care what is said: FOR MY PRIVATE USE, AND PRAYING AND TEACHING AT MY CCD CLAS: The unadultered Douy-Reims is the CATHOLIC one. YUK to the New American, a good one too: Ignatius study Bible.

 

[demerzel85]

I don’t care what is said: FOR MY PRIVATE USE, AND PRAYING AND TEACHING AT MY CCD CLAS: The unadultered Douy-Reims is the CATHOLIC one.

But its not in print. (except for the pet project of an alternative medicine medical doctor)

 

[Manfred]

I don’t care what is said: FOR MY PRIVATE USE, AND PRAYING AND TEACHING AT MY CCD CLAS: The unadultered Douy-Reims is the CATHOLIC one. YUK to the New American, a good one too: Ignatius study Bible.

As usual, I’m confused: YUK to the NAB and the Ignatius, or just the to NAB?

By “unadulterated” Douay-Rheims I hope you mean that with the Challoner revisions, as opposed to the ORIGINAL Rhemes (1582) and Douai (1609). the latter is hardly readable by an adult with a good command of English, let alone a CCD class!

 

[salushonor]

As usual, I’m confused: YUK to the NAB and the Ignatius, or just the to NAB?

By “unadulterated” Douay-Rheims I hope you mean that with the Challoner revisions, as opposed to the ORIGINAL Rhemes (1582) and Douai (1609). the latter is hardly readable by an adult with a good command of English, let alone a CCD class!

Here goes: I distaste the NAB, I love the TAN Books version of the Douay-Rheims, I also LOVe the Ignatius Bible which Mother Angelica recomends.

 

[Manfred]

Here goes: I distaste the NAB, I love the TAN Books version of the Douay-Rheims, I also LOVe the Ignatius Bible which Mother Angelica recomends.

Then we understand each other rather well, I would say.

 

[Manfred]

Brethren,

usccb.org/liturgy/page1.shtml

The above link indicates that in many English-speaking areas of the world, the 1966 Jerusalem Bible is still used for the Lectionary.

Do those of you living in any of the areas named have any comments re the selection of the '66 JB over, say, the RSV-CE, or even the nrsv (sorry, I refuse to capitalize it)?

 

[demerzel85]

The Dioceses in Singapore and Malaysia should both still be using the 1966 Jerusalem Bible. I am not sure about the rest of South East Asia though, but generally this region is dependent on the cheaper reprints from TPI (Theological Publications India).

 

[Geremia]

NJB’s Phillipians 2:6 is definitely Arian, i.e., heretical:

Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.

The Douay-Rheims says:

Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

, which is a perfect translation of the Vulgate:

qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se æqualem Deo

and the Greek:

["]ὃς](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o(\s&la=greek&prior=) ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ

(click each word for a definition). There is nothing about the Second Person of the Trinity not conceivably being equal to God.

 

[Epistemes]

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 Greekclick each word for a definition). There is nothing about the Second Person of the Trinity not conceivably being equal to God.

I’m sorry, but the Greek does not support the Douay-Rheims.

If you wish to discuss the complexities of Greek grammar, then we will; but, suffice it to say (and I’m sure you won’t, no traditionalist ever is), the two accusatives in Philippians 2:6 (*harpagmon *(robbery) {accusative singular masculine noun} and *isa *(equality) {accusative plural neuter adjective}) comprise an example of the object-complement construction.

What this means is this: An *object-complement double accusative *is a construction in which one accusative (in this case, *isa *(equality)) is the direct object of the verb and the other accusative (either noun, adjective, participle, or infinitive) (in this case, *harpagmon *(robbery)) complements the object in that it predicates something about it. Because the object-complement construction shows up in the New Testament in various arrangements, word order is by no means an accurate criterion by which to distinguish the direct object from the complement in Greek.

That last sentence is important. In a case like the verse at hand when neither of the accusatives is a proper name or pronoun, the presence of the article (to {accusative singular neuter}) is required in order to indicate which accusative is functioning as the object of the sentence.

Or, in short, the NJB translation is correct and any hints of Arianism are present in the Greek, not just the translation; however, this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Rather, what we see here is that although the Father and Son are one in their essence (that is, both of them existing in the form of God), they are distinct in their persons (that is, they each respectively fulfill certain roles and functions that are peculiar to their own Person. The Father sends the Son into the world and the Son does not try to abdicate his role by grasping for functional equality with the Father, but, on the contrary, the Son obeys the Father.

 

[KShaft]

As usual, I’m confused: YUK to the NAB and the Ignatius, or just the to NAB?

By “unadulterated” Douay-Rheims I hope you mean that with the Challoner revisions, as opposed to the ORIGINAL Rhemes (1582) and Douai (1609). the latter is hardly readable by an adult with a good command of English, let alone a CCD class!

I like the Original Rheims NT just fine. I love the notes! No it doesn’t read quite as smooth as the Chanoler but you have no doubts as to what Christ or the Apostles are saying.

 

[JRRTFAN]

The 1966 Jerusalem Bible has huge amounts of notes included and that basically explains the 2-inch thickness of it. Its still available from Philippine Bible Society. It was translated by the Dominicans and JRR Tolkien is amongst its editors. Many criticise it for having more liberal commentrary, talking about the Q Gospel for example. “Rejoice, O, highly favours” is also a rather unfortunate rendering. That being said, it is still many times better that the Good News Translation that even today is widely circulated in South East Asian Dioceses.

There is no question that the JB is a dynamic equivalence translation. But I don’t find the notes liberal at all. By the time of the NEW JB, however they managed to whip thenotes into a liberal frenzy.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I like the Original Rheims NT just fine. I love the notes! No it doesn’t read quite as smooth as the Chanoler but you have no doubts as to what Christ or the Apostles are saying.

Where did you find that? Frankly, I don’t find the Challoner Douay to be all that smooth.

 

[John7]

If you wish to discuss the complexities of Greek grammar, then we will; but, suffice it to say (and I’m sure you won’t, no traditionalist ever is), the two accusatives in Philippians 2:6 (*harpagmon *(robbery) {accusative singular masculine noun} and *isa *(equality) {accusative plural neuter adjective}) comprise an example of the object-complement construction.

What this means is this: An *object-complement double accusative *is a construction in which one accusative (in this case, *isa *(equality)) is the direct object of the verb and the other accusative (either noun, adjective, participle, or infinitive) (in this case, *harpagmon *(robbery)) complements the object in that it predicates something about it. Because the object-complement construction shows up in the New Testament in various arrangements, word order is by no means an accurate criterion by which to distinguish the direct object from the complement in Greek.

That last sentence is important. In a case like the verse at hand when neither of the accusatives is a proper name or pronoun, the presence of the article (to {accusative singular neuter}) is required in order to indicate which accusative is functioning as the object of the sentence.

Or, in short, the NJB translation is correct and any hints of Arianism are present in the Greek, not just the translation; however, this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Rather, what we see here is that although the Father and Son are one in their essence (that is, both of them existing in the form of God), they are distinct in their persons (that is, they each respectively fulfill certain roles and functions that are peculiar to their own Person. The Father sends the Son into the world and the Son does not try to abdicate his role by grasping for functional equality with the Father, but, on the contrary, the Son obeys the Father.

Isn’t -τὸ εἶναι- the object ??
τὸ - is just a function marker (marks out the object) to an articular substantival infinitive
(ie, τὸ is article for εἶναι, not ἴσα)

‘the (state of) being equal with God’ is complemented by ‘something to be grasped’

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

I agree that the NJB translation is correct with respect to the Greek

 

[KShaft]

Where did you find that? Frankly, I don’t find the Challoner Douay to be all that smooth.

It is a bit staccato in some places. The Gospel of St. John is hard to follow. The KJV does read better, but its far less accurate.

drbible.org/

Ill try to read the Jerusalem Bible, and you think at first its easier until you start reading a more literal rendering like a NASB or RSV and I think the NASB is actually easier to read. Your more likely not to choke up in the JB but you read the more literal renderings and you get a deeper meaning to the more literal words being used in the translation. I can just feel how much they are paraphrasing in the dynamic translations and it doesn’t feel right most of the time. The only time it works better for myself is when they are using an idiom and it is translated literal so you have no idea what the author was saying.

Of course most of the Psalms are somewhat dynamic just due to their lyrical nature in nearly all translations(I only have the NT of the ODR), and they are very nice in My CTS Bible, but they use the Grail Psalms and JB for everything else.