The Jerusalem Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenRosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BenRosa

Guest
A friend gave me a copy of The Jerusalem Bible, Reader’s Edition. I understand it has been out of print for several years but is now back in print. I find it to be an easy read, written in an easy-flowing style.

Anyone else have an opinion about it?

May His peace be with you…
 
I love it for the same reasons you stated. If you can ever find an old hardback edition with the notes they are great too. I only wish they kept the old “Hail! full of grace” in Luke 1:28.

Did you know that JRR Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings was one of the collaborator in translators and literary revision? In the hardback edition I have he is listed on one of the front pages with the other members of the team.

It is also authorized for use in the readings of the Liturgy of the Mass.
 
I have two copies of the Jerusalem Bible. One is the Popular Edition and the other is the Reader’s Edition. Both are hard backed copies. The front of my Popular Edition says that it is not for sale in the USA, Canada or the Phillippine Republic.

I do find the Jerusalem Bible very easy to read, and I agree about the change in meaning in Luke’s Gospel. The phrase “full of Grace” is a title, and it is the correct title for Mary because she is the Woman who has enmity between herself and Satan.

MaggieOH
 
Ditto. I love it to. I think it is the liturgical standard used for the rest of the English speaking world.
 
40.png
Emmaus:
It is also authorized for use in the readings of the Liturgy of the Mass.
Click to expand...
I was just told in a class by our diocesan liturgy official for DREs that the JB and RSV are no longer approved for liturgical use in the United States, NAB only, but I have not seen this in writing, can anyone verify with source?
 
I’ve got one too and I love it. I’ve had it for many years. It was a gift from my wife’s aunt who is a nun. It just baeutiful…though I read my DRV all the time. :bible1: ❤️
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
I was just told in a class by our diocesan liturgy official for DREs that the JB and RSV are no longer approved for liturgical use in the United States, NAB only, but I have not seen this in writing, can anyone verify with source?
Click to expand...
That’s true. You can do a quick search on the EWTN FAQ’s for this.

Most of the Commonwealth still uses the original JB though. I love it for the reasons already cited.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
I was just told in a class by our diocesan liturgy official for DREs that the JB and RSV are no longer approved for liturgical use in the United States, NAB only, but I have not seen this in writing, can anyone verify with source?
Click to expand...
What is weird about the RSVCE is that is the version quoted in the cathechsim and not the NAB obviously Rome differs with the US Bishops on what is acceptable.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
I was just told in a class by our diocesan liturgy official for DREs that the JB and RSV are no longer approved for liturgical use in the United States, NAB only, but I have not seen this in writing, can anyone verify with source?
Click to expand...
But not, of course, the normal NAB that any of us can buy. That one was considered unsuitable. The Lectionary is a modified NAB.
 
I hear good things about this bible too. My parish priest in Fresno recommended it.
 
I used the Jerusalem Bible during my R.C.I.A classes when I reverted back to the Catholic faith and it is still the one I read the most.

Yours in the Spirit

Pious.
 
The Jerusalem Bible is the one used in the liturgy here in the UK. Personally I’m not that keen on it. Partly because of its defiantly non-inclusive language. Mostly though its because I was brought up on the Authorized Version (sometimes called the King James Version) and loved the poetry of the language. The Douay-Rheims translation from the same era is its Catholic equivalent and equally beautiful.

For clarity of language and some attempt to recognize the poetry of the Greek and Hebrew originals I actually quite like the NAB, a case possibly of the grass being greener on the other side of the hill (or Atlantic as the case may be). I tend to use the New Jerusalem Bible as my default Catholic translation though not least because I’ve actually met the Benedictine monk who oversaw its rendering into English.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
What is weird about the RSVCE is that is the version quoted in the cathechsim and not the NAB obviously Rome differs with the US Bishops on what is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Your statement doesn’t really make a lot of sense. If by Rome you mean the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, then clearly they don’t differ, or they wouldn’t have approved the lectionary. If by Rome you mean the Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, clearly they don’t differ, or they wouldn’t have approved the English translation. If by Rome you mean the pope, then I suppose it’s possible, but he has the duty to delegate responsible cardinals to head the various Vatican congregations and dicasteries.

So the relevant bodies in Rome did not differ with the US bishops. Clearly the bishops chose the different Bible translations for different purposes. Why not use the NAB in the Catechism?

It makes sense to me that the USCCB chose the RSV and NRSV for the English translation of the Catechism because
  1. It uses more sophisticated language, the precision of which is beneficial for scriptural study and catechetics.
  2. Unlike the NAB, which was translated specifically for use in the US, I believe the USCCB’s English translation of the Catechism was intended to be used throughout the English-speaking world.
Going back to point 1, I certainly prefer the RSV/NRSV to the NAB. However, I think the NAB is better suited to the lectionary. It’s simpler and more direct language can be more easily understood by an entire congregation, even children and those for whom English is a second language. Also, we’ve all heard a lector mispronounce a word or mess up the phrasing of a sentence, even outside of limited education level or accent that lectors occasionally have. I think this would be more common if the RSV were used.

So all in all, I think the NAB is good for its purpose, but definitely not the greatest for scripture study and catechetics among adults.

Getting back to the OP, I’m really not very familiar with the JB, although I’ve heard good things about it.
 
Well I would disagree we need to stop dumbing down catholics from the lectionary to the pews. First of all the lectors should be able to read at 10th grade level its pathetic that some cannot. THE RSV is more accurate transaltion and the official transaltion for the cathechism because it more accurate and reflects the message the church is trying to convey I understand the ease of use for private reading the NAB would be fine but the RSV should be read in the lectionary in my opinion as it would be consistent with what we learn in the cathechism. Obviously this issue is still up in the air from English Speaking countires we have lectors in other countries reading from the RSVCE the NRSVCE and the Jerusalem Bible . The American bishops are just love with their inferior translation in my opinion.
 
Interesting time for this thread!

I have 2 NAB’s, both paperbacks and worn out. And I am in need of a new Bible.

Our church is very large and has a gift shop. Today before Mass I ran in and looked at the selection. I couldn’t decide between the Ignatious RSV or the New Jerusalem Bible (I think the shop only had the Reader’s version).

I wasn’t sure which one to get and had to go to Mass so couldn’t spend time trying to figure it out. On my way in I met Father, greeting people entering the Church a few moments before the entrance procession. There was no one else in immediate greeting distance so I asked him which he recommended of the 2.

He said that the Jerusalem Bible, although it is more expensive, is the better Bible because it has a lot of footnotes and explanation to help guide the reader. I thanked him and quickly made my way to a pew.

I realized after I had seated that he is the one of our 4 priests who teaches the Bible studies.

Funny thing…this morning I was highly inclined to go to the 12:15 PM Mass which is not the one I normally attend.

NOW! I did some more research thinking to maybe order online as the giftshop was closed whn I left Mass. There is a Reader’s version and a Regular edition.

Can anyone recommend one of these over the other?
 
I’m told the New Jerusalem bible replaced the JB several years back (the JB went out of print), and now the JB is back. Are the New JB & JB bibles different in some way?
 
40.png
BenRosa:
I’m told the New Jerusalem bible replaced the JB several years back (the JB went out of print), and now the JB is back. Are the New JB & JB bibles different in some way?
Click to expand...
The New Jerusalem Bible uses inclusive language (ack), whilst the Jerusalem Bible uses the language that the writers meant to convey to the readers.

In my parish we are using the Jerusalem Bible in preference to either the RSVCE or the NRSVCE or the New Jerusalem Bible. Since I am in Australia we would never consider using the NAB.

MaggieOH
 
I personally don’t care for the diction and style of the JB. Not saying it’s a bad translation technically, but some of the “classic” verses; you know, the ones you committ to memory and often pop into your head just don’t sound the same with the JB. It just seems to read too differently to me. I guess if I were intentionally looking for a different perspective it would certainly be an option.
 
I have had the Jerusalem Bible for some 20 years now. Some referred to it as the scholar edition. I use the St. Ignatius when I go to Bible Studies as that is what my priest uses. What I really, really love about the Jerusalem Bible is the countless footnotes and cross-references between the OT and NT, the Gospels and the epistles. The only drawback is that I would start reading a verse but would take me over an hour because I would look at the cross references and then another and another then the footnotes. etc. The type on it is also written across the full page rather than divided into two columns. The footnotes are all on the bottom right and cross-references are on the left and right of pages. I find all this pretty handy. I go to a very orthodox Catholic book store and they refuse to carry the New Jerusalem Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top