Jerusalem Bible-Jr

Bible- Biblio= Library- a book of books. Fresh, clean, easy to read, contemplative, easy to understand, but with new meanings- keeps you coming back for more!! A daily jewel. Deep, rich insights. Ageless for the ages.

The Jerusalem Bible is Catholic by .ost standards, but far more than that. Expanded books with notations and for study it can't be beat! A lovely addition to your Bible collection.

Falling apart

I love the Jerusalem bible translation. My next go to Bible after the NAB.

A good translation of the Latin Vulgate/Catholic Bible with the help of the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts consulted. Protestants may not like it because it contains The Apocryphal Books and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel that are not in most Protestant Bibles.

[Personally I own this Darton Longman and Todd publication of the JB. It is also called the JB: Popular Edition. To my knowledge it is exactly the same as the JB: Reader's Edition. Both finish at 1696 pages. I can tell you that this DLT publication has a dust jacket that comes off to reveal a deep blue hardcover with a gold color lettering on the spine) No other bible can be compared to the quality and accuracy of The Jerusalem Bible (1966). It is approved for liturgical use in Europe by the Vatican. That makes it an official Catholic bible. With relaxations of the official church position on bible translations, Alexander Jones of Christ's College, Liverpool took the opportunity as an editor to guide a team of translators in an English language translation of the Holy Bible using a method already accomplished by the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem with their production of La Bible de J?rusalem (1956) in French, by means of Hebrew and Greek sources while bypassing the Latin Vulgate (the key reason why the Catholic Church thought long and hard about approving this process). Thus the English version of the JB is not French to English translation as some have erroneously suggested. Along with creating the JB the editors also historically researched each book of the bible, and prepared an introduction for most books along with creating sets of footnotes that would cross-reference the entire bible. The Old Testament sources are the Masoretic texts, with a critical inspection comparison using the Greek Septuagint (the LXX). Since the Dead Sea Scrolls mostly matched the LXX, the JB happens to be the most accurate rendition of the OT. It is even better than the Jewish Tanakh and the Masoretic texts themselves that are not always in line with the Dead Sea Scrolls. The critical combination of the LXX and the Masoretic texts produce a version of the Old Testament of the quality used by Jews and certainly the apostles, at the time of Christ. The inclusion of all the books of the OT, including the `controversial' books erroneously labelled the `apocrypha' by Martin Luther during the reformation, is made on the bases that they are in the LXX (200 BC), the Vulgate (400 AD) and that the removal of them from the OT is a post-crucifixion event by Jews at Jamnia (Council of Jamnia) in 90 AD, again by Martin Luther in the Luther's bible of 1534 before finally being removed altogether by Protestant book publishers between 1825-27 after the Edinburgh Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society decided simply not to print them anymore. Only the Catholic Church has regarded them as Old Testament with the Dead Sea Scrolls confirming this position (and it is not as if anyone had the right to canonize any other version of the bible after the Catholic Church did it at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD). Here they are again, and yes they do include the Books of Maccabees with `prayers for the dead' in tact. The English writer J.R.R. Tolkien has his hand

This is very scholarly. They include historical facts that will challenge the way you think about the bible. Only read this if you would like to have a mature faith.

The Jerusalem Bible is THE BEST Bible translation in my opinion! So rich and poetic, but yet simple to read and understand! This is the best Catholic bible to buy. Other reviewers have complained about the binding and printing, but I bought it anyway because I just loved the translation and wanted to own it! When I got the bible I was very surprised...It was not at all as horrible as the other reviewers were making it out to be! The binding was very tight and neat. The printing job, although small and tiny, very clear and easy to see...not terrible like the other reviews make it out to be! So I say to you Catholics (and even non-catholics) BUY THIS BIBLE NOW! Don't listen to the other reviewers and what they say about the print job...I did for a long time and never bought it because of what they said...then when I finally did, it wasn't NEARLY as bad as they had made it out to be! Its a beautiful translation and its a neat carry-around size with a beautiful Gold/White/Burgandy cover! I also recommend the New Jerusalem Bible...although not as wonderful as this one, still pretty great!Rev. 12:1Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman, adorned with the sun, standing on the moon, and with the twelve stars on her head for a crown.(from The Jerusalem Bible)

How fortunate that this wonderful translation is still in print. After nearly 40 years, the Jerusalem Bible in English is still as exciting and fresh as when it first appeared in 1966. At the time, it heralded an entirely new approach to the Scriptures. It was the first translation by Catholic scholars to use the original languages rather than the Latin Vulgate. It was translated into modern English. It was the only version to break with King James tradition and spell out the divine name (Yahweh). Despite being the work of French Dominicans, the annotations were non-doctrinal and acclaimed by scholars of all faiths.How disingenuous to the original spirit, therefore, that the back cover proclaims that "it still holds to the traditional (noninclusive) language that appeals to conservative Catholic and Protestant Christians." It was not the specific intention of the editors and translators to produce a Bible described like that. Gender inclusive language was not even an issue at that time. If the Jerusalem Bible lacks gender inclusive language, it's due to its historical dating rather than a deliberate decision taken by its translators. There has also been some writing about how the JB compares to the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) in this regard. While the producers of the NJB acknowledge that they made some very minor changes to accomodate gender neutrality, they are by no means severe. In both the JB and NJB, for example, "brothers" does not become "brothers and sisters" throughout the New Testament (as it does in the NRSV). Also God created "man" in both the JB's and NJB's accounts of Genesis--not "humankind"(as in the NRSV). Gender inclusive language, therefore, does not seem like a significant factor in choosing between the JB and NJB.In other regards, however, there are some differences between the older and newer versions. The NJB, being newer, has the advantage of 20 additional years of scholarship. A lot of new research and discoveries were made in that time that are reflected in the text and notes. (In fact we are probably due for yet another updated English edition soon as there has already been a new French version released in 1997).Other differences between JB and NJB involve personal preferences which can not be objectified. I like the Psalms in the older version (compare Psalm 23: "In meadows of green grass he lets me lie. To the waters of repose he leads me; there he revives my soul." [JB] with "In grassy meadows he lets me lie. By tranquil streams he leads me to restore my spirit." [NJB]). On the other hand, I prefer the NJB where Matthew's Beatitudes are "blessed" over the JB where they are merely "happy."In closing, I would recommend adding the Jerusalem Bible to one's library. Unfortuately this "Reader's Edition" with abridged notes is the only one still in print. The copy that I saw was not as poorly printed and bound as noted by others. It was not, however, as nice as my original 1966 edition. Another revi

As a young man I was introduced to this bible and quickly adopted it as my prefered translation. Its English was balanced and readable, both in silent devotion and public proclamation. When traveling in other English speaking countries it was the text used liturgically. The inevitable migration to inclusive language texts that sought to heal rifts in groups that felt marginalized created new communities that now felt the same. The re-issue of this translation goes a long way toward balancing this out and is a compassionate solution to a delicate problem. While no translation is timeless or perfect this one is durable enough and faithful enough to fulfill its function. I recomend this book not as a nostalgic journey into the past but as living link to a world experienced by millions.