The Jerusalem Bible: Reader's Edition (Hardcover)

~ Alexander Jones (Editor) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." (more)
Key Phrases: golden bowl weighing ten shekels, accompanying oblation, appeasing fragrance, Yahweh Sabaoth, Lord Yahweh, God of Israel (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

Praise for THE JERUSALEM BIBLE (1966 edition):

"This is one of those really monumental works.--There is just nothing like it in English, and I will not live long enough to see anything like it."--Father J. L. McKenzie, President, Society of Biblical Literature -- Review

Review

Praise for THE JERUSALEM BIBLE (1966 edition):

"This is one of those really monumental works.--There is just nothing like it in English, and I will not live long enough to see anything like it."--Father J. L. McKenzie, President, Society of Biblical Literature

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 1696 pages
• Publisher: Doubleday Religion; Reissue edition (February 15, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0385499183
• ISBN-13: 978-0385499187
• Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.7 x 1.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (29 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #37,842 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #6 in

  Books > Religion & Spirituality > Bible & Other Sacred Texts > Bibles > Specific Types > Catholic

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

157 of 161 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Wonderful translation--shameful marketing, August 14, 2002

By	Ex Libris (Bridgewater, NJ USA) - See all my reviews

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 reviewer called for republishing the full edition, which I think is a marvelous idea.

47 of 48 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Perfect Translation of the Old Testament and the New Testament, February 16, 2006

By	OverTheMoon ([e-mail]) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

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 Jerusalem (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 in the style of writing and we even have the insertion of the name "Yahweh" (I AM WHO I AM) for God in reading the Old Testament. The JB (1966) was written before the advent of inclusive language (something that the church believes alters the word of God) so we also have the added bonus of having this fantastic translation without the use of inclusive language. Since it is modern (note, not modernism) you can read it without having to study Shakespeare (as readers of the King James Bible would have to do, resulting in many doctrinal errors also) and come away with a fresh and accurate understanding of the Sacred Scriptures by only reading it once (slowly though I might add), still there is nothing like it in terms of quality, ease of use and correctness. Alexander Jones, who obviously had a firm understanding of what went wrong with other bible translations, has done what all others have failed to do. There are some very minor quibbles about its use of short text in some passages of the NT and so the JB was revised in 1985 by Henry Wansbrough and the new version was called The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) but was rejected by the Holy See for its use of inclusive language (still the NJB is an amazing bible, but not for liturgical use). Even though the publication of the NJB was not approved, the NJB was widely circulated and had an impact on the JB to the point of putting it out of print. However recent demand for the originally approved JB has brought it back into circulation again, only not without what might be considered a shortcoming. All versions of the JB are photocopies of the 1966 version and have not been typeset again. Don't be disappointed to find the odd photocopied hair appearing across the page. However this is only cribbing, the text still looks as good as most bibles, just not perfect, and the fact that the JB has never been typeset means that you can not get a digital version of the JB. You can only own it on the printed page. The fact that it is not in digital has its disadvantages for serious bible scholars who like to run word searches, but at the same time this means that the JB can only be read in the way it was presented, on the printed page, in a bound hardcover book, and this is precisely how the JB should be read, and precisely how sacred scripture should be presented. Also the numbering system seems to disappear at times within the text, but this is in fact a method used by Jones to keep the original flow of sacred scripture. Sometimes the chapter number system actually broke the text in places where it should not have been, a bad tradition continued today because of this numbering system. Thus you will be reading chapters in the JB only to discover a small 5 instead of a big 5 like the 4 before it and the 6 after it. This method keeps the original chapter breaks of the books of bible that have long been lost to the numbering system. You have never read a bible like this one before. Quite simply I would deeply consider shelving all other bibles that you have and also getting a NJB for any quick double-checks that need to be made. Citing from the JB shows that you have (1) Understood the acumen involved in its translation, (2) a desire to ensure that everyone who doesn't speak Shakespeare can comprehend you and the Word of God and (3) want to keep the Canon of books that Christ and the Apostles used that was canonized at the Third Council of Carthage. Reading the JB is a miracle in itself. Never has our Justification through Faith in Jesus Christ because his forgiveness for our Sins by way of the Cross and Resurrection of the Body been made so absolute in print.

47 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Jerusalem Bible, April 10, 2000

By	James LaPrath (Imperial, PA) - See all my reviews

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.