The Jerusalem Bible

In writing this review I take notice of the scholarly reviews already made regarding this translation of the so called “original Hebrew and Greek” into English and regards its style to a certain extent, so I will only lightly touch on this.This is a book that reads nearly like a Bible. The style is very dynamic, almost a paraphrase. The Old Testament is acceptable provided you substitute “The Lord” in Poetic passages such as the Psalms for “Yahweh”, which may be correct but nevertheless sounds very wooden. The New Testament reads OK provided you substitute “Blessed” for “Happy” in the Beatitudes, again because it sounds very wooden otherwise.The Greek Text used for the New Testament is far, far away from being the “Original Greek” and is in fact based on the Nestle Aland Text 25th Edition, which is a 19th century conflation by Constantine Simonedes, Contantine Tischendorff, Samuel Tregelles, Brooke Westcott, Fenton Hort, et alia. (I think we might be on the 29th ed. now). This conflation of Codex Sinaiticus with Codex Vaticanus and others has little basis in modern biblical archaeology and history. Oldest and best my foot. Modern biblical scholarship is now pouring much doubt upon this conflated text and the cock and bull story of Constantine Tischendorff et al. finding it in a waste paper basket in a Monastery in Sinai. Have you ever tried burning velum? It doesn’t burn. It just smoulders and makes a smell. One of the codices on which Nestle Aland is based has now been shown to be a 19th century fake. Why would we want to put our trust in a bible based on a doubtful Greek text that hasn’t even been radio carbon dated, is full of errors, and has doubtful provenance? We already have much better Greek texts in the Textus Receptus and indeed those on which the Vulgate was based, (though some of these have now been lost). Have you ever seen Codex Sinaiticus? No, I don’t just mean the cleaned up sample page that keeps getting wheeled out, but all of it. It is full of errors crossings out, gaps and insertions.Would you not think the alarm bells would ring when over 3000 ancient Greek texts agree with the Textus receptus and Vulgate and only a dozen or so with the Novum Testamentum Grece of Nestle Aland? It was a great mistake of the Vatican to allow translation from this dodgy text instead of from the Vulgate. They seem to have taken their eye off the ball in their cares for the here and now.Unfortunately space does not allow me to write too much here on the biblical archaeology and history, though the evidence against Nestle Aland’s Novum Testamentum Grece is massive and overwhelming.How does it compare with others based on this text? Well, in a league of eleven it rates 6th. Using a sample of 205 verses which bibles have a problem with. The bibles tested were:New International (probably the gold standard in bad bibles)Revised Standard (2nd Catholic Ed.)New English (again this has serious issues arising from early biblical criticism)New Revised StandardThe Message (seemingly less bad, but nevertheless with other serious issues)Jerusalem BibleGood NewsRevised Version (1881)New Living Translation 2nd Ed.New American StandardLiving Bible (seemingly the least bad, though it has other issues)I have lots more Bibles not mentioned here, including the Syriac.So it is medium bad. The problem is not the translation but what they have been translated from. Many of these bibles have other problems as well such as the “pre millennialism” of the Living Bible”, not to mention a number of verses missed out, let alone phrases and words designed with slant towards Gnosticism, in others. The origin of this Novum Testamentum Grece is probably indeed from Alexandria and Origen. It is the very heresy that Paul warns us about:Galatians 1:9. As we said before, now I say again, if any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.Deuteronomy 4:2. You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it …Yet seemingly few people have noticed, not even the Vatican. They all think it is just the Bible in modern English.The Challoner Version of the Douay Rheims, the King James and New King James are not featured as they are correct bibles with a provenance that can be traced back to the time of the apostles.If you only have one bible you would not notice any problems with this bible, (or any bible to come to that). It is only with close study of many bibles, needing copies laid out, side by side that problems with any can be found.Just enjoy the Jerusalem Bible as a book that reads well and nearly like a Bible, but do not rely on it to argue a point of doctrine. You must not rely on this as your only Bible.

This Bible is complete and I believe the translation is accurate, without vocabulary or grammatical embellishment.

Bought for my Mum.This is the standard Bible text for the Catholic Church, used for readings during Mass and for study groups.As an Anglican who read Theology at Bimingham Uni, I have an older, far more bulky, copy in my collection of 5 international versions. I will be upgrading as this is a far better sized copy.

Seems like a good translation, but I don't like the small text this version offers. Too small even for me. If you don't mind this however, then I'm sure you'll like it.That being said, be prepared for a dynamic equivalence type translation. It's not a translation everyone will like, especially conservative Christians. But for what it is, it's okay. Not for me unfortunately.

Bought for my mother who said it was fine and what she wanted

The old testament is a bit hard to get to grips with, just take it slowly a little at a time but very good.

Nothing

The English is clear, simple and comprehensive . For all students of the Bible, The Jerusalem Bible,s foot notes give an additiona lreason to want to choose this.Michael Yong Songmbe