Jerusalem Bible commentary notes - good or not?
#1
Yesterday I managed to score a copy of the original Jerusalem Bible from a second-hand book store. As well as the translation, it has a commentary. So far I haven't found anything unorthodox but I haven't read much of the Bible yet in this version.

Does anyone have any experience with the commentary on the Jerusalem Bible and whether it is relatively orthodox?
Reply
#2
(04-26-2017, 10:58 PM)MichaelNZ Wrote: Yesterday I managed to score a copy of the original Jerusalem Bible from a second-hand book store. As well as the translation, it has a commentary. So far I haven't found anything unorthodox but I haven't read much of the Bible yet in this version.

Does anyone have any experience with the commentary on the Jerusalem Bible and whether it is relatively orthodox?

I don't know. For starters, does it have an imprimatur?
Reply
#3
Yes, it does have an imprimatur, by John Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster, 4th July 1966.

Below the imprimatur, it contains the following note:

The introductions and notes of this Bible are, with minor variations and revisions a translation of those which appear in La Bible de Jérusalem (one volume edition, 1961) published under the general editorship of Père Roland de Vaux, O.P. by Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, but are modified in the light of subsequent revised fascicules. The English text of the Bible itself, though translated from the ancient texts, owes a large debt to the work of the many scholars who collaborated to produce La Bible de Jérusalem, a debt which the publishers of this English Bible gratefully acknowledge.

So if the notes date back to 1961, then that might mean that they are relatively orthodox, mightn't it?
[-] The following 1 user Likes MichaelNZ's post:
  • Cetil
Reply
#4
Mother Angelica loved the Jerusalem Bible.

You can hear her commentary on it here, starting at the 1:32 mark.

Reply
#5
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles....-Bible.pdf

The French versions were liberal, in general.

To show how crazy these many translations are: http://www.biblerays.com/uploads/8/0/4/2...e_1881.pdf

This is why I stay with the Douay/Rheims.
Reply
#6
Bill Marshner my theology prof at Christendom College told me the notes are great but the translation is sometimes not so good. 


C.
"Arise, then unconquerable Prince, defend the people of God against the assaults of the reprobate spirits, and give them the victory."

"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm"


"It's like a train wreck, I keep coming back to look"
Reply
#7
If you compare the Jerusalem Bible with A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture as edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, I think it becomes clear that the former was slightly on the liberal side of 1950's Scriptural scholarship. For just two examples, the JB states that 1 Corinthians 3 cannot be used to support Purgatory and Revelation 12 cannot refer to Our Lady. The JB also fully embraces, as far as I can recall, then-current theories on how the Pentateuch came to be written, while the Orchard work is a little more tradition-friendly, shall we say. In fact, multi-source theories permeate a few of the other books of the JB translation, and the scholars behind that work even rearrange certain verses in various places so as to conform to their hypotheses on what "the original" looked like. As far as I can tell, moreover, much of the scholarship in the JB is simply out of date, and so you're going to encounter ideas and notions that both differ from a traditional understanding but yet also aren't acceptable any longer from a scholarly perspective.

For a very, very loose comparison: maybe the JB notes could be considered as being in the same vein as those in the NABRE. That is, their intention is largely to present some version of the historical-critical method to the interpretation of the text of Scripture, while not necessarily being overly concerned with devotional or dogmatic aspects of Sacred Writ. Both of those works are in a different world from something like Haydock.

And lastly, do keep in mind that the JB follows a dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation, and that there are consequently some rather idiosyncratic readings to be found therein.
Reply
#8
(04-28-2018, 11:18 AM)BenedicamDominum Wrote: If you compare the Jerusalem Bible with A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture as edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, I think it becomes clear that the former was slightly on the liberal side of 1950's Scriptural scholarship. For just two examples, the JB states that 1 Corinthians 3 cannot be used to support Purgatory and Revelation 12 cannot refer to Our Lady.

While there are no doubt some issues with the commentaries and notes in the JB, they may have a point with Apocalypse 12.

Apocalypse is an example of what is called Polyvalent symbolism. Often under a single symbol in this vision several things are meant. Usually one thing principally, and other things secondarily.

There are two usual interpretations of "the woman" in Apocalypse 12 :

1. She is principally a symbol of the Church, which is itself a symbol of the Blessed Virgin who is the Mother of the Mystical Body, which is the Church
2. She is principally a symbol of Our Lady, who being the Mother of the Mystical Body is a symbol for the Church.

While orthodox exegetes are split on this, the majority of 19th and 20th century ones tend to come down on the first. 

This is because of verse 2, 4 and 6 present problems if we take "the woman" as primarily Our Lady, meaning these have to be explained in a spiritual sense to avoid doctrinal problems.

Verse 5 would seem to suggests Our Lady, but actually ends up further suggesting a double symbolism. It is a reference to both Apoc. 2.26-27 but also Apoc 19.15 and Ps 2.9. With the latter two clearly show Our Lord as this one ruling with the rod of iron, Apoc 2, clearly identifies someone else :

Quote:Who wins the victory? Who will do my bidding to the last? I will give him authority over the nations; to herd them like sheep with a crook of iron, breaking them in pieces like earthenware; the same authority which I myself hold from my Father. And the Star of morning shall be his.

Yet, not only is a fitting and clear accomodated/spiritual sense, the Church herself has endorsed such a sense, especially within the Roman Liturgy which uses Apoc 12.1 as the Introit for the Feast of the Assumption, as well as Ad diem illum of St. Pius X.

In fact that's precisely what John Paul II wrote in Redemptoris Mater

Quote:She who was the one 'full of grace' was brought into the mystery of Christ in order to be his Mother and thus the Holy Mother of God, through the Church remains in that mystery as 'the woman' spoken of by the Book of Genesis (3:15) at the beginning and by the Apocalypse (12:1) at the end of the history of salvation.

The link is precisely because of the link between the Church and Our Lady, hence she is called Mother of the Church.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • BenedicamDominum, jovan66102
Reply
#9
For orthodox Catholic commentaries:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)