Thank you for another great review. As a Catholic I am so tired of all the horrible heresy's in the commentary section's in the new Catholic Bibles. Also with this gender neutral nonsens.
Grant's reviews are great. Later editions of Catholic bibles keep getting worse. I'm specifically referring to the NABRE, the NRSV-CE, the ESV-CE, and now the RNJB.
The Church teaches that holy scripture is inerrant as regards faith and morals. Period. That does not mean that the faithful must regard Genesis as scientifically accurate or Matthew as an eyewitness account written by an apostle--both complete impossibilities. We are not scriptural fundamentalists. The sorts of things you are concerned about in contemporary commentaries are not heresies.
@@MasonJarFireflies Let me ask you, if Matthew didn’t write Matthew, on what grounds are we to say Peter did receive the keys? It after all could have been a forgery. Why should we trust the prophecies of Isaiah about the coming of our Lord when most scholars note that those prophecies were later additions. Why should we even trust that Christians believe Jesus resurrected, was true god from true God, how do we not know that those are just forgeries? Basically the Bible is just a compilation of Random sporadic writings if you concede The gospels are not reliable narrators of the life of Jesus, that Paul actually didn’t write half of his epistles and the Old Testament is just a pile of Novels by overly patriotic Jews. There is no more sacredness or holiness to the text and therefore no “Faith and Morals” to go off of. Since you don’t know, Jesus might have actually said,” follow the Pharisees!” But that was just redacted
@@MasonJarFirefliesBrother, in my NAB, and in all such, you will find a comment in the footnote to Matthew 16, 21-23. This note denys that Christ predicted his own death. In so doing, the author of this commentary is flatly denying the words of Matthew's gospel and is denying the inerrancy of scripture. All of which is heretical and far from being unique in the footnotes or commentary of the NAB. You're wrong.
Hello R Grant Jones, I watched your video and because I own both the CTS-New Catholic Bible and the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (from Darton Longman and Todd). I wrote two letters to Dom Henry Wansbourgh raising some matters about the notes and footnotes. In the first letter I presented some observations I had regarding the notes and introductions in the RNJB. In the second letter I included a reference to your Video review of the Doubleday (USA) edition. I also included the text that I typed regarding the material that you noted about the footnotes that appear to have become superfluous with the transition from the CTS-New Catholic Bible to the Revised New Jerusalem Bible. I cited your video's URL and also explicitly credited you as the source from which came the observations about the footnotes. The information was graciously received by Dom Henry Wansbrough and it appears that it either has been or will be forwarded to the publishers (and others concerned with the accuracy of the text). Fr Henry Wansbrough gave an appreciative thanks for the information which I want to pass on to you because your video was in fact the source from which I drew the information on the footnotes in Genesis 3:15, Daniel 10:20, and Revelation 1:10. thank you for your sharp eyed observations Fr Henry has noted them all for a future edition. Regards, Philip S.
@@jeffcarlson3269 It's a revision so there are differences some of them are significant most of minor. It moves the JB/NJB a little further towards a "word for word" (formal) translation and a little away from a thought for thought (functional) translation. I think it is worth spending the $20 or so that a reader's edition costs if only because the RNJB may be adopted as the liturgical text in some English-speaking lands. Aside from that, I would not bother. It is decent reading but not hugely different from the NJB.
I love that you are showing us this, makes sense, and answers the question, of whether you are seeking the Jews Bible, I would never Evan have known about this, if you hadn't done this filming, of this, just going to the Bible stories won't guarantee, that the Bible will show any real, good range of the Bible, Christians Bible is the Bible, I had ever been aware of, I had no idea how much varieties, just are around, this show's, just how much you are not aware of, I can really see just likely it is to never know something, this really helps
Thanks again for a comprehensive review. I particularly like the text/translation comparisons between versions. I think I will watch your review of the NRSV next.
Mr Jones, sadly I think you will never see a RNJB without the CTS New Catholic Bible's (heretical) footnotes. This is because Canon Law requires publishers to include footnotes (persumably to clarify the meaning of the text to protect the faithful from heresy). However, considering that the publishers of the RNJB care not at all for the doctrine of the Church, I can see them ignoring her canon law too. Thank you for the review!
Wait I see some discrepancies here; the CTS New Catholic Bible was published by the Catholic Truth Society-are you saying this is bad? Otherwise the copyright holder of the JB/NJB/RNJB is Darton Longman and Todd-an employee-owned non-sectarian independent publisher (ecumenical)… As long as Henry Wansbrough a Benedictine is general editor and that these Bibles carry the Imprimatur I don’t think there is a problem with the text or it’s notes, unless you think otherwise. Considering this what about the NRSVCE? It has also recieve the imprimatur and Bishop Barron uses it in his Word On Fire Bible
Related videos: RNJB New Testament and Psalms -- th-cam.com/video/nmvujk_poIs/w-d-xo.html&t= The Jerusalem Bible -- th-cam.com/video/zKhSsImL7AM/w-d-xo.html The New Jerusalem Bible -- th-cam.com/video/7p9MwPddiFM/w-d-xo.html The CTS New Catholic Bible -- th-cam.com/video/Clb3OlTvG_o/w-d-xo.html&t= The Didache Bible -- th-cam.com/video/xljF-DRqg5w/w-d-xo.html&t= The Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition: th-cam.com/video/xhjpMT3-8FQ/w-d-xo.html&t= .
Great review as usual! I was able get the UK edition imported a few months ago. Nice to see that I wasn’t the only one getting tripped up by the incongruent notes. I’ve read that at the RNJB is aiming to become the basis of the Lectionary for the Catholic Church in England and Wales, so we’ll see what future editions might lie in store for this translation.
R. Grant Jones No, it’s sewn with glue as a support. On the other hand, the print is smaller, the pages are thinner, and it has a glossy paper over cardboard cover, so I can’t really call it a higher quality edition.
The Catholic church in India now uses the ESV Catholic edition in the liturgy. The ESV CE may eventually be approved for use in other English language liturgical texts used in other lands. But with the current missals in England, Wales, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand and so forth being only 10 years old I'd expect it to take a long time before a new set will be in use.
I've always rather liked the Entglish language style of theJerusalem BIble. The original edition of it still and also the New Jerusalem BIble both seem preferable to the various revisions of them. They seem so dignified and literary compared to the later modifications of the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem BIbles. I have some of the various editions that the Bible de Jérusalem has gone through in French. That line of versions is more widely here in Québec among francophones than other French or Engtlish translations are used.
the 60s publications of the New English Bible & the Jerusalem Bible were fresh and vigorous translations of the texts which didn't shy away from radical reinterpretation of the material - the dumbed down revisions, REB & now the RNJB haven't really contributed to this impulse to liberate the Bible from 'biblicalese'.
The Pelegian comment in Romans 5:12 that you noticed in the RNJB also shows up the the CTS Bible compact edition too. I wonder if the CTS bible influenced the commentary or that's the view of the translators for both... The Original '66 Jerusalem Bible (Study Edition) thankfully doesn't have that heretical commentary...
@Dillon Leaf The text on the CTS Bible is the same as the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible and it is not an issue. The commentary though is very recent and it where the issue is at. The New American Bible is the same with severely problematic commentary.
Hi, Thanks for all the wonderful videos about Bibles. Now, in all honesty, is this a Bible you would recommend as a useful study tool? Personally, I am not a Catholic, but this Bible is somewhat attractive to me, but I am concerned on how mellowed down it is for today's standards? Appreciate a feedback, and your thoughts on maybe what would be the better option? Thanks
Personally, I prefer study Bibles that assume the Scriptures were divinely inspired. The Orthodox Study Bible, the Didache Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, the Lutheran Study Bible (ESV), and the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible all do that, but from various denominational perspectives. If you're looking for a study Bible that assumes the Book is purely human in origin, the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (NRSV) and the Harper-Collins Study Bible are both very good. The Revised New Jerusalem Bible is unique and certainly has its uses, but the original Jerusalem Bible is a better read and has more detailed (though dated) notes.
@@RGrantJones thank you so much for your prompt response! I will definitely look into these Bibles you mentioned... And yes, I will definitely keep watching your very useful videos👍
@@RGrantJones Problem with reading Bible as a human endeavor is that it destroys the faith altogether. Muslims and Jews who want to understand Christianity will also not appreciate a humanist Bible. Ecumenical translations like NRSV and ESV (with Apocrypha) are fine, but the ecumenical Study Bibles like HarperCollins and Oxford/Cambridge Study Bibles are bad for the faith. Such texts are fine for universities probably. I think that no real 'Believer's Bible' can ever be ecumenical, because then it will become secular and humanist and will defeat the monotheistic religions all together. As a Muslim all of this is shocking for me! These atheists/secularists/agnostics will dilute Christianity too a very high degree.
@@hassanmirza2392 It is a huge issue, and I don't anticipate it ending or stopping with Christianity. All people of faith can have fruitful discussions about faith because we start with common beliefs and assumptions. Much harder to connect with people who categorically deny any spiritual reality and dismiss it out of hand...
The lack of notes is a real disappointment in the RNJB. One of the selling points of the original JB and the NJB (and the reason it had the title of "Jerusalem Bible") was that the notes were a translation of the notes that appeared in the French "Bible de Jérusalem" (and for the NJB, its revision) produced by the École biblique in Jerusalem. Sadly, the RNJB did away with that in favor of Fr. Wansborough's notes for a different Bible entirely.
I have no idea why so many editions of the Jerusalem Bible and its children are published in the US with glued bindings. I would love to have a Jerusalem Bible text block rebound, but feel uncomfortable doing that with a glued/perfect text block.
Thank you for this excellent review of the RNJB. A few comments: 1) I purchased my copy directly from Dartman Longman Todd, the British publisher, and that edition does have a sewn binding, 2) I appreciate your general comments about the notes being at times from the point of view of "unbelief". However your comments regarding note "a" referring to the Fourth Servant Song in Isaiah may be a bit unfair (at 30:16 minutes in the video)The note says "Nevertheless, its primary meaning...." I understand that as saying that the traditional Messianic meaning is not repudiated but set as secondary to the primary contextual meaning. I may be quibbling! In any case, many thanks for your great work. On a different point, it seems you really like the Jubilee Bible, I am very much enjoying it ( and I am Roman Catholic!).
Thanks for the comment! I see how you can read the comment on the "Fourth song" that way. If the first sentence in the note had affirmed the traditional Christian understanding in some way, rather than simply recording the fact that the passages (here in Isaiah and in Ps 22) have been understood as prophetic of the Messiah, I would have come away with a more positive impression. But given the New Testament's use of the passages, how can that traditional understanding not be the *primary* meaning for a Christian, even a scholar? So the note leaves me dissatisfied. But perhaps I should be less critical. (By the way, while writing this reply I noticed that the RNJB removed the reference to Acts 8.32-33 at Isaiah 53.7-8, which is present in the original Jerusalem Bible. I wish I had noticed that omission before I made this video.) I definitely like the paper and print in the Jubilee Bible, but I don't wish to be interpreted as endorsing it wholeheartedly. It's possible it contains questionable translations, so no _nihil obstat_ or _imprimatur_ from me. I must say I find it encouraging that you, as a Roman Catholic, enjoy Protestant Bibles, while I, as a Protestant, appreciate Catholic Bibles.
@@RGrantJones Yes, I very much agree that an affirmation of the traditional Christian understanding would have been far better, and please do not hold back from well considered critical remarks, they stimulate good thinking and consideration. A question: if you have just one Bible version to take with you to a deserted island, what would it be? Blessings to you!
@@FernandoSerna1654 - that's a hard question! But if I were allowed to bring only one of the Bibles I own to this hypothetical deserted island, it would be the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha in the Revised Standard Version. Why? It isn't perfect by any means, but it's a decent translation, and it includes more books and fragments than most editions.
@Fernando and @R. Grant Jones I would like to add to the remarks on the Fourth Servant Song what is written in the German "Neue Jerusalemer Bibel" (2007 edition, Verlag Herder) in the introduction to the prophetic books, page 1015: "The Servant is the mediator of the future salvation; therefore the Messianic interpretation is justified, which was also partly given by the Jewish tradition to these passages, but without the suffering traits. In contrast, Jesus took up the very texts about the suffering of the Servant and his vicarious atonement and applied them to himself and his mission, Lk 22:19-20.37; Mk 10:45. Original Christian preaching saw in him the perfect Servant announced by Deutero-Isaiah, Mt 12:17-21; John 1:29." Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Great review. Personally, I love the NRSV ( I have the Oxford & C.S. Lewis versions). Still, I think I might pick this one up in a kindle version, as I still have the old Jerusalem Bible (which was my first Bible, and the one which had none other than J.R.R. Tolkien listed as a contributor-even if his role was minor).
Thanks for letting us know. This is the link, I believe: catholic.store/the-augustine-bible/ . I wonder if anyone's done a review yet. I'd like to know about the layout, font size, and whether it's sewn.
@@RGrantJones Yes that's the link, I tried sharing the link but I couldn't do it. I'll get mine tomorrow and will be sharing with you that information. Thanks again!
Hi Grant (?), Quick query (perhaps you answer this in the video; I didn't check): Does the US edition of the RNJB retain the anglicized spelling of the UK edition? Thank you in advance!
Do you have a review of the St. Jerome study bible? I'm having trouble understand where St. Jerome's comments are and the editors, comments are being used.
No, sorry. I'm not familiar with that one. When I search for 'St. Jerome Study Bible', I see (1) a multi-volume work by Michael Lofton and (2) the New Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition.
I read that RNJB will not be used by English speaking Christian Churches anymore, they will use ESV-CE for their mass. What will happen with RNJB then? Should I drop the idea of buying it, and wait for the RNSV-UE study Bible? I read it will be published in 2022. Also, RNJB has one editor/author. Where as NRSV and ESV have tons of people who wrote and revised the manuscript. So, is ESV-CE and upcoming RNSV-UE study bibles a better and more educated option than RNJB? It looks like RNJB will be discontinued later. I really like it though, I think it reads very well, but main problem is that it has one editor/author and it will lack support of English speaking churches.
Hassan - the RNJB is a recent translation, so sufficient time may not have passed for it to have been approved by the various Catholic authorities for liturgical use. Here's the list of translations approved for use in England and Wales -- www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/Versions.shtml . I suspect that the situation varies from one English-speaking country to another. (I think that in the U.S., only the NABRE is approved for use in readings at mass, but I could be wrong.) I believe many conservative Catholics avoid the NRSV because it uses modern gender inclusive language. My impression is that almost all Catholics regard the RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE highly, but that some traditional Catholics remain loyal to the Douay-Rheims. While the ESV is normally printed without the Apocrypha, Oxford published an edition with the Apocrypha a few years ago. The ESV-CE, of course, includes the Apocrypha, and I just learned that it's available in a bonded leather edition: www.catholicbible.org/ .
@@RGrantJones I am actually surprised by the acceptance or partial acceptance of skeptical footnotes by (mostly done by Protestant scholars) mainstream Christians. In Germany there are many protestant scholars and even believers who take Bible very casually. I think Jews don't do it. This excellent Jewish Bible has footnotes, essays and explanations done by believers www.amazon.de/Jewish-Study-Bible-Adele-Berlin/dp/0199978468 Such Bibles are more trustworthy than the humanist ones who bring their own biases to the footnotes. I am pretty sure that such skepticism will not be promoted in any Muslim institute, culture and country. I think Protestants are more inclined towards skepticism than Catholics? And if Protestant scholars can produce humanist Bibles like harper Collins Bible or Oxford NRSV Bible, than are they even Christians? Or are they non-believers now?
@@hassanmirza2392 - the Jewish people* I've been acquainted with do not believe the Old Testament Scriptures in the least. I can't recall a single Jewish person* whom I've ever known who thinks the Old Testament is anything more than a collection of fables. Of course, my experience is limited, but it seems to me that the Jewish Bible you mentioned may be an exception. (*Excluding those Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah.)
@@RGrantJones 'Excluding those Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah.' I think those Jews are called Christians :D Generally Jews don't believe Jesus was a Messiah or Prophet for them. I think those Jews are secularists, who don't take Old Testament seriously. Generally, they at least, the believing Jews have to read Torah and BELIEVE in it too. But in which direction Christians are going? If they don't believe in most of Bible then how are they even different from Hindus who have many books but no central scripture and no shape or form? I think Catholics are more conservative like Muslims, better for the faith, family and community. Protestants are doing strange kind of reformation and dilution and skepticism all the time. Orthodox Christianity was partially destroyed by Communism in Europe & Russia.
@@hassanmirza2392 - Yes, such a person is called a Christian, but the ones I know also call themselves Jews. Hence the need for my parenthetical remark. You may be overestimating the strength of conservatism within the Catholic Church, particularly in the face of opposition from the hierarchy. Protestantism has the advantage that, when a denomination tends toward humanism, the believers are able to form a new conservative denomination.
Thanks for the question. I use Brodart archival book jacket covers: manausbooks.com/collections/fold-on . I believe what I have on that Bible is their 9 1/2 x 20 inch cover. They're also sold by Amazon. Once a year or so I order a variety pack ( www.amazon.com/Brodart-Fold-Archival-Jacket-Covers/dp/B0073VTE88/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2AQC8FEFU9QBC&keywords=brodart+book+jacket+covers&qid=1705951042&sprefix=brodart+%2Caps%2C69&sr=8-3 ).
I notice the NABRE at Romans 5:12 also uses that expression "in so far as", referring to "the fact of sinning" rather than "the fact of being part of the human race", descending as it does from Adam. At the same time, the Catechism states that all person are "conceived with the stain of Original Sin", and that "The sin of Adam is transmitted to every person by propagation, not by imitation". Or am I misunderstanding your complaint?
Thanks. I think Tolkien worked on Jonah. I also prefer the original Jerusalem Bible. The notes in the original reflect a certain amount of skepticism, but they're much more detailed.
Love the video Grant. I’m looking forward to purchasing my copy of the RNJB. Have you ever thought of doing a review on the NAB Revised Edition and what your thoughts are in it?
I plan to review an NABRE this weekend. That review should be published today or tomorrow. Personally, I have no strong feelings about the NABRE as a translation either way. I like the fact that the Old Testament often follows the Septuagint, but I'm disappointed that it fails to do so in passages where the New Testament authors were clearly reading an Old Testament that agreed with the Septuagint (e.g., Isaiah 7.14). The notes in the NABRE are written from a naturalistic perspective, so they are of little interest to me. I prefer notes like those in the Didache Bible.
R. Grant Jones that’s great! Can’t wait to watch that video. I agree as well with the Old Testament. The 2011 update was wonderful. I look forward to the 2025 update of the New Testament. Hopefully the revisers listen to the criticism and make the needed changes. And I I agree as well with the notes, they don’t tend to strengthen faith but can lead to doubts. The Didache Bible is much preferred as a study Bible Thanks Grant
@@RGrantJones The NAB since 1966 uses biblia Hebraica for the OT and the Nestle Aland Greek text for the NT. The LXX was the only bible in use in Jesus' time. So, that was the bible being read in the synagogues and it is the oldest and most accurate to what you read in the Gospels. The CCD switched to using the masoretic text and the Nestle for purposes of accuracy and eliminating the latinisms that occured. You see, there's one less layer of meaning when going from Hebrew-->Greek-->Latin-->English than from Hebrew-->English. That was their reasoning. The style of the Jerusalem Bible is the basis for the Psalter in our churches of today. That is one big reason it is so loved and valued by european catholics. I loved your review!
The first video of yours that I saw was your review of the CTS New Catholic Bible and I loved it so much that I got the Compact and Standard Edition of it. I figured you would be reviewing this bible, but I already preordered it based on your earlier review of the New Testament and it should arrive tomorrow. Thank you for the work that you do to create these videos.
Thank you for the upload, I plan on buying bible because from my limited research this bible includes all scriptures recognized by both protestants and catholics, is this accurate?
One more thing I wanted to ask, it appears that RNJB has no essays which explain history and books of Bible, unlike other Study Bibles (Oxford, NKJV, EVS). It only appears to have extensive footnotes. Is this a correct assumption? Which Study Bible is better to buy if I want introductory essays to Bible books and other commentaries?
The RNJB has book introductions, but they aren't particularly detailed. The footnotes in the RNJB are less extensive than those in the original Jerusalem Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible. Before I make a recommendation, let me ask you a question: how important is it to you that the Old Testament include the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonical books? Do you want a Bible with the books considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox also? The more Old Testament books you want in your study Bible, the fewer choices there are.
@@RGrantJones I know that Orthodox have the most books in the Bible, some Bibles have Apocrypha. But I need a standard catholic version, as Catholics are 50% of all Christian population . I checked out the Orthodox Study Bible, it looks interesting! But in general, any standard Catholic Study Bible would do well. RNJB looks good enough, I already have the readers edition of NJB, older version. Should I stick to RNJB or change my Study Bible?
@@hassanmirza2392 - The RNJB is recent, so it should contain the latest scholarship. Personally, I prefer the original Jerusalem Bible, due to its more detailed notes. I like the Didache Bible quite a lot also, but I don't believe it's what you're looking for: It emphasizes Catholic doctrine rather than the historical background of the books of the Bible. When the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is complete, it may be the best option. I'm no expert in Catholic study Bibles. Perhaps a Catholic viewer will see this conversation and suggest other alternatives. The other study Bibles I know of that contain the Deuterocanonical books are largely the work of Protestant scholars -- like the HarperCollins Study Bible and the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. Both are based on the NRSV and present a naturalistic perspective.
@@RGrantJones Thanks for your reply. I will stick to NJB and RNJB Bibles then. The Oxford King James Version (2008) is also good, but maybe too archaic. As a non-Christian not very useful. Maybe you can do a review of it. I really like the idea of readers and study Bibles. NIV has some slick reader bibles out there, but I want to avoid the Protestant versions, they have fewer books + they write from a natural perspective, better to read what a believer has to say about Bible. Slavic and Oriental Orthodox is a smaller branch, so Catholic Bibles make more sense. Basically, Catholics are the Sunnis of Christianity. I was reading on PEW that by the year 2070 approx 2/3rd of the world's population will be Abrahamic, and 90% of the world's landmass will be under the Abrahamic influence. Whatever God promised Abraham in the Bible that his nation will rule the earth, it will be fulfilled. Islam will be the biggest religion by then although not by much. The trend will continue until the start of the next century. I believe there is plenty of room for both Islam and Christianity, so we should read and respect each other's scriptures to do more dialogue. Jews and Christians have done a good job of preserving the books of the Bible, Muslims should read it with respect as it is also part of our tradition. All the best!
Great Review. Thank you! I have a copy of the New Jerusalem Bible (not Revised), and it replaces "fornication" with the typical modern rendering of "sexual immorality" [1 Cor 6.18] . Also, it follows the newest modern trend of literally condemning "homosexuals" regarding homosexual immorality, in 1 Timothy 1.9, and doesn't use the parallel word "heterosexual" anywhere within the Bible regarding sin, even when the sin is specifically regarding heterosexual immorality (a modern homophobic double standard). Question on gender inclusiveness: would "brother" (of the church) in the New Testament be a literal translation, or "member" (of the church) be considered more literal? I suppose "member" would be a more literal rendering in modern English if the Greek word in translation tries to stick to "literal usage of words within the New Translation" and not re-translate figurative words figuratively again. That way readers don't get confused about "what does the Bible REALLY mean?" (generations from now, "Brother" might only mean a blood family member, and the reader would be confused by what the translation REALLY intended) However, I understand the Greek uses the word Brother (we think figuratively?) :-) Or, in fact, were the original Christian Churches literally male dominated without sister members too?
Michael - the RNJB goes the way of the NJB in 1 Cor 6.18: 'sexual immorality'. In Mt 18.15, the Greek is ὁ ἀδελφός σου. Literally, 'your brother'. I interpret it in a figurative way. The NRSV interprets it for us.
they probably prefer the footnotes to be approved by the catholic authorities so probably that is why they copied the footnotes from an older work from around 2008.
This video you made is a Godsend.You saved m money. There certainly are better choices. 1. RSV2CE and 2. ESVCE But these do not have much more than footnotes. Unless you buy the Reform ESV which I think is actually great, once bias is considered and no deuterocanonicals. You can also get separate bible commentaries. It sound like th RJNB cannot be recommended for any purpose, bottom line, unless one has too much time.
Amazon and other used booksellers still have copies of the ORIGINAL 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible. I myself tend to stay away from the evangelical-biased ESV-CE.
@@manfredcaranci6234 thanks, it’s cool, I have mine 🍻 I hear you on the translations, certain words of the Greek can be rendered differently. I’m frankly looking for a nice Vulgate at the moment. I know it’s all free online but a paper copy would be great. I think Baronius does a lovely bilingual one (Douay Rheims English). Looks pretty. But a tad costly. Maybe one day,
The footnote for Is is not written from a place of unbelief. It's a correct historical critical analysis. As this bible you are reviewing is a Catholic Bible, it makes sense that the editors and commentators would make sure the reader understood the passage from not only the Christian interpretation, and also the historical context.
That attitude differs from that of St. Augustine of Hippo: "I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason." - Letter 82, to Jerome. I suppose Augustine's approach is no longer considered Catholic.
@@susansambrook7654 - Perhaps you can recommend an introductory work on the topic for me, hopefully written by someone more Catholic than St. Augustine or Pope Leo XIII, who wrote, “But *it is absolutely wrong and forbidden,* either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or *to admit that the sacred writer has erred.* For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated. For *all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church,* solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: ‘The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.’ “ - Providentissimus Deus, 18 Nov 1893.
To me this cannot be called anymore the Jerusalem Bible, since it has removed the YHWH from its use. The characteristics of this translation was the divine name.
Catholics are not supposed to use YHWH in our bibles. Apart from the JB and NJB no other Catholic bibles use it. A Moto Propri issued by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 re-enforces this.
I've been familiar with the JB since its original French publication as a naive teenager in the mid60s. It was the only Bible used in the [RC] seminary I attended. I detest it. Once I discovered its modernist and heretical notes, some of which you thankfully pointed out, I abandoned it both for its lousy paraphrasing, its use of the Divine Name in as the Y word and its useless notes. I always loved its cross references however. I have the French, the first English version and the second edition, but recommend it to no one who has the Faith.
Catholic bibles shouldn't use YHWH out of respect, it's only in recent years with the Jerusalem Bible that it came in. Older bibles like the Douay-Rheims and the KJV do not have it.
Thank you for another great review. As a Catholic I am so tired of all the horrible heresy's in the commentary section's in the new Catholic Bibles. Also with this gender neutral nonsens.
Grant's reviews are great. Later editions of Catholic bibles keep getting worse. I'm specifically referring to the NABRE, the NRSV-CE, the ESV-CE, and now the RNJB.
@@manfredcaranci6234ESV-CE is ok
The Church teaches that holy scripture is inerrant as regards faith and morals. Period. That does not mean that the faithful must regard Genesis as scientifically accurate or Matthew as an eyewitness account written by an apostle--both complete impossibilities. We are not scriptural fundamentalists. The sorts of things you are concerned about in contemporary commentaries are not heresies.
@@MasonJarFireflies Let me ask you, if Matthew didn’t write Matthew, on what grounds are we to say Peter did receive the keys? It after all could have been a forgery. Why should we trust the prophecies of Isaiah about the coming of our Lord when most scholars note that those prophecies were later additions. Why should we even trust that Christians believe Jesus resurrected, was true god from true God, how do we not know that those are just forgeries? Basically the Bible is just a compilation of Random sporadic writings if you concede The gospels are not reliable narrators of the life of Jesus, that Paul actually didn’t write half of his epistles and the Old Testament is just a pile of Novels by overly patriotic Jews. There is no more sacredness or holiness to the text and therefore no “Faith and Morals” to go off of. Since you don’t know, Jesus might have actually said,” follow the Pharisees!” But that was just redacted
@@MasonJarFirefliesBrother, in my NAB, and in all such, you will find a comment in the footnote to Matthew 16, 21-23. This note denys that Christ predicted his own death. In so doing, the author of this commentary is flatly denying the words of Matthew's gospel and is denying the inerrancy of scripture. All of which is heretical and far from being unique in the footnotes or commentary of the NAB.
You're wrong.
I just go this Bible so it will be a good introduction to it. Thanks for the review.
Hello R Grant Jones,
I watched your video and because I own both the CTS-New Catholic Bible and the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (from Darton Longman and Todd). I wrote two letters to Dom Henry Wansbourgh raising some matters about the notes and footnotes. In the first letter I presented some observations I had regarding the notes and introductions in the RNJB.
In the second letter I included a reference to your Video review of the Doubleday (USA) edition. I also included the text that I typed regarding the material that you noted about the footnotes that appear to have become superfluous with the transition from the CTS-New Catholic Bible to the Revised New Jerusalem Bible. I cited your video's URL and also explicitly credited you as the source from which came the observations about the footnotes.
The information was graciously received by Dom Henry Wansbrough and it appears that it either has been or will be forwarded to the publishers (and others concerned with the accuracy of the text).
Fr Henry Wansbrough gave an appreciative thanks for the information which I want to pass on to you because your video was in fact the source from which I drew the information on the footnotes in Genesis 3:15, Daniel 10:20, and Revelation 1:10.
thank you for your sharp eyed observations Fr Henry has noted them all for a future edition.
Regards,
Philip S.
@@jeffcarlson3269 I'd get a reader's edition, which is cheaper. The notes in the rnjb are not an improvement over those in the njb.
@@jeffcarlson3269 It's a revision so there are differences some of them are significant most of minor. It moves the JB/NJB a little further towards a "word for word" (formal) translation and a little away from a thought for thought (functional) translation. I think it is worth spending the $20 or so that a reader's edition costs if only because the RNJB may be adopted as the liturgical text in some English-speaking lands. Aside from that, I would not bother. It is decent reading but not hugely different from the NJB.
I, a Catholic, have this Bible, and the much smaller Reader’s Edition. . The Reader’s Editiin is my favorite.
May I know what's the difference between the reader's edition and the study edition?
I love that you are showing us this, makes sense, and answers the question, of whether you are seeking the Jews Bible, I would never Evan have known about this, if you hadn't done this filming, of this, just going to the Bible stories won't guarantee, that the Bible will show any real, good range of the Bible, Christians Bible is the Bible, I had ever been aware of, I had no idea how much varieties, just are around, this show's, just how much you are not aware of, I can really see just likely it is to never know something, this really helps
Thank you for this review! It was everything I needed to know and wanted to find out before I bought the Bible. I appreciate your work.
Thanks again for a comprehensive review. I particularly like the text/translation comparisons between versions. I think I will watch your review of the NRSV next.
I love your reviews... Greetings from Brazil.
Mr Jones, sadly I think you will never see a RNJB without the CTS New Catholic Bible's (heretical) footnotes. This is because Canon Law requires publishers to include footnotes (persumably to clarify the meaning of the text to protect the faithful from heresy). However, considering that the publishers of the RNJB care not at all for the doctrine of the Church, I can see them ignoring her canon law too.
Thank you for the review!
In this, thou hast spoken rightly.
Wait I see some discrepancies here; the CTS New Catholic Bible was published by the Catholic Truth Society-are you saying this is bad? Otherwise the copyright holder of the JB/NJB/RNJB is Darton Longman and Todd-an employee-owned non-sectarian independent publisher (ecumenical)… As long as Henry Wansbrough a Benedictine is general editor and that these Bibles carry the Imprimatur I don’t think there is a problem with the text or it’s notes, unless you think otherwise. Considering this what about the NRSVCE? It has also recieve the imprimatur and Bishop Barron uses it in his Word On Fire Bible
Related videos:
RNJB New Testament and Psalms -- th-cam.com/video/nmvujk_poIs/w-d-xo.html&t=
The Jerusalem Bible -- th-cam.com/video/zKhSsImL7AM/w-d-xo.html
The New Jerusalem Bible -- th-cam.com/video/7p9MwPddiFM/w-d-xo.html
The CTS New Catholic Bible -- th-cam.com/video/Clb3OlTvG_o/w-d-xo.html&t=
The Didache Bible -- th-cam.com/video/xljF-DRqg5w/w-d-xo.html&t=
The Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition: th-cam.com/video/xhjpMT3-8FQ/w-d-xo.html&t= .
Good video. Thank you for sharing this. Good information.
Thank you for the kind comment!
Very thorough. Ivery much enjoy your videos!
Check out the version of this Bible published by the UK publisher Darton, Longman & Todd. Seems possibly better than the Image version.
Great review as usual! I was able get the UK edition imported a few months ago. Nice to see that I wasn’t the only one getting tripped up by the incongruent notes. I’ve read that at the RNJB is aiming to become the basis of the Lectionary for the Catholic Church in England and Wales, so we’ll see what future editions might lie in store for this translation.
Thanks, HaHaVids! Does the UK edition use glue for binding, like this one?
R. Grant Jones No, it’s sewn with glue as a support. On the other hand, the print is smaller, the pages are thinner, and it has a glossy paper over cardboard cover, so I can’t really call it a higher quality edition.
The Catholic church in India now uses the ESV Catholic edition in the liturgy. The ESV CE may eventually be approved for use in other English language liturgical texts used in other lands. But with the current missals in England, Wales, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand and so forth being only 10 years old I'd expect it to take a long time before a new set will be in use.
I've always rather liked the Entglish language style of theJerusalem BIble. The original edition of it still and also the New Jerusalem BIble both seem preferable to the various revisions of them. They seem so dignified and literary compared to the later modifications of the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem BIbles. I have some of the various editions that the Bible de Jérusalem has gone through in French. That line of versions is more widely here in Québec among francophones than other French or Engtlish translations are used.
the 60s publications of the New English Bible & the Jerusalem Bible were fresh and vigorous translations of the texts which didn't shy away from radical reinterpretation of the material - the dumbed down revisions, REB & now the RNJB haven't really contributed to this impulse to liberate the Bible from 'biblicalese'.
The Pelegian comment in Romans 5:12 that you noticed in the RNJB also shows up the the CTS Bible compact edition too. I wonder if the CTS bible influenced the commentary or that's the view of the translators for both... The Original '66 Jerusalem Bible (Study Edition) thankfully doesn't have that heretical commentary...
@Dillon Leaf The text on the CTS Bible is the same as the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible and it is not an issue. The commentary though is very recent and it where the issue is at. The New American Bible is the same with severely problematic commentary.
Hi,
Thanks for all the wonderful videos about Bibles. Now, in all honesty, is this a Bible you would recommend as a useful study tool? Personally, I am not a Catholic, but this Bible is somewhat attractive to me, but I am concerned on how mellowed down it is for today's standards?
Appreciate a feedback, and your thoughts on maybe what would be the better option? Thanks
Personally, I prefer study Bibles that assume the Scriptures were divinely inspired. The Orthodox Study Bible, the Didache Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, the Lutheran Study Bible (ESV), and the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible all do that, but from various denominational perspectives. If you're looking for a study Bible that assumes the Book is purely human in origin, the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (NRSV) and the Harper-Collins Study Bible are both very good. The Revised New Jerusalem Bible is unique and certainly has its uses, but the original Jerusalem Bible is a better read and has more detailed (though dated) notes.
@@RGrantJones thank you so much for your prompt response!
I will definitely look into these Bibles you mentioned... And yes, I will definitely keep watching your very useful videos👍
@@RGrantJones Problem with reading Bible as a human endeavor is that it destroys the faith altogether. Muslims and Jews who want to understand Christianity will also not appreciate a humanist Bible. Ecumenical translations like NRSV and ESV (with Apocrypha) are fine, but the ecumenical Study Bibles like HarperCollins and Oxford/Cambridge Study Bibles are bad for the faith. Such texts are fine for universities probably.
I think that no real 'Believer's Bible' can ever be ecumenical, because then it will become secular and humanist and will defeat the monotheistic religions all together. As a Muslim all of this is shocking for me! These atheists/secularists/agnostics will dilute Christianity too a very high degree.
Lilo
@@hassanmirza2392 It is a huge issue, and I don't anticipate it ending or stopping with Christianity. All people of faith can have fruitful discussions about faith because we start with common beliefs and assumptions. Much harder to connect with people who categorically deny any spiritual reality and dismiss it out of hand...
The lack of notes is a real disappointment in the RNJB. One of the selling points of the original JB and the NJB (and the reason it had the title of "Jerusalem Bible") was that the notes were a translation of the notes that appeared in the French "Bible de Jérusalem" (and for the NJB, its revision) produced by the École biblique in Jerusalem. Sadly, the RNJB did away with that in favor of Fr. Wansborough's notes for a different Bible entirely.
I have no idea why so many editions of the Jerusalem Bible and its children are published in the US with glued bindings. I would love to have a Jerusalem Bible text block rebound, but feel uncomfortable doing that with a glued/perfect text block.
Thanks for commenting, 8polyglot! I believe all the copies of the JB I own have sewn text blocks.
You should make a video comparing this bible to the NRSV Catholic edition - if you haven’t done so already! I think they would be very close.
Thank you for this excellent review of the RNJB. A few comments: 1) I purchased my copy directly from Dartman Longman Todd, the British publisher, and that edition does have a sewn binding, 2) I appreciate your general comments about the notes being at times from the point of view of "unbelief". However your comments regarding note "a" referring to the Fourth Servant Song in Isaiah may be a bit unfair (at 30:16 minutes in the video)The note says "Nevertheless, its primary meaning...." I understand that as saying that the traditional Messianic meaning is not repudiated but set as secondary to the primary contextual meaning. I may be quibbling! In any case, many thanks for your great work. On a different point, it seems you really like the Jubilee Bible, I am very much enjoying it ( and I am Roman Catholic!).
Thanks for the comment! I see how you can read the comment on the "Fourth song" that way. If the first sentence in the note had affirmed the traditional Christian understanding in some way, rather than simply recording the fact that the passages (here in Isaiah and in Ps 22) have been understood as prophetic of the Messiah, I would have come away with a more positive impression. But given the New Testament's use of the passages, how can that traditional understanding not be the *primary* meaning for a Christian, even a scholar? So the note leaves me dissatisfied. But perhaps I should be less critical.
(By the way, while writing this reply I noticed that the RNJB removed the reference to Acts 8.32-33 at Isaiah 53.7-8, which is present in the original Jerusalem Bible. I wish I had noticed that omission before I made this video.)
I definitely like the paper and print in the Jubilee Bible, but I don't wish to be interpreted as endorsing it wholeheartedly. It's possible it contains questionable translations, so no _nihil obstat_ or _imprimatur_ from me. I must say I find it encouraging that you, as a Roman Catholic, enjoy Protestant Bibles, while I, as a Protestant, appreciate Catholic Bibles.
@@RGrantJones Yes, I very much agree that an affirmation of the traditional Christian understanding would have been far better, and please do not hold back from well considered critical remarks, they stimulate good thinking and consideration. A question: if you have just one Bible version to take with you to a deserted island, what would it be? Blessings to you!
@@FernandoSerna1654 - that's a hard question! But if I were allowed to bring only one of the Bibles I own to this hypothetical deserted island, it would be the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha in the Revised Standard Version. Why? It isn't perfect by any means, but it's a decent translation, and it includes more books and fragments than most editions.
R. Grant Jones Thank you, great choice!!
@Fernando and @R. Grant Jones
I would like to add to the remarks on the Fourth Servant Song what is written in the German "Neue Jerusalemer Bibel" (2007 edition, Verlag Herder) in the introduction to the prophetic books, page 1015:
"The Servant is the mediator of the future salvation; therefore the Messianic interpretation is justified, which was also partly given by the Jewish tradition to these passages, but without the suffering traits. In contrast, Jesus took up the very texts about the suffering of the Servant and his vicarious atonement and applied them to himself and his mission, Lk 22:19-20.37; Mk 10:45. Original Christian preaching saw in him the perfect Servant announced by Deutero-Isaiah, Mt 12:17-21; John 1:29."
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
very nice channel you have🤙yes, the awkward gender inclusive language is a huge turnoff; i’ll stick to the DR haha
Shalom... Thank you for the review... Would you consider reviewing The את Cepher ?
I'll have to locate a copy at a reasonable price first. But it definitely appears to be worthwhile. Thanks for commenting!
Thank you for a very thorough review.
Great review. Personally, I love the NRSV ( I have the Oxford & C.S. Lewis versions). Still, I think I might pick this one up in a kindle version, as I still have the old Jerusalem Bible (which was my first Bible, and the one which had none other than J.R.R. Tolkien listed as a contributor-even if his role was minor).
SHALOM
I would to know the price of the new Jerusalem bible.Bernard Francis
Thanks for the review! Augustine Institute just released an exclusive edition of the ESV. . .
La Fe de la Iglesia Wow! Never thought we’d see that happen.
Thanks for letting us know. This is the link, I believe: catholic.store/the-augustine-bible/ . I wonder if anyone's done a review yet. I'd like to know about the layout, font size, and whether it's sewn.
@@RGrantJones Yes that's the link, I tried sharing the link but I couldn't do it. I'll get mine tomorrow and will be sharing with you that information. Thanks again!
@@HandJvlogs Me neither! Crazy things happen : ) I also never thought I would be a Catholic. . .
Why the CE of the Bibles are soo nice? It happens with the RSV-CE, soo beautiful. I hope this version will be in leather.
Can anyone advise if it is possible to put ribbon markers in the glued version of this bible?
Hi Grant (?), Quick query (perhaps you answer this in the video; I didn't check): Does the US edition of the RNJB retain the anglicized spelling of the UK edition? Thank you in advance!
Do you have a review of the St. Jerome study bible? I'm having trouble understand where St. Jerome's comments are and the editors, comments are being used.
No, sorry. I'm not familiar with that one. When I search for 'St. Jerome Study Bible', I see (1) a multi-volume work by Michael Lofton and (2) the New Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition.
Hello, where can I obtain a map like this?
I read that RNJB will not be used by English speaking Christian Churches anymore, they will use ESV-CE for their mass. What will happen with RNJB then? Should I drop the idea of buying it, and wait for the RNSV-UE study Bible? I read it will be published in 2022. Also, RNJB has one editor/author. Where as NRSV and ESV have tons of people who wrote and revised the manuscript. So, is ESV-CE and upcoming RNSV-UE study bibles a better and more educated option than RNJB? It looks like RNJB will be discontinued later. I really like it though, I think it reads very well, but main problem is that it has one editor/author and it will lack support of English speaking churches.
Hassan - the RNJB is a recent translation, so sufficient time may not have passed for it to have been approved by the various Catholic authorities for liturgical use. Here's the list of translations approved for use in England and Wales -- www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/Versions.shtml . I suspect that the situation varies from one English-speaking country to another. (I think that in the U.S., only the NABRE is approved for use in readings at mass, but I could be wrong.)
I believe many conservative Catholics avoid the NRSV because it uses modern gender inclusive language. My impression is that almost all Catholics regard the RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE highly, but that some traditional Catholics remain loyal to the Douay-Rheims.
While the ESV is normally printed without the Apocrypha, Oxford published an edition with the Apocrypha a few years ago. The ESV-CE, of course, includes the Apocrypha, and I just learned that it's available in a bonded leather edition: www.catholicbible.org/ .
@@RGrantJones I am actually surprised by the acceptance or partial acceptance of skeptical footnotes by (mostly done by Protestant scholars) mainstream Christians. In Germany there are many protestant scholars and even believers who take Bible very casually. I think Jews don't do it. This excellent Jewish Bible has footnotes, essays and explanations done by believers
www.amazon.de/Jewish-Study-Bible-Adele-Berlin/dp/0199978468
Such Bibles are more trustworthy than the humanist ones who bring their own biases to the footnotes. I am pretty sure that such skepticism will not be promoted in any Muslim institute, culture and country. I think Protestants are more inclined towards skepticism than Catholics? And if Protestant scholars can produce humanist Bibles like harper Collins Bible or Oxford NRSV Bible, than are they even Christians? Or are they non-believers now?
@@hassanmirza2392 - the Jewish people* I've been acquainted with do not believe the Old Testament Scriptures in the least. I can't recall a single Jewish person* whom I've ever known who thinks the Old Testament is anything more than a collection of fables. Of course, my experience is limited, but it seems to me that the Jewish Bible you mentioned may be an exception. (*Excluding those Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah.)
@@RGrantJones 'Excluding those Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah.' I think those Jews are called Christians :D Generally Jews don't believe Jesus was a Messiah or Prophet for them. I think those Jews are secularists, who don't take Old Testament seriously. Generally, they at least, the believing Jews have to read Torah and BELIEVE in it too.
But in which direction Christians are going? If they don't believe in most of Bible then how are they even different from Hindus who have many books but no central scripture and no shape or form? I think Catholics are more conservative like Muslims, better for the faith, family and community. Protestants are doing strange kind of reformation and dilution and skepticism all the time. Orthodox Christianity was partially destroyed by Communism in Europe & Russia.
@@hassanmirza2392 - Yes, such a person is called a Christian, but the ones I know also call themselves Jews. Hence the need for my parenthetical remark.
You may be overestimating the strength of conservatism within the Catholic Church, particularly in the face of opposition from the hierarchy.
Protestantism has the advantage that, when a denomination tends toward humanism, the believers are able to form a new conservative denomination.
What plastic cover product did you use? I have this Bible, and I want to protect it.
Thanks for the question. I use Brodart archival book jacket covers: manausbooks.com/collections/fold-on . I believe what I have on that Bible is their 9 1/2 x 20 inch cover. They're also sold by Amazon. Once a year or so I order a variety pack ( www.amazon.com/Brodart-Fold-Archival-Jacket-Covers/dp/B0073VTE88/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2AQC8FEFU9QBC&keywords=brodart+book+jacket+covers&qid=1705951042&sprefix=brodart+%2Caps%2C69&sr=8-3 ).
Thank you!!!
Any differences between the Revised New Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible?
Yes. Many.
Does anyone have any insight into how this translation might compare to the Revised English Bible?
I notice the NABRE at Romans 5:12 also uses that expression "in so far as", referring to "the fact of sinning" rather than "the fact of being part of the human race", descending as it does from Adam. At the same time, the Catechism states that all person are "conceived with the stain of Original Sin", and that "The sin of Adam is transmitted to every person by propagation, not by imitation". Or am I misunderstanding your complaint?
Great review. I still be the original Jerusalem Bible. Tolkien as editorial consultant of Exodus (or was it Job)? 😇
Thanks. I think Tolkien worked on Jonah. I also prefer the original Jerusalem Bible. The notes in the original reflect a certain amount of skepticism, but they're much more detailed.
Love the video Grant. I’m looking forward to purchasing my copy of the RNJB.
Have you ever thought of doing a review on the NAB Revised Edition and what your thoughts are in it?
I plan to review an NABRE this weekend. That review should be published today or tomorrow. Personally, I have no strong feelings about the NABRE as a translation either way. I like the fact that the Old Testament often follows the Septuagint, but I'm disappointed that it fails to do so in passages where the New Testament authors were clearly reading an Old Testament that agreed with the Septuagint (e.g., Isaiah 7.14). The notes in the NABRE are written from a naturalistic perspective, so they are of little interest to me. I prefer notes like those in the Didache Bible.
R. Grant Jones that’s great! Can’t wait to watch that video. I agree as well with the Old Testament. The 2011 update was wonderful. I look forward to the 2025 update of the New Testament. Hopefully the revisers listen to the criticism and make the needed changes. And I I agree as well with the notes, they don’t tend to strengthen faith but can lead to doubts. The Didache Bible is much preferred as a study Bible
Thanks Grant
@@RGrantJones The NAB since 1966 uses biblia Hebraica for the OT and the Nestle Aland Greek text for the NT. The LXX was the only bible in use in Jesus' time. So, that was the bible being read in the synagogues and it is the oldest and most accurate to what you read in the Gospels. The CCD switched to using the masoretic text and the Nestle for purposes of accuracy and eliminating the latinisms that occured. You see, there's one less layer of meaning when going from Hebrew-->Greek-->Latin-->English than from Hebrew-->English. That was their reasoning. The style of the Jerusalem Bible is the basis for the Psalter in our churches of today. That is one big reason it is so loved and valued by european catholics. I loved your review!
The first video of yours that I saw was your review of the CTS New Catholic Bible and I loved it so much that I got the Compact and Standard Edition of it.
I figured you would be reviewing this bible, but I already preordered it based on your earlier review of the New Testament and it should arrive tomorrow. Thank you for the work that you do to create these videos.
You're welcome, Hardin. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Thank you for the upload, I plan on buying bible because from my limited research this bible includes all scriptures recognized by both protestants and catholics, is this accurate?
Yes, that's correct. Catholic Bibles include all the books in Protestant Bibles.
One more thing I wanted to ask, it appears that RNJB has no essays which explain history and books of Bible, unlike other Study Bibles (Oxford, NKJV, EVS). It only appears to have extensive footnotes. Is this a correct assumption? Which Study Bible is better to buy if I want introductory essays to Bible books and other commentaries?
The RNJB has book introductions, but they aren't particularly detailed. The footnotes in the RNJB are less extensive than those in the original Jerusalem Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible. Before I make a recommendation, let me ask you a question: how important is it to you that the Old Testament include the Roman Catholic Deuterocanonical books? Do you want a Bible with the books considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox also? The more Old Testament books you want in your study Bible, the fewer choices there are.
@@RGrantJones I know that Orthodox have the most books in the Bible, some Bibles have Apocrypha. But I need a standard catholic version, as Catholics are 50% of all Christian population . I checked out the Orthodox Study Bible, it looks interesting! But in general, any standard Catholic Study Bible would do well. RNJB looks good enough, I already have the readers edition of NJB, older version. Should I stick to RNJB or change my Study Bible?
@@hassanmirza2392 - The RNJB is recent, so it should contain the latest scholarship. Personally, I prefer the original Jerusalem Bible, due to its more detailed notes. I like the Didache Bible quite a lot also, but I don't believe it's what you're looking for: It emphasizes Catholic doctrine rather than the historical background of the books of the Bible. When the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is complete, it may be the best option. I'm no expert in Catholic study Bibles. Perhaps a Catholic viewer will see this conversation and suggest other alternatives.
The other study Bibles I know of that contain the Deuterocanonical books are largely the work of Protestant scholars -- like the HarperCollins Study Bible and the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. Both are based on the NRSV and present a naturalistic perspective.
@@RGrantJones Thanks for your reply. I will stick to NJB and RNJB Bibles then. The Oxford King James Version (2008) is also good, but maybe too archaic. As a non-Christian not very useful. Maybe you can do a review of it. I really like the idea of readers and study Bibles. NIV has some slick reader bibles out there, but I want to avoid the Protestant versions, they have fewer books + they write from a natural perspective, better to read what a believer has to say about Bible. Slavic and Oriental Orthodox is a smaller branch, so Catholic Bibles make more sense. Basically, Catholics are the Sunnis of Christianity.
I was reading on PEW that by the year 2070 approx 2/3rd of the world's population will be Abrahamic, and 90% of the world's landmass will be under the Abrahamic influence. Whatever God promised Abraham in the Bible that his nation will rule the earth, it will be fulfilled.
Islam will be the biggest religion by then although not by much. The trend will continue until the start of the next century. I believe there is plenty of room for both Islam and Christianity, so we should read and respect each other's scriptures to do more dialogue. Jews and Christians have done a good job of preserving the books of the Bible, Muslims should read it with respect as it is also part of our tradition. All the best!
Is the Revised New Jerusalem Bible Study a Catholic Bible please me know.
Yes, it is. It carries an imprimatur and a nihil obstat. Thanks for the question!
Where can i buy one
It's widely available. For instance, Amazon sells it in the US: www.amazon.com/Revised-New-Jerusalem-Bible/dp/0525573194 .
Great Review. Thank you! I have a copy of the New Jerusalem Bible (not Revised), and it replaces "fornication" with the typical modern rendering of "sexual immorality" [1 Cor 6.18] . Also, it follows the newest modern trend of literally condemning "homosexuals" regarding homosexual immorality, in 1 Timothy 1.9, and doesn't use the parallel word "heterosexual" anywhere within the Bible regarding sin, even when the sin is specifically regarding heterosexual immorality (a modern homophobic double standard).
Question on gender inclusiveness: would "brother" (of the church) in the New Testament be a literal translation, or "member" (of the church) be considered more literal? I suppose "member" would be a more literal rendering in modern English if the Greek word in translation tries to stick to "literal usage of words within the New Translation" and not re-translate figurative words figuratively again. That way readers don't get confused about "what does the Bible REALLY mean?" (generations from now, "Brother" might only mean a blood family member, and the reader would be confused by what the translation REALLY intended) However, I understand the Greek uses the word Brother (we think figuratively?) :-) Or, in fact, were the original Christian Churches literally male dominated without sister members too?
Michael - the RNJB goes the way of the NJB in 1 Cor 6.18: 'sexual immorality'. In Mt 18.15, the Greek is ὁ ἀδελφός σου. Literally, 'your brother'. I interpret it in a figurative way. The NRSV interprets it for us.
@@RGrantJones Thanks for your expert analysis!
they probably prefer the footnotes to be approved by the catholic authorities so probably that is why they copied the footnotes from an older work from around 2008.
Review begins at 11:00
Mr. Grant Jones, can this be downloaden on my phone? Thanks.
Jade - I've never tried to download a TH-cam video, so I'm not sure. Thanks for commenting!
This video you made is a Godsend.You saved m money.
There certainly are better choices.
1. RSV2CE and
2. ESVCE
But these do not have much more than footnotes. Unless you buy the Reform ESV which I think is actually great, once bias is considered and no deuterocanonicals.
You can also get separate bible commentaries.
It sound like th RJNB cannot be recommended for any purpose, bottom line, unless one has too much time.
Amazon and other used booksellers still have copies of the ORIGINAL 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible. I myself tend to stay away from the evangelical-biased ESV-CE.
@@manfredcaranci6234 thanks, it’s cool, I have mine 🍻
I hear you on the translations, certain words of the Greek can be rendered differently.
I’m frankly looking for a nice Vulgate at the moment. I know it’s all free online but a paper copy would be great. I think Baronius does a lovely bilingual one (Douay Rheims English). Looks pretty. But a tad costly. Maybe one day,
The footnote for Is is not written from a place of unbelief. It's a correct historical critical analysis. As this bible you are reviewing is a Catholic Bible, it makes sense that the editors and commentators would make sure the reader understood the passage from not only the Christian interpretation, and also the historical context.
That attitude differs from that of St. Augustine of Hippo: "I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason." - Letter 82, to Jerome. I suppose Augustine's approach is no longer considered Catholic.
@@RGrantJones you should do some research on biblical studies.
@@susansambrook7654 - Perhaps you can recommend an introductory work on the topic for me, hopefully written by someone more Catholic than St. Augustine or Pope Leo XIII, who wrote, “But *it is absolutely wrong and forbidden,* either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or *to admit that the sacred writer has erred.* For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated. For *all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church,* solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: ‘The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.’ “ - Providentissimus Deus, 18 Nov 1893.
To me this cannot be called anymore the Jerusalem Bible, since it has removed the YHWH from its use. The characteristics of this translation was the divine name.
Catholics are not supposed to use YHWH in our bibles. Apart from the JB and NJB no other Catholic bibles use it. A Moto Propri issued by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 re-enforces this.
@@jaqian the Christian Community Bible uses it
@@jaqian That moto proprio applied to the LECTIONARY and Breviary, not to Bible translations per se.
Ok
I've been familiar with the JB since its original French publication as a naive teenager in the mid60s. It was the only Bible used in the [RC] seminary I attended. I detest it. Once I discovered its modernist and heretical notes, some of which you thankfully pointed out, I abandoned it both for its lousy paraphrasing, its use of the Divine Name in as the Y word and its useless notes. I always loved its cross references however. I have the French, the first English version and the second edition, but recommend it to no one who has the Faith.
I'm
it took out Yahweh as the name of god and replaced it with lord. a very big disappointment.
As it should. Catholics are not supposed to use the Lord's name in the bibles and it is only the JB and NJB that do so.
A pitty that they dont use anymore the name "Yahweh". This is the reason I dont prefer this edition.
Catholic bibles shouldn't use YHWH out of respect, it's only in recent years with the Jerusalem Bible that it came in. Older bibles like the Douay-Rheims and the KJV do not have it.