The Jerusalem Bible (1966)

Alexander Jones, ed., The Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, New York; London: Doubleday; Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966. ISBN: 0232481865.

This is a version prepared by Roman Catholic scholars in Great Britain, under the general editorship of Alexander Jones of Christ's College, Liverpool, assisted by twenty-seven colleagues. ⁽¹⁾ It is notable as being the first English version to be done by Roman Catholics on the basis of the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than upon the Latin Vulgate. In 1943 Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical letter on Biblical studies called Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he gave permission for this departure from Roman Catholic tradition.

The Jerusalem Bible derives its name and its character from an earlier French version, called La Bible de Jérusalem. This French version (published in 1956, and revised 1961) was prepared by the faculty of the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem, on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek. An introductory note acknowledges this indebtedness: "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 annotations of the French edition were remarkably full and helpful. The Editor’s Foreword explains that the idea of the English Jerusalem Bible was to turn the French version, together with all of its annotations, ⁽²⁾ into English, with constant reference to the Hebrew and Greek. And so the translation is based upon the Hebrew and Greek as interpreted by the French version.

We give now a sample of the translation with its annotations. Below are the text and notes of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Although it was prepared by Roman Catholics, the version does not serve to promote traditional Roman Catholic doctrine. The translation is little influenced by dogma (if at all), and even the annotations are of an ecumenical-scholarly character. This is a consequence of the fact that the scholars who produced both the French and the English versions were guided by the same principles of modern secular scholarship that many Protestant scholars have adopted in the more liberal theological schools. Traditional Roman Catholic exegesis is therefore largely absent from the Jerusalem Bible, just as traditional Protestant exegesis is absent from the Revised Standard Version.

There are some notable exceptions to this rule. The note on 1 Timothy 2:4  (translated "he wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth")  reads, "This is a statement with enormous theological implications, and it provides the correct interpretation of some passages in the letter to the Christians at Rome, cf. Rm. 9:18, 21." The idea here is that 1 Timothy 2:4, interpreted in a universalistic or semi-Pelagian fashion, "provides the correct interpretation" of Paul's teaching concerning election and predestination in Romans 9. But by any ordinary standards of biblical hermeneutics, Paul's argument in Romans 9 cannot be controlled or overshadowed by any such interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4. The annotator of Romans apparently recognizes this, because in the notes to chapter 9 we find nothing along these lines, not even a passing reference to 1 Timothy 2:4. The assertion found in the note to 1 Timothy 2:4 would appear reasonable only to one who is schooled in the old tradition of Roman Catholic or Arminian polemics.

An example of departure from Catholic tradition may be seen in Luke 1:28, in which the Annunciation to Mary is, "Rejoice, so highly favored! The Lord is with you." This is a significant departure from the traditional "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women." The final phrase (from the Vulgate) is omitted, and the traditional rendering, "full of grace," which is so familiar to Catholics through recitation of the Hail Mary, ⁽³⁾ and which has been the basis of Roman Catholic teaching concerning the sinless grace of Mary, is boldly departed from. The traditional rendering is not even mentioned in the footnote on this verse.

The introductions to sections of the Bible (also from the French version) reflect modern critical scholarship. The introduction to the Pentateuch sets forth details of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis of composite authorship (JEDP sources). The introduction to the Prophets concludes that Daniel was not written by Daniel, but by a much later writer (167-164 B.C.) who wrote of things past as if they were yet in the fututre. Isaiah is said to be of composite authorship. The discussion of New Testament books is conservative by comparison. The theory of Markan priority and the existence of a "Q" source are rejected, and instead Matthew (in a hypothetical Aramaic original) is said to have been the earliest Gospel. The introduction to Paul's epistles asserts the Pauline authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, against the grain of most secular scholarship. 2 Peter is, however, said to be pseudonymous. These introductions will make the version unacceptable to conservatives.

The text of the Old Testament is treated with great freedom. Frequently the traditional Masoretic text is departed from, in favor of readings from the ancient versions, and many conjectural emendations are also adopted rather arbitrarily. One academic reviewer (Gleason Archer) has described the Jerusalem Bible's emendations of the Hebrew text as "undisciplined and capricious," and concludes that "the Hebrew text is completely at the mercy of these translators, who can alter it to mean whatever they choose it to mean, without following the scientific procedures worked out by competent textual critics." (See the review below)

The literary quality of this Old Testament is higher than usual for modern versions, and reflects the editor’s desire to “avoid the pure bathos of prosy flatness” (Editor’s Foreword) in poetic parts of the Bible. Among the English stylists who worked with the translators was J.R.R. Tolkien, the famous English novelist and literary critic. ⁽⁴⁾ Unfortunately, the Hebrew tetragrammaton or divine name (represented as "Lord" in the New Testament) is everywhere rendered "Yahweh," which spoils the literary effect of many passages, especially in the Psalms. And the literary quality of the New Testament translation is rather poor, as may be seen from the sample chapter given above.

An edition of the Jerusalem Bible with abridged introductions and with only a few simple footnotes (in no way comparable to the original notes) was published by Darton, Longman & Todd in London in 1968 (ISBN: 0232483841), and later by Doubleday in New York, issued under the title The Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition (ISBN: 0385499183).

A revision of the Jerusalem Bible was issued in 1985, under the name The New Jerusalem Bible. After the appearance of this revision the original Jerusalem Bible went out of print, and it is now hard to obtain, except in the abridged "Reader's Edition," which continues in print. We note with interest that the front flap of the dustjacket on this edition explains that one of the advantages of the original version is that it "avoids the postmodern tendency toward inclusive language."

Bibliography

• Gleason Archer, "The Old Testament of The Jerusalem Bible." Westminster Theological Journal 33 (May 1971), pp. 191-94.
• Frederick W. Danker, "The Jerusalem Bible: A Critical Examination." Concordia Theological Monthly 38 (March 1967), pp. 168-180.
• Gordon D. Fee, "The Text of John in the Jerusalem Bible: A Critique of the Use of Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism." Jounal of Biblical Literature 90 (June 1971), pp. 163-73.

1. The principal collaborators in translation and literary revision were: Joseph Leo Alston, Florence M. Bennett, Joseph Blenkinsopp, David Joseph Bourke, Douglas Carter, Aldhelm Dean, O.S.B., Illtud Evans, O.P., Kenelm Foster, O.P., Ernest Graf, O.S.B., Prospero Grech, O.S.A., Edmund Hill, O.P., Sylvester Houédard, O.S.B., Leonard Johnston, Anthony J. Kenny, D. O. Lloyd James, James McAuley, Alan Neame, Hubert Richards, Edward Sackville-West, Ronald Senator, Walter Shewring, Robert Speaight, J. R. R. Tolkien, R. F. Trevett, Thomas Worden, John Wright, Basil Wrighton.

2. Unfortunately the publishers omitted these notes in the so-called "Reader's Edition" issued in 1968, and the original edition ceased to be printed thereafter. The publication of the notes in English was one of the primary aims of the scholars who produced the original edition.

3. The Hail Mary or Ave Maria is a devotional prayer well-known to Catholics: "Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen. -- Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death. Amen."

4. Tolkien later minimized his own role in the making the version. In a letter we wrote: "Naming me among the ‘principal collaborators’ was an undeserved courtesy on the part of the editor of the Jerusalem Bible. I was consulted on one or two points of style, and criticized some contributions of others. I was originally assigned a large amount of text to translate, but after doing some necessary preliminary work I was obliged to resign owing to pressure of other work, and only completed ‘Jonah’, one of the shortest books." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by H. Carpenter and C. Tolkien [London: Harper Collins, 1981], p. 377.)

Editor’s Foreword

The form and nature of this edition of the Holy Bible have been determined by two of the principal dangers facing the Christian religion today. The first is the reduction of Christianity to the status of a relic—affectionately regarded, it is true, but considered irrelevant to our times. The second is its rejection as a mythology, born and cherished in emotion with nothing at all to say to the mind. What threatens the mother threatens her two children even more seriously: I mean Christianity’s adopted child, which is the Old Testament, and her natural child, which is the New. The Christian faith, after all, has been able without betrayal to adjust itself to the needs of succeeding centuries and decades. The Bible, on the other hand, is of its nature a written charter guaranteed (as Christians believe) by the Spirit of God, crystallised in antiquity, never to be changed—and what is crystallised may be thought by some to be fossilized. Now for Christian thinking in the twentieth century two slogans have been wisely adopted: aggiornamento, or keeping abreast of the times, and approfondimento, or deepening of theological thought. This double programme must be for the Bible too. Its first part can be carried out by translating into the language we use today, its second part by providing notes which are neither sectarian nor superficial.

This twofold need has long been appreciated, and strong action was taken in France when, under the influence of the late Père Chifflot, Editions du Cerf appealed to the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem to meet it. This led to the production of separate fascicules with a full textual critical apparatus for the individual books of the Bible, and with extensive notes. Subsequently, in 1956, a one-volume edition appeared which came to be known popularly as La Bible de Jérusalem: a careful system of cross-reference enabled this edition to include all the information from the fascicules which could be useful to the thoughtful reader or to the student. This present volume is its English equivalent, The introductions and notes are a direct translation from the French, though revised and brought up to date in some places—account being taken of the decisions and general implications of the Second Vatican Council.

The translation of the biblical text itself could clearly not be made from the French. In the case of a few books the initial draft was made from the French and was then compared word for word with the Hebrew or Aramaic by the General Editor and amended where necessary to ensure complete conformity with the ancient text. For the much greater part, the initial drafts were made from the Hebrew or Greek and simultaneously compared with the French when questions of variant reading or interpretation arose. Whichever system was used, therefore, the same intended result was achieved, that is, an entirely faithful version of the ancient texts which, in doubtful points, preserves the text established and (for the most part) the interpretation adopted by the French scholars in the light of the most recent researches in the fields of history, archaeology and literary criticism.

The translator of the Bible into a vernacular may surely consider himself free to remove the purely linguistic archaisms of that vernacular, but here his freedom ends. He may not, for example, substitute his own modern images for the old ones: the theologian and the preacher may be encouraged to do this, but not the translator. Nor must he impose his own style on the originals: this would be to suppress the individuality of the several writers who responded, each in his own way, to the movement of the Spirit. Still less must it be supposed that there should be throughout a kind of hieratic language, a uniform ‘biblical’ English, dictated by a tradition however venerable. There is no doubt that in forfeiting this we lose something very precious, but one hopes that the gain outweighs the loss. It would be arrogant to claim that this present attempt to translate the Bible into ‘contemporary’ English cannot be improved upon, but at least (one believes) it is in this direction that translations will have to go if the Bible is not to lose its appeal for the mind of today.

The Psalms present a special problem for translators since, unlike other parts of the Bible, the psalter is not only a book to be read but a collection of verse which is sung or chanted. Moreover, many of them are so familiar in their sixteenth century form that any change may seem to be an impertinence. Nevertheless, here too the first duty of a translator is to convey as clearly as he can what the original author wrote. He should not try to inject a rhetorical quality and an orotundity of cadence which belong more truly to the first Elizabethan age in England than to the Hebrew originals. He must avoid the pure bathos of prosy flatness, or course, but he will be aware that there is no longer an accepted ‘poetic language’ which can be used to give artificial dignity to plain statements. It would certainly be dangerous to give the form of the translation precedence over the meaning.

It is in the Psalms especially that the use of the divine name Yahweh (accented on the second syllable) may seem unacceptable—though indeed the still stranger form Yah is in constant use in the acclamation Hallelu-Yah (Praise Yah!). It is not without hesitation that this accurate form has been used, and no doubt those who may care to use this translation of the Psalms can substitute the traditional ‘the Lord’. On the other hand, this would be to lose much of the flavour and meaning of the originals. For example, to say, ‘The Lord is God’ is surely a tautology, as to say ‘Yahweh is God’ is not.

An Index of Biblical Themes has been provided in this edition. It is not a luxury or an afterthought; it is a key to a treasure, for the use of serious readers and of preachers. It is for those who are not studying one single book or passage but wish to find out what the Bible as a whole has to say on a particular theological idea. Since the date and provenance of the individual books will have been given in the introductions, this index will be a guide to the historical development of biblical revelation, a pointer to the raw material of a dynamic biblical theology. It is based on the similar index in the Bible de Jérusalem but is considerably wider in scope. The compilation of this index was undertaken as a labour of love by members of the Theological Studies Group of the Newman Association, under the leadership of Mr. Martin Redfern. Our sincere thanks must go to all these people who gave their spare time so generously.

The format of this edition has been chosen to make intelligent reading easier, and the single column arrangement has for this reason been adopted. The division of the text by bold-type section headings should enable the reader to see at a glance what is the subject-matter of the pages before him. The poetic passages are printed as verse and the lines with fewer stresses in the Hebrew are indented. Very occasionally there is a word-distribution that does not correspond to the lines in the Hebrew: this has been done deliberately, though reluctantly, for the sake of clearer English.

A list of collaborators will be found in the introductory pages: to all of these we express our thanks, not least because they have been so patient with changes in their manuscript for which the General Editor must accept the ultimate responsibility. As for the work of the publishers, it is here for all to see, but only the writer of this Foreword can fully appreciate their devotion to it. An inadequate word of thanks also to Miss Evan Burnley who typed and, without complaint, often retyped every word of this edition with the greatest accuracy. Certain students of Upholland College in Lancashire were of great help in the early days: may God reward them. But there are many others whose prayers and sympathy and repeated kindness in difficult days have given constant support: we think they will recognize themselves in this poor and vague acknowledgment.

Alexander Jones

Christ’s College, Liverpool
1st June 1966

Gleason Archer, "The Old Testament of The Jerusalem Bible." Westminster Theological Journal 33 (May 1971), pp. 191-94.

This thick volume represents an English version of La Bible de Jérusalem, first published in French under the general editorship of Roland de Vaux of the École Biblique in Jerusalem. The English version was prepared by a sizeable committee under the leadership of Alexander Jones, who saw to it that the actual wording of the translation was based upon a direct study of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, rather than a mere translation of the French. The publisher is to be congratulated on a very fine production, attractive in appearance and format. The footnotes are perhaps in smaller print than is customary, however, and since they contain so much important material, this may prove a disadvantage to some readers.

The avowed purpose of these translators is to abandon all traditional Bible-English and to produce a completely new rendering on the basis of contemporary English vocabulary and usage. This pursuit of modernity has not gone to the extremes of the New English Bible, nor is it a mere Phillips paraphrase. Actually it often displays a real vitality which is refreshingly original, and lends a heightened impact to the thought of the ancient author. Very striking is the abandonment of the traditional “LORD” for the Tetragrammaton, and also the traditional “Jehovah” of the ASV, in favor of the historical pronunciation, “Yahweh.” The RSV, the NEB and most other modern translations have shied away from this, but it looks and sounds very well (to this reviewer, at least) in this work, and it may serve to encourage future translators to follow suit.

A more basic consideration than modernity of rendering is the degree of faithfulness preserved in the handling of the Received Text. In its twentieth-century garb does the Jerusalem Bible offer to the public a reliable rendering of the original Hebrew Scriptures as they have been transmitted to the church? Unfortunately no. To an even greater extent than was true in the RSV there has been careless, inconsistent, capricious handling of the text of the original. Instead of confining themselves to an accurate rendering of the received text of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible, as amended on the basis of the ancient versions under careful controls of scientific textual criticism, the translators have allowed subjective considerations to have free rein. The interpreter’s conception of what the ancient author ought to have said permits him to substitute entirely different Hebrew words for those of the Masoretic Text, even where such a change finds no support whatever in either the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Targums, the Syriac Peshitto, the Old Latin, or the Vulgate. Such inventions of the translator are usually footnoted as “correction,” but quite often they are not.

This means that the ordinary reader is left completely at the mercy of the modern translator, who may even take away the blessed assurance of “For thou art with me,” in Psalm 23:4, without a shred of objective manuscript evidence either in Hebrew or in any of the ancient translations. (In this case we are told by footnote b that “Hebr. inserts ‘You are’ before ‘beside me’.” No evidence whatever is adduced to indicate that “you are” is indeed an insertion; actually there is none, and the promise of divine presence is as old as Joshua 1:9.) Similarly in Daniel 1:2 the phrase, “to the temple of his gods,” is dismissed with a mere notation, “Hebr. adds,” even though it is attested in every manuscript of every ancient version of Daniel. Or again, in Isaiah 53:2 the Servant of Yahweh is said to grow up “in front of us,” even though the MT and all the versions attest “in front of him.” In Isaiah 53:10 they render, “If he offers his life in atonement, he shall see his heirs.” The verb form tasim is either 2nd masc. sing. “thou,” or else a 3rd fem. sing. of which napshow is the subject (i.e., “If his soul appoints a trespass offering”); there is no possible way of rendering the word as having a 3rd masc. sing. subject, as JB does here. No footnote is given to account for this deviation. It should be added that “atonement” is incorrect for asham (trespass offering), and “heirs” is certainly wrong for zera (“seed, descendants”).

Where appeal is made to the versions for the support of an amended reading, the evidence is used in an undisciplined and capricious manner. For example, Genesis 1:9, “Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass,” involves substituting for a perfectly satisfactory MT maqowm (“place”) a highly dubious rendering of the LXX sunagoge (which nowhere else is translated “mass”). But the LXX may be passed over in silence where it does not suit the translator’s purpose; thus in Isaiah 52:14 he renders, “As the crowds were appalled on seeing him” (instead of “on seeing you,” as attested by LXX as well as MT). His footnote l cites Targum and Syriac for the “him” and mentions only MT as warrant for “you” (without admitting that LXX also supports it). In the next verse (Isaiah 52:15) he translates: “so will the crowds be astonished at him”—which according to the MT really says, “So shall he besprinkle many nations.” The verb form, yazzeh, being singular, cannot possibly take “crowds” or “nations” for its subject, but only as its object. Delitzsch rendered it as “startle” (on the analogy of the Arabic nazay or nazaw, “leap upon”), on the basis of the LXX thaumasontai (“they will marvel”), but nowhere else in the O.T. does nazah mean anything besides “besprinkle, bespatter.” Note also that JB leaves out goyim (“nations”) in this verse without any explanation in a footnote; there is absolutely no textual warrant for its omission. Even the treatment of rabbim or harabbim (“the many”) is inconsistent and inept throughout this passage (52:13–53:12). It is usually rendered “the crowds,” completely without warrant—the term seems to refer to the many believers who are saved by this one mediator—and yet in 53:11 it is (correctly) translated as “many.” But in the very next verse it is beefed up to “whole hordes.”

There are many other instances of defective treatment of the text in Isaiah 53. In verse 4 the participle nagua (“smitten, struck”) is rendered inaccurately as “punished.” In verse 6 the verb yapgiya (“cause to meet or alight upon”) is given rather inexactly as “burdened (him with the sins of us all).” In verse 8 the noun mishpat (“judgment, judicial process”) is altered to “law”; the verb yesocheach (“consider, meditate”) is translated “plead” to go with the word “case” without any explanation for this absolutely unique and unheard-of meaning for the root siach. “Case” is noted as a “correction” for the dor (“generation”) of the Hebrew text (confirmed by all the versions); what Hebrew word it has been “corrected” to is anybody’s guess. In verse 9 bemotaw (“in his death”) has been altered to an assumed bomatow, which is rendered “his tomb,” even though no lexicon contains such a word as bomah for biblical Hebrew. In verse 11 a textual emendation is adopted without any notice in the footnotes: da'atow (“knowledge of him”) has been replaced by ra'atow (rendered “his sufferings”) on the basis of one solitary Hebrew manuscript from the Masoretic family (although the thousands of others in the Masoretic tradition read da'atow). It would appear that the Hebrew text is completely at the mercy of these translators, who can alter it to mean whatever they choose it to mean, without following the scientific procedures worked out by competent textual critics such as Ernst Würthwein (cf. his Text of the Old Testament [Oxford, 1957], pp. 80-81).

The various introductions to the main divisions of the Old Testament tend to hew very closely to the party line of classic Wellhausianism throughout. The rationalist explanations of predictive sections as mere prophecies after the event are all included in these explanatory notes. In the case of predictions looking forward to Christ himself, the traditional understanding of these as true prophecies is occasionally referred to as cherished by the church fathers, but a much more likely explanation is to be found in non-Messianic references. Thus in connection with Daniel 9:25, footnote p states that the “anointed Prince” was anciently thought to refer to Christ. But footnote r reports that Theodotion “perhaps rightly, identifies this anointed one with the high priest Onias III ... deposed in about 175, assassinated by the supporters of Antiochus Epiphanes.” This would involve an interpretation of the 69 heptads of years (or 483) as amounting to but 363, or the interval of time between Cyrus’ decree permitting the return of the Jewish exiles and the assassination of Onias in 175 B.C. No mention is made of the fact that the interval between Artaxerxes’ decree to Ezra in 457 B.C. and the beginning of Christ’s ministry comes out to 483 years. Perhaps this would savor too much of a naive concept of Scripture as supernaturally inspired special revelation! On the other hand, it might be alleged that it is even more naive to believe that 363 is the same thing as 483.

In conclusion we may describe this ambitious work as attractive in format, vigorous in expression, often felicitous and vital in its wording. But its cavalier treatment of the Received Text renders it unsafe for doctrinal study or biblical exposition. It often translates an original text which never existed except in the imagination of the translation committee. Its perspective is quite identical to that of liberal Protestantism, apart from occasional concessions to modern archeological discovery (as in the well-written introduction to Psalms, in which the writer comes out clearly for Davidic authorship of at least a few of them, and casts doubts upon Maccabean composition of any of them). It is rather strange that such a modern translation failed to adopt the modern usage of capital letters for pronouns referring to Deity (although of course “Church” is capitalized!); nor did it see fit to use quotation marks, in violation of universal modern practice. Only a reader of professional training will be equipped to use this Jerusalem Bible with profit, capitalizing on its virtues and avoiding its errors and its antisupernaturalistic bias.