The New Jerusalem Bible (1985)

Henry Wansbrough, ed., The New Jerusalem Bible. New York; London: Doubleday; Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. ISBN: 0385142641

The New Jerusalem Bible is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible (1966). The revision seems to have been motivated chiefly by a desire to make the version more accurate. A number of reviewers had pointed out loose renderings which would cause problems for those who would use the version for close study, as it was intended to be used. There was also another consideration: The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was based upon the French Bible de Jérusalem (1961) prepared by the faculty of the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem; but in 1973 the French Bible was revised, and so for this reason it was felt that a corresponding revision of the English version was in order.

Henry Wansbrough of Ampleforth Abbey, York, was appointed chief editor for the revision. ¹ The preface mentions “Professor Kenneth Grayston and Canon Douglas Webster” as being especially worthy of notice in connection with this work.

The revision of the voluminous notes and introductions of the version simply follows the new French edition, and they represent the opinions of secular critical scholars. Skeptical views on the authenticity of various books, on the truthfulness of the biblical narratives, and even on the inspiration of the teachings of the Bible, are presented as if they were uncontroversial.

The translation is generally made more literal. In some places, however, the revision is less accurate than its predecessor. This is due mainly to the occasional changes made so as to avoid the linguistic “preference for the masculine.” Apparently, the editors were under some pressure to revise the text according to the new principles of inclusive language. But changes of this type in the New Jerusalem Bible are very few compared to the severely neutered Bible versions which appeared in the 1990’s.

The original Jerusalem Bible (1966) had been criticized for “undisciplined and capricious” treatment of the Old Testament, especially in matters of textual criticism. ² Some problems of this kind have been corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible, but many remain. This seems to be a characteristic of modern Roman Catholic scholarship in general — a weakness for speculative reconstructions of the text of the Old Testament, and for novelties in Hebrew philology. The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.

A “Reader’s Edition” of the New Jerusalem Bible with abridged introductions and notes (ISBN: 0385248334) was issued in 1990.

The New Jerusalem Bible has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. American Catholics prefer the New American Bible published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Below is the passage Hebrews 1:1-4 in the Jerusalem Bibles of 1966 and 1985, with all footnotes. The passage is typical in that it shows the improvement of accuracy in 1985, and the highly “theological” and scholarly character of the notes.

Jerusalem Bible, 1966

1 At various times in the past and in various different ways, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; 2 But in our own time, the last days, he has spoken to us through his Son, the Son that he has appointed to inherit everything ^a and through whom he made everything there is. ^b 3 He is the radiant light of God’s glory and the perfect copy of his nature, ^c sustaining the universe by his powerful command; and now that he has destroyed the defilement of sin, he has gone to take his place in heaven at the right hand of divine Majesty. 4 So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name.

  a. To be a son implies having the right to inherit, cf. Mt 21:38, Ga 4:7. Here, however, God is credited with the handing over of the whole creation because the inheritance in question is messianic and eschatological.
  b. Lit. the ‘eaons’, hebraism for the whole of creation.
  c. These two metaphors are borrowed from the sophia and logos theologies of Alexandria, Ws 7:25-26; they express both the identity of nature between Father and Son, and the distinction of persons. The Son is the brightness, the light shining from its source, which is the bright glory, cf. Ex 24:16+, of the Father (‘Light from Light’). He is also the replica, cf. Col 1:15+, of the Father’s substance, like an exact impression made by a seal on clay or wax, cf. Jn 14:9.

New Jerusalem Bible, 1985

1 At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; 2 but in our time, the final days, ^a he has spoken to us in the person of his Son, ^b whom he appointed heir of all things ^c and through whom he made the ages. ^d 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and bears the impress of God’s own being, ^e sustaining all things by his powerful command; and now that he has purged sins away, he has taken his seat at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high. 4 So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name.

  a. In the fullness of time, Mk 1:15; Ga 4:4c, the last times or the last days begin, Ac 2:17; 1 P 1:20.
  b. After the prophets, God sends an envoy who is no longer a mere messenger like the others; he is ‘Son’, cf. Mk 12:2-6; Rm 1:4c, he is even the Word, Jn 1:1a, 14m.
  c. To be a son implies having the right to inherit, cf. Mt 21:38, Ga 4:7. Here, however, God is credited with the handing over of the whole creation because the inheritance in question is messianic and eschatological.
  d. Hebraism for the whole of creation.
  e. These two metaphors are borrowed from the sophia and logos theologies of Alexandria, Ws 7:25-26; they express both the identity of nature between Father and Son, and the distinction of persons. The Son is the brightness, the light shining from its source, which is the bright glory, see Ex 24:16f, of the Father (‘Light from Light’). He is also the replica, see Col 1:15d, of the Father’s substance, like an exact impression made by a seal on clay or wax, cf. Jn 14:9.

A Bible for All?

Because the American publisher of this version (Doubleday) has been promoting it as “the Bible choice for all, Christian and non-Christian, believer and skeptic, who wish to own a Bible, independent of sectarian or confessional considerations” (quoted from the dust jacket), we ought to add a word here about this claim. The idea that a Bible version such as this — which contains introductions and notes that presuppose the acceptance of skeptical views and modernistic theories concerning the authorship and authenticity of the books — would be suitable for all Christians, is very questionable. After fully admitting its good qualities, we must point out that the New Jerusalem Bible is not in fact suitable for Christians who are in need of edification in the faith. One of the “confessional considerations” common to all Christians is the belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. Any commentary on the Bible which is “independent” of this belief cannot be called a Christian commentary, nor can it be wholly acceptable to any Christian. The largely arbitrary critical speculations included in this version, useful as they may be for students who must interact with modern critical scholarship, are likely to have a bad spiritual effect on laymen. This is a Bible suitable only for students who are well established in the faith and capable of using it with discretion.

1. Henry Wansbrough, “Editing the New Jerusalem Bible,” The Tyndale Society Journal 6 (February 1997), pp. 40-42.

2. See the review article by Gleason Archer, “The Old Testament of The Jerusalem Bible,” Westminster Theological Journal 33 (May 1971), pp. 191-94.