As a study bible, how does the '66 JB compare to modern resources?


I am potentially looking at acquiring the JB, partially based on recommendations on itself as a translation, but because I am study-focused at the moment, a large criteria for me are the notes to aid in that aspect.

Having perused well-used copy of the JB, I noticed that the notes are largely absent from the gospels but very heavy in some NT books such as Romans. I also didn’t observe too many browsing through Genesis etc. This is in comparison to ICSB NT, CCD '41 NT, DR-Haydock where the notes are ample throughout. Having those latter resources at hand, how does the JB stack up?


1966 isn’t modern?

I must REALLY be getting old!


In comparison to the Orchard-edited Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (CCHS), which came out a couple of years before the Jerusalem Bible’s original French edition, I find the JB to be more open to certain historical-critical theories, and less open to more traditional Biblical exegesis.

Insofar as its comparison to modern resources is concerned, I would think much of the JB relies on now dated scholarship, and its notes might be an older form of something one might read in the NABRE rather than in the ICSB. Beyond that, I’m not educated enough to really offer substantive comments.

But if you’re looking for scholarly commentary, there are better modern resources; and if you’re looking for devotional commentary, there are better older and modern resources, some of which you’ve already mentioned.

Having said all of that, there’s nothing at all wrong with learning a bit of older Biblical scholarship, provided we treat various hypotheses with the critical thought they ought to be treated with.


+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into ALL this Bible’s versions thereafter . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts St. Jerome used are no longer in existence.

[size=]Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”**
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

[INDENT]:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. [/INDENT]

I’ve read several times that** Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI during his papacy ** used the ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . [INDENT]:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE).Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …****[/INDENT]

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

[INDENT]New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******[/INDENT]

[INDENT]**NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991) [also a paraphrase not a word for word translation]. It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
[/INDENT][RIGHT]. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank **You Lord **for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+


As a corrective to the above post: neither the JB or the NABRE are paraphrases, they are dynamic equivalence translations, which is a less loose translation than is a paraphrase.

Here are the opening lines from John 3 from a literal translation, a dynamic equivalent translation, and lastly a paraphrase:

[quote=The Message/Paraphrase]There was a man of the Pharisee sect, Nicodemus, a prominent leader among the Jews. Late one night he visited Jesus and said, “Rabbi, we all know you’re a teacher straight from God. No one could do all the God-pointing, God-revealing acts you do if God weren’t in on it.” 3 Jesus said, “You’re absolutely right. Take it from me: Unless a person is born from above, it’s not possible to see what I’m pointing to—to God’s kingdom.”4 “How can anyone,” said Nicodemus, “be born who has already been born and grown up? You can’t re-enter your mother’s womb and be born again. What are you saying with this ‘born-from-above’ talk?”

Incidentally, even in the quotation from the NABRE, take note of the inclusive language!


I own a 1975 Spanish version based on the French 1973–it is full of footnotes and has built-in concurrence (both expansive); it is where I encountered the term with which I close my posts. I’ve never seen any other Bible with such comprehensive notes and concurrence–though I’ve not looked recently for fear of having to face the anti-Catholic garble that has been accepted by the “school” of Bishops, the “ground-breaking” inclusive language (such as Christ reading from the “Bible”), and the super scholars/theologians that teach that Scriptures are mostly allegory, etc., and the rationalization of almost everything that points to Christ’s Divinity as exaggerated language or construct.

The most I’ve heard against the JB is that it is not a literal translation–though, when questioned, the argument has never been proven with validity.

Maran atha!



Hi, Dave!
…I know a little place off San Jose, CA… :coffeeread::coffeeread::coffeeread:

…yeah, time does creep in!

Though, to be truthful, the vernacular has been changed by hollowood–so the class of 2026 would call this dated forum a fossil!

Maran atha!



The NABRE is not really a dynamic equivalence translation. It is expressly described as a formal equivalence translation, and while it’s certainly not as literal as the RSV, it’s definitely more so than self-described dynamic equivalence translations.

Also, the NAB with the 1991 Psalms is NOT the current edition being sold. The entire OT, including the Psalms, has been revised. That new edition is called the NABRE and has been on the market since 2011.


I find the Jerusalem Bible to be a very good study bible. I’ve read a lot of criticisms about the translation and in some cases the notes were described as being too liberal. However, I find the notes to be very Catholic and support many traditional catholic teachings. I’ve used it alongside the ***Ignatius Catholic Study Bible ***and the *A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture * and many of the notes in the Jerusalem Bible seem to follow that same school of thought.

For example, I know the notes give rise to the probability that Moses was not the sole author of Genesis or any of the other books of the Pentateuch, that traditional catholic scholarship attributes to him. Which for me personally, doesn’t shake my faith one bit. Yet, on the flip side, the authors deny the “Q” theory, as a possible explanation for authorship of the Gospels, which modern scholarship seem to highly favor and is a theory you find being pushed in the NAB.

Unlike the NABRE, which is often described as being an okay translation, in spite of the notes; the Jerusalem Bible has good notes, in spite of the translation. By that I don’t mean the translation is seriously flawed, but unfortunately it steers away from more traditional Catholic renderings of passages and words. Yet, if the Jerusalem Bible excels in any one area, it is arguably its readability. Another huge plus, is the lack of any inclusive language. If one is looking for a bible that has quality catholic notes and is easy to read and understand, you’d be hard pressed to find a better one.

Naturally you might find better study guides and more thorough explanations in a newer more traditional study bible or commentary like the ones mentioned above, but to find a “bible” with these kinds of study aides and references, well the modern bibles simply don’t have it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit