New Jerusalem Bible

** I am curious why when I pull out my New Jerusalem Bible, people look at me strangely? I love the translation and it is easy for me to read. I know the 66 Jerusalem Bible is the popular one but, Isn’t the NJB a good Catholic Translation?**

Mother Angelica did not like the New Jeruselem bible. She used the JB readers edition which is still sold by EWTN. Inclusive language and liberal commentary are the issues.

It’s not a translation I use myself, but it is sometimes said that the New Jerusalem Bible overdid the gender-inclusive thing.

We use it at our church in the UK.

I think the translation is good. A few of the notes are more speculative than I would like, and it does have some inclusive language, but neither is a deal-breaker for me. The big reason I don’t use it is that, as a more dynamic translation, I’m looking for a certain smooth-ness and artistry, and for me, it has neither. For dynamic translations, I prefer the original Jerusalem Bible or the Knox. This is my preference for a dynamic translation, and I don’t think I’d fault someone else for using it. But, as far as enjoying the style, it would be my #7 in preference, and Lady Tvknight415 is indicating 7 is too many to keep in the library. I’m settling in to really only using a couple translations regularly, and a few others for occasional reference. I’m in the process of thinning the library and using net versions of the others (which basically means I’ll only be keeping dead tree copies of the DR, RSV2, and NABRE)

I can’t stand the “virulent skin disease” instead of “leprosy” thing they have going on.

Today’s English Version (TEV, a.k.a. the Good News Bible) does almost exactly the same thing. For instance, in Matthew 8:2, the single Greek word “lepros” needs eight words in the TEV’s convoluted prolixity: “a man suffering from a dreaded skin disease.”

Thanks guys.

I asked my PP which bible he reckoned was worth getting hold of, he suggested any catholic bible, but the new Jerusalem is a good choice, so I got that one, and I find it fine. The main thing with bibles is to get one with the complete Catholic canon of books, ie Maccabees etc in the main OT section, else you will be losing out on a lot, for instance Maccabees goes some way to explaining prayers for the dead. Don’t go with a Protestant bible that calls these apocryphal (and thereby puts them at back or omits them altogether).

Regrettably, some so-called “Catholic” Bibles practice the identical form of segregation. The Good News Bible for Catholics, published in 1992 by Catholic Bible Press, a division of Thomas Nelson Publishers, boasts no fewer than three imprimaturs: one for the Bible text, another for the Catholic Study Notes, and a third for the Textual Study Aids. Nevertheless, squeezed in between Malachi and Matthew we find the Deuterocanonicals, from Tobit to 2 Maccabees, plus what they cautiously label “Some Additional Books,” namely 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Oh dear, I am only interested in access to the whole truth, I checked and all others are there except apparently the Prayer of Manasseh, so hopefully that’s the only 1 missing, I can live with that I’ll just reference an online source.

Don’t worry, the Prayer of Manasseh is not one of the deuterocanonicals.

Just to check, because this is a common misunderstanding: while many churches use the New Jerusalem as their go-to text outside the liturgy, the text of the Lectionary used during Mass is the older Jerusalem Bible (with a few changes). I apologise if you were already aware of this, and meant that you use it outside the liturgy.

Thanks for that, bit of relief didn’t want to think for the last umteem years i had missed something significant.:slight_smile:

I use the Jerusalem Bible readers edition and after trying many others I still find it my favorite . Do wish tho I could find this edition in larger print? :rolleyes:

Here is a nice review of what looks like a very interesting NJB.

Like the author, I don’t find inclusive language to be a problem if used correctly. Like most other things it has its place and when used properly can enhance understanding.

The NJB retains the use of “sons” in important passages in Galatians 4, does not obscure “Son of Man” references in the OT, and doesn’t use the plural “you” to make a passage inclusive.

Looks like a nice hardcover study Bible.


the Catholic church I was received in handed out yhe New Jerusalem Bible to those of us planning to join the Church. so I guess it must be okay.

I like the review link. I have starting really reading the NABRE and find it not as bad as everyone says. I just like the wording in the NJB.

I’ve used the Jerusalem Bible (Reader’s Edition) for the last 40 years almost exclusively. I like the translation in general and the use of our Creator’s name, “Yahweh.” (I’d prefer The Name to be written as “YHWH,” which would reflect the Hebrew, but that’s a minor point.)

I’ve noticed that the Jerusalem Bible is not found in my local Catholic book store at the Holy Hill monastery here in Wisconsin which has a large selection of other Bibles. Here’s what I believe to be the reason that the JB is rejected: its translation of Exodus 21:22-25:

“If when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, thought she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall hand it over, after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke.”

The JB’s translation differs from other Bibles that I’ve read, and it indicates that the life of the fetus is not equivalent to the life of the mother. This passage is controversial. Other translations are commonly interpreted to give the opposite conclusion.

Of course, JB’s translation notwithstanding, we, as Catholics, follow our Church’s teaching and do not have or participate in the practice of abortion.

As said previously I generally like this bible, but today I was looking at Mat 16 18 and not that keen on the translation but so far that’s my only gripe. It says 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community, ie the word church that I think is usually written has been replaced with community. Since this is central to explaining the pope I question why this was done, on the other hand if it is Jesus’s community I suppose that is the same as church, but just seems a bit of odd translation, as I don’t say I am going to catholic community I say I am going to Catholic Church. Just small thing I guess.

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