I'm just buying Protestant versions that are well bound and printed. If I need to read Wisdom or Maccabees I have Catholic Bibles. I recently bought an ESV Legacy and I am amazed at how the layout helps me to spend more time reading.
Luke It's not just wisdom and Maccabees that you are missing. It's also Judith, Tobit, etc... But also parts of Esther and Daniel which both books of course are in your Protestant bible but they are incomplete.
I wouldn't go that far. If we "shouldn't be reading Protestant bibles" then that includes the rsv, nrsv, nabre, jb, and any other catholic "catholic" translation except perhaps the knox since they all had Protestant involvement in the translation teams.
I was using Wisdom and Maccabees as an example. I agree with David. All modern translations use essentially the same Greek and Hebrew texts. There is not a Protestant or Catholic Greek New Testament for example. Also, as Tim has shown the ESV has more translation choices consistent with the D-R than modern Catholic translations. There is no perfect translation. We should take advantage of the many good options unless one can read the original languages.
David, I believe the 1966 Jerusalem Bible was translated by an all-Catholic group. I don't there was any Protestant or Jewish involvement. I just refreshed my memory by looking in the notes in the front of the 1966 JB.
This is why over the last year I have sent my two favorite Bibles (Oxford NABRE large print and Didache RSV-2CE)to Leonard's to be rebound. Both of these Bibles I use everyday, not only does it make them look and feel better but it makes them last a lot longer. If Catholic Bible publishers won't accommodate us then we can take matters into our own hands. Is it expensive - yes, but so is buying premium Protestant Bibles, or a $100+ pair of shoes, wrist watch, video games, (name other), etc. My Didache rebind cost $122.00 (plus 16.75 priority shipping), premumium Protestant Bible cost $190- $250 dollars, new iPhone6 ($650-750) every two to four years. So is it expensive if it is something you use everyday and if taken care of, will out last you?
I would've grabbed it myself, except my spare funds are allocated to a Little Rock Deluxe and my wife's anniversary gift (and no, that couldn't be her gift!). So I figured someone on here would enjoy, so I forwarded to Tim. It made it over 24 hours, which at that price amazed me. The last one like that I watched lasted 14 hours at $150. If the buyer was on here, maybe they'll even do a guest review.
losabio, the red leather (hardcover) Jerusalem Bible that was the subject of this post was a deluxe version of the 1966 Bible. It was not the Dali illustrated version, which I believe was published in 1970.
One thing all the people complaining about a lack of good Catholic Bibles need to understand is that the reason why there are few good Catholic Bibles out there is that there is not much of a market for Catholic Bibles.
The stereotype is true: Catholics don't read the Bible. The ones who do generally just buy a copy of the NAB because it is the one used in Mass and don't feel the need to buy any other Bibles, unless their NAB gets so beaten up they have to throw it out. Then they just buy another NAB.
This is one reason why I tend to buy almost any Bible that has a 'Catholic Edition', or even just a version 'with apocrypha', to prove that there is a market for such things.
Publishing is a business, there is no profit in catering to a niche market that isn't interested in buying.
I want to echo what Biblical Catholic just commented. The reality is that the demand is low. I have been told by good sources that if a Catholic publisher were to invest the time and resources to make a premium Catholic Bible and it doesn't sell; this would likely cause people to lose their jobs, since most publishers are quite small. So, like BC it is extremely important to purchase good, quality Catholic editions that are out there, including ones with full Apocrypha. Other small publishers, like Baronius, also need our support.
I want to support baronius but unfortunately I have had less than pleasant exchanges with them when inquiring about some products' details and their apparent anti-novus ordo position is a little concerning as well. However they produce a fine Knox and Douay Rheims and so I have given them some business.
I certainly understand that. They certainly are more traditional, although I haven't noted the "traditionalist" streak in them that is found in other publishers. That being said, I have tried to get back into contact with them over the past four months, but they have been acting a bit weird. Oh well.
I have to also agree with Biblical Catholic and Tim on Catholics not buying bibles. Catholics for some reason also are not buyers of good Catholic books period. When a Catholic publisher sells 5000 copies of a title and call it a bestseller in a country with 60 million catholics---something is wrong. We will be losing another great Catholic publisher at years end. I hear that Image Books will no longer be publishing new Catholic titles. They may exist only by publishing their backlist of Catholic classics. Sadly I don't know what can be done to get Catholics to read.
For Jerusalem Bible enthusiasts there, you may find this material interesting.
This PDF details some of the history (some sort of "the Making of") on the creation of the Jerusalem Bible.
What's interesting is that: (1) As David said, the JB was entirely translated by an all-Catholic group. (2) JB came out as a utmost desire of its collaborators to produce a version that is close to their hearts while being open to scholarship. (3) The English JB project initially catched the vigour of its collaborators, not the other way around that the collaborators gathered first and decided to conduct a translation of the Bible.
Here's the link: https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KtWiVa6wH4qGuASy6YjoAw&url=http://www.newman.org.uk/upload/Jerusalem%2520bible%2520A%2520Crowther.pdf&ved=0CBoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGjKW3BD0CnmEjRFcWonedvpnaJMw&sig2=Otv3oh5w5r49ES8MsjIrdQ
I agree to the most of the comments here on the demand for Catholic Bibles.
I must say that the choice of Lectionary texts is very pivotal. Most Catholics, more often, would initially purchase a Bible to exactly follow Mass readings, and perhaps for some, to prepare for Sunday Mass. Though a Missal would best serve the purpose, but for practical and spiritual purposes, a Bible is a greater asset to have.
What the Catholic hierarchy must do to create an influx of demand for Bibles is that: produce a Lectionary that is based to an existing version, with no alterations as much as possible, or to produce a Bible that matches the Lectionary. (Kudos to CTS for making one, and Lenny, thank you again for the gift.)
And also to provide liturgical helps on Bible. It is through Liturgy that we can make the Catholic laity get closer to the Scriptures. If we can make a good liturgical Bible version, this can help prepare lectors on Mass readings, the laity to have the text on their thoughts even before Mass, and for the prayerful ones that they pray and read together with the Church.
The main reason why no Bible in print exactly matches the lectionary is because the; lectionary makes changes to the text of the Bible in order to clarify the meaning for public reading.
For example, there are long passages in each of the four gospels where the name of Jesus is not spoken for several paragraphs and it just says 'he' and 'them' without naming names.
So in the gospel text actually says "and he said to them", the lectionary can't say that because then it won't be clear who is speaking to whom. So the text is intentionally changed from "and he said to them" to something more like "and Jesus said to the crowd" or "Jesus to his apostles" or something similar.
Likewise, in the epistles, every reading at Mass begins "brethren" or the modern "brothers and sisters", but this is not actually in the text of the epistle, it's added in the lectionary for the sake of clarity when the passage is read aloud.
So because the lectionary makes literally thousands of these minor alterations to the text of the Bible, it is impossible for the lectionary text to exactly match any translation in print.
While it is very clear that the Biblical text cannot exactly mirror the Lectionary text due to changing of pronouns to its antecedents and pericopes, at least a version that is concordant to a existing Bible version will at least be very helpful for the laity.
It is a loss for some laymen not to find their Biblical text correspond to the Mass readings.
Welp... I've decided to bite the bullet and send my 1966JB to Leonard's for a rebind. I have finally landed on 'my Bible' so I am going to have it bound 'my way'. :)
David-you rebinding the big red 3" thick edition or a thin paper? I'd also love to see the results.
If someone else wants the real fancy edition and is willing to spend a lot more, there's one in black up on ebay now for $199. And if anyone cynical asks, no its not my auction-I just have a JB search saved.
David have you decided on a leather yet? If you are going with a flexible leather binding (as opposed to leather over boards), take a look at the pebble grain cowhide in the extra thick version. It is very soft and flexible but thick enough for larger and heavier Bibles. Check out their new color (cherry bomber) it is beautiful!
David, Just so you know, the original 3" ones of 1966 (at least some until the mistake was caught) have sort of funny mistake in Psalm 122:6 on page 912. It says "Pay for peace in Jerusalem," when the correct wording is "Pray for peace in Jerusalem," This was corrected in the pseudo-leather-plastic covered ones of 1966.
I happened to read about that printing mistake within the past year and found that in did occur in my thick copy Doubleday and also in my hardcover from Darton,Longman&Todd of 1966. But it is correct in my Doubleday softer covered ones of 1966 so they probably discovered the mistake early on and quickly fixed it. Thought you'd want to know!
Hey guys I am rebounding that plastic pseudo leather one from 1966. I am leaning towards the dark chocolate glossy soft tan goatskin... Margie sent me pics of it and it's gorgeous. It will be blind stamped with Jerusalem bible and cross on cover and spine with my name in lower right corner. It will also have little front cover tooling design next to the spine hubs. It will have decorative end papers and three ribbons in the brown family. Very excited to say the least!
Eric, I had the exact same reaction as you did and laughed when I first verified the "misprint" in the initial printing of the 3" 1966 edition. A lot of the time a misprint involves a misspelling that ends up with a nonsense word. But this one actually makes a legitimate word and creates a different meaning to the thought which is why you and I both chuckled to ourselves.
Gerald, No, I'm not. I only found out about that one by reading about it on the internet and then looking in my different copies. It appears to only be in the original monster 3" editions. In the nicer bindings later on in the same year 1966 the mistake was fixed. And that mistake is not in the reader's edition of 1968.
According to googling on the internet, there are several mistakes which may still exist in the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985, even in more recent printings.
Just google things like "misprints in Jerusalem Bible", "misprints in New Jerusalem Bible", etc. and you might find more information.
I have 'the brick' also and that mistake is in there. There is another word misspelled in there but I can't remember it. If I find it I will pass it along.
David, I found a spelling error in the Red Brick copy of the Jerusalem Bible: Ephesians 1:4 (prseence) should be presence. I think this word is misspelled elsewhere also.
I forgot you posted that one. The one I posted above that, prseence instead of presence was the word that I had been thinking about in my last post in July. Of course, back in the 1960's if I had to type that Bible out to prepare it for printing there would be a lot more errors than there are now!
Hey next year is the 50th anniversary of the publishing of the Jerusalem Bible! Wouldn't it be nice if Doubleday or DLT would put out a special edition. Digitally retyped, genuine leather cover, nice Bible paper, two ribbon markers... It is obvious that I am under caffeinated at this moment! Ponder that idea. Or how about RL Allan, ok now I am really falling down the rabbit hole! I am going for more coffee!
45 comments:
I wish Catholic Bible publishers would listen to us. Too bad there isn't a build your own Bible out there.
I really really really need to get my JB rebound
I'm just buying Protestant versions that are well bound and printed. If I need to read Wisdom or Maccabees I have Catholic Bibles. I recently bought an ESV Legacy and I am amazed at how the layout helps me to spend more time reading.
Luke
It's not just wisdom and Maccabees that you are missing. It's also Judith, Tobit, etc... But also parts of Esther and Daniel which both books of course are in your Protestant bible but they are incomplete.
Plus we should not be reading Protestant Bibles.
I wouldn't go that far. If we "shouldn't be reading Protestant bibles" then that includes the rsv, nrsv, nabre, jb, and any other catholic "catholic" translation except perhaps the knox since they all had Protestant involvement in the translation teams.
I was using Wisdom and Maccabees as an example. I agree with David. All modern translations use essentially the same Greek and Hebrew texts. There is not a Protestant or Catholic Greek New Testament for example. Also, as Tim has shown the ESV has more translation choices consistent with the D-R than modern Catholic translations. There is no perfect translation. We should take advantage of the many good options unless one can read the original languages.
David,
I believe the 1966 Jerusalem Bible was translated by an
all-Catholic group. I don't there was any Protestant or Jewish
involvement. I just refreshed my memory by looking in the notes
in the front of the 1966 JB.
P.S.
I'm hoping the Midwest Theological Forum will next do a
"Didache" of the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.
This is why over the last year I have sent my two favorite Bibles (Oxford NABRE large print and Didache RSV-2CE)to Leonard's to be rebound. Both of these Bibles I use everyday, not only does it make them look and feel better but it makes them last a lot longer. If Catholic Bible publishers won't accommodate us then we can take matters into our own hands. Is it expensive - yes, but so is buying premium Protestant Bibles, or a $100+ pair of shoes, wrist watch, video games, (name other), etc. My Didache rebind cost $122.00 (plus 16.75 priority shipping), premumium Protestant Bible cost $190- $250 dollars, new iPhone6 ($650-750) every two to four years. So is it expensive if it is something you use everyday and if taken care of, will out last you?
Oh, by the way that Jerusalem Bible mentioned above on ebay was sold, did one of you on this blog buy it???
Ahhhh all the more reason we should all be reading the 1966 JB!! Lol!!!
::::: eyes looking back and forth :::::
Man THAT would be a dream!
I would've grabbed it myself, except my spare funds are allocated to a Little Rock Deluxe and my wife's anniversary gift (and no, that couldn't be her gift!). So I figured someone on here would enjoy, so I forwarded to Tim. It made it over 24 hours, which at that price amazed me. The last one like that I watched lasted 14 hours at $150. If the buyer was on here, maybe they'll even do a guest review.
Is the red JB the one with the Dali illustrations? I love the 1966 JB!
losabio, the red leather (hardcover) Jerusalem Bible that was the subject of this post was a deluxe version of the 1966 Bible. It was not the Dali illustrated version, which I believe was published in 1970.
One thing all the people complaining about a lack of good Catholic Bibles need to understand is that the reason why there are few good Catholic Bibles out there is that there is not much of a market for Catholic Bibles.
The stereotype is true: Catholics don't read the Bible. The ones who do generally just buy a copy of the NAB because it is the one used in Mass and don't feel the need to buy any other Bibles, unless their NAB gets so beaten up they have to throw it out. Then they just buy another NAB.
This is one reason why I tend to buy almost any Bible that has a 'Catholic Edition', or even just a version 'with apocrypha', to prove that there is a market for such things.
Publishing is a business, there is no profit in catering to a niche market that isn't interested in buying.
I want to echo what Biblical Catholic just commented. The reality is that the demand is low. I have been told by good sources that if a Catholic publisher were to invest the time and resources to make a premium Catholic Bible and it doesn't sell; this would likely cause people to lose their jobs, since most publishers are quite small. So, like BC it is extremely important to purchase good, quality Catholic editions that are out there, including ones with full Apocrypha. Other small publishers, like Baronius, also need our support.
I wish Jason! That would be amazing.
I want to support baronius but unfortunately I have had less than pleasant exchanges with them when inquiring about some products' details and their apparent anti-novus ordo position is a little concerning as well. However they produce a fine Knox and Douay Rheims and so I have given them some business.
Dave,
I certainly understand that. They certainly are more traditional, although I haven't noted the "traditionalist" streak in them that is found in other publishers. That being said, I have tried to get back into contact with them over the past four months, but they have been acting a bit weird. Oh well.
I have to also agree with Biblical Catholic and Tim on Catholics not buying bibles. Catholics for some reason also are not buyers of good Catholic books period. When a Catholic publisher sells 5000 copies of a title and call it a bestseller in a country with 60 million catholics---something is wrong. We will be losing another great Catholic publisher at years end. I hear that Image Books will no longer be publishing new Catholic titles. They may exist only by publishing their backlist of Catholic classics. Sadly I don't know what can be done to get Catholics to read.
Lenny
For Jerusalem Bible enthusiasts there, you may find this material interesting.
This PDF details some of the history (some sort of "the Making of") on the creation of the Jerusalem Bible.
What's interesting is that:
(1) As David said, the JB was entirely translated by an all-Catholic group.
(2) JB came out as a utmost desire of its collaborators to produce a version that is close to their hearts while being open to scholarship.
(3) The English JB project initially catched the vigour of its collaborators, not the other way around that the collaborators gathered first and decided to conduct a translation of the Bible.
Here's the link:
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KtWiVa6wH4qGuASy6YjoAw&url=http://www.newman.org.uk/upload/Jerusalem%2520bible%2520A%2520Crowther.pdf&ved=0CBoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGjKW3BD0CnmEjRFcWonedvpnaJMw&sig2=Otv3oh5w5r49ES8MsjIrdQ
(Pardon for the ugly link...)
I agree to the most of the comments here on the demand for Catholic Bibles.
I must say that the choice of Lectionary texts is very pivotal. Most Catholics, more often, would initially purchase a Bible to exactly follow Mass readings, and perhaps for some, to prepare for Sunday Mass. Though a Missal would best serve the purpose, but for practical and spiritual purposes, a Bible is a greater asset to have.
What the Catholic hierarchy must do to create an influx of demand for Bibles is that: produce a Lectionary that is based to an existing version, with no alterations as much as possible, or to produce a Bible that matches the Lectionary. (Kudos to CTS for making one, and Lenny, thank you again for the gift.)
And also to provide liturgical helps on Bible. It is through Liturgy that we can make the Catholic laity get closer to the Scriptures. If we can make a good liturgical Bible version, this can help prepare lectors on Mass readings, the laity to have the text on their thoughts even before Mass, and for the prayerful ones that they pray and read together with the Church.
The main reason why no Bible in print exactly matches the lectionary is because the; lectionary makes changes to the text of the Bible in order to clarify the meaning for public reading.
For example, there are long passages in each of the four gospels where the name of Jesus is not spoken for several paragraphs and it just says 'he' and 'them' without naming names.
So in the gospel text actually says "and he said to them", the lectionary can't say that because then it won't be clear who is speaking to whom. So the text is intentionally changed from "and he said to them" to something more like "and Jesus said to the crowd" or "Jesus to his apostles" or something similar.
Likewise, in the epistles, every reading at Mass begins "brethren" or the modern "brothers and sisters", but this is not actually in the text of the epistle, it's added in the lectionary for the sake of clarity when the passage is read aloud.
So because the lectionary makes literally thousands of these minor alterations to the text of the Bible, it is impossible for the lectionary text to exactly match any translation in print.
While it is very clear that the Biblical text cannot exactly mirror the Lectionary text due to changing of pronouns to its antecedents and pericopes, at least a version that is concordant to a existing Bible version will at least be very helpful for the laity.
It is a loss for some laymen not to find their Biblical text correspond to the Mass readings.
Welp... I've decided to bite the bullet and send my 1966JB to Leonard's for a rebind. I have finally landed on 'my Bible' so I am going to have it bound 'my way'. :)
We are keeping this man's business, and we must!
We Catholics are often pressed to very few options, and we must not let them fade away!
Hopefully there will be pictures of your rebound 1966 Jerusalem Bible. That will be an amazing product.
David-you rebinding the big red 3" thick edition or a thin paper? I'd also love to see the results.
If someone else wants the real fancy edition and is willing to spend a lot more, there's one in black up on ebay now for $199. And if anyone cynical asks, no its not my auction-I just have a JB search saved.
David have you decided on a leather yet? If you are going with a flexible leather binding (as opposed to leather over boards), take a look at the pebble grain cowhide in the extra thick version. It is very soft and flexible but thick enough for larger and heavier Bibles. Check out their new color (cherry bomber) it is beautiful!
David,
Just so you know, the original 3" ones of 1966 (at least some until
the mistake was caught) have sort of funny mistake in Psalm 122:6
on page 912. It says "Pay for peace in Jerusalem," when the correct
wording is "Pray for peace in Jerusalem,"
This was corrected in the pseudo-leather-plastic covered ones of 1966.
I happened to read about that printing mistake within the past year
and found that in did occur in my thick copy Doubleday and also in my hardcover from Darton,Longman&Todd of 1966. But it is correct in my
Doubleday softer covered ones of 1966 so they probably discovered the
mistake early on and quickly fixed it.
Thought you'd want to know!
Pay for peace... Misprint??? Or prophecy for the future??? :-)
Hey guys
I am rebounding that plastic pseudo leather one from 1966. I am leaning towards the dark chocolate glossy soft tan goatskin... Margie sent me pics of it and it's gorgeous. It will be blind stamped with Jerusalem bible and cross on cover and spine with my name in lower right corner. It will also have little front cover tooling design next to the spine hubs. It will have decorative end papers and three ribbons in the brown family. Very excited to say the least!
Eric,
I had the exact same reaction as you did and laughed when I first
verified the "misprint" in the initial printing of the 3" 1966 edition.
A lot of the time a misprint involves a misspelling that ends up with
a nonsense word. But this one actually makes a legitimate word and creates a different meaning to the thought which is why you and I both chuckled to ourselves.
Jeff, are you aware of any other misprints in the 1966 JB?
Gerald,
No, I'm not. I only found out about that one by reading about it
on the internet and then looking in my different copies.
It appears to only be in the original monster 3" editions. In the
nicer bindings later on in the same year 1966 the mistake was fixed.
And that mistake is not in the reader's edition of 1968.
According to googling on the internet, there are several mistakes which may still exist in the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985, even in
more recent printings.
Just google things like "misprints in Jerusalem Bible",
"misprints in New Jerusalem Bible", etc. and you might find more information.
I actually own big red and that error is not in there. Hmmmmm
I have 'the brick' also and that mistake is in there. There is another word misspelled in there but I can't remember it. If I find it I will pass it along.
David, I found a spelling error in the Red Brick copy of the Jerusalem Bible: Ephesians 1:4 (prseence) should be presence. I think this word is misspelled elsewhere also.
I found another spelling error in the JB, Psalm 122:6; (pay) should be pray.
I posted this on July 15 :)
See above on July 15 and luckily
they corrected in later printings
in the same year.
I forgot you posted that one. The one I posted above that, prseence instead of presence was the word that I had been thinking about in my last post in July. Of course, back in the 1960's if I had to type that Bible out to prepare it for printing there would be a lot more errors than there are now!
Hey next year is the 50th anniversary of the publishing of the Jerusalem Bible! Wouldn't it be nice if Doubleday or DLT would put out a special edition. Digitally retyped, genuine leather cover, nice Bible paper, two ribbon markers... It is obvious that I am under caffeinated at this moment! Ponder that idea. Or how about RL Allan, ok now I am really falling down the rabbit hole! I am going for more coffee!
Post a Comment