This is the first I'm hearing of this ambitious project, but if anyone can do it, Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem can!

The Bible in its Traditions:

The Bible in its Traditions is not just a dream but a project that is on the way to realisation.

There will be a new page lay-out. The page will still present together the text and the notes, but will look more like a page of the Talmud or of medieval and early modern commentaries on Aristotle or St Thomas.

In brief, we aim at producing a study edition of the Catholic Bible targeting a scripturally educated public.

It would be fair to say that the first Jerusalem Bible was characterized by wholesale corrections of the Massoretic Text from the versions, also by a readiness to engage in conjectural emendations. By contrast, the second edition in French (I think the same is true also of the New Jerusalem Bible in English) was marked by a massive return to the Massoretic Text. The Bible in its Traditions will be more aware of the legitimate diversity of the textual traditions. What do I mean by that?

The Tanakh, with its Massoretic Text, emerges more clearly as the Bible of Rabbinical Judaism. Further, it is the only complete Hebrew text we now have. On both these counts, it is indispensable to The Bible in its Traditions. It is not, however, as such the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. Nor, as we have just said, does it represent exclusively the ancient Hebrew text of the Bible.

The New Testament

For The Bible in its Traditions it is appropriate to translate not simply a modern critical text, but also traditional texts. This would mean that the texts in front of the reader will be coherent with those in commentaries from the great Christian traditions.

1. The first Greek text to be translated needs to be traditional. This hermeneutical option leads us to the Byzantine or Majority Text, precisely because it has become the New Testament of Greek-speaking Christianity, both before and after the schism. I want to emphasize that if we choose this text, it is not because we believe that it is the best from a critical point of view, nor because we believe that it is the inspired text of the New Testament, but solely because of its traditional value.

2. Obviously we also want to make our readers aware of the results of modern critical scholarship. Therefore, the text preferred by Nestle-Aland 27th edition, where it differs significantly from the Byzantine Text, finds its rightful place. In fact, those differences between Nestle-Aland and the Majority Text that are significant enough to translate are relatively few and frequently consist of an omission by Nestle-Aland.

3. Our third Greek text is the Textus receptus, in those relatively few cases where it differs from the Byzantine/Majority Text as established since von Soden. With all its imperfections, this was the New Testament of the 16th century Humanists and Reformers. It was translated by Luther and by Tyndale. When one thinks of the enormous religious and cultural importance of Luther’s Bible and of the Authorized Version or King James Bible, the Textus receptus has a claim to be considered traditional.

But precisely because it is Catholic, our project wants to embrace and give due place to the Orthodox and Reformed traditions.

Oh, I knew this day was coming. Shall we all thank the NIV, and the ESV after them?

Please, just make it affordable, unlike, you know, "the other guys'."