When The Great Commentary of Cornelius a’ Lapide is fully translated, that will probably be the best one around, but right now, is the Haydock without question.
Most are keyed to a specific translation, so hard to pick. Haydock and Ignatius probably the two best (depending on preference of language). Original Jerusalem very good; New Jerusalem a bit more detailed but less traditional interpretation. But as far as ease of use for the reader, the Little Rock format is second to none (even if the commentary might be better in haydock, ignatius, or 66 JB). This goes double for the average reader in the pew. I think this is one case where layout and accessibility trump commentary.
I like the The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT RSV-2CE. Hopefully they would finish the Old Testament soon. I have the NJB Regular Edition and they point out many things but they rely too much on modern Biblical criticism to the point that I would not recommend it to a new Catholic. I also have the CTS New Catholic Bible (JB). It is a good study bible but it too relies on modern Biblical criticism. I always wanted the Haydock bible but I can not afford it. In everything, I don't mind modern Biblical criticism because they point out some things that you could not in others but they refuse to acknowledge traditional interpretation. Sometimes the traditional points more true than what the modern thinks. PS: The Life with God Bible with the Deuterocanonical Books is not that bad of a study bible. It is a study bible but in a devotional kind of way.
I also want to list the 10 volume (hardback) Navarre Bible series, although this a a little to carry around with you (unless you have a little red wagon)!
This is a no brainer: The Douay-Rheims Haydock is the best; it surpasses all the others in commentary and accurate translation of Scripture. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT RSV-2CE has excellent commentary, especially with its references to the Catholic Catechism. However, I’m no fan of RSV. Although, the Ignatius RSV-2nd Edition is an improvement from the RSV and the NRSV, it still has many flaws and is not as accurate as many Catholic apologists promote.
I can sell a copy of the Haydock Bible, a photocopy reprint (Catholic Treasures) for much below (more than half-off) going price on the internet -- you'll be able to afford it if you can afford any other kind of decent study Bible. (If you're in the contiguous 48 states.) If you aren't interested in both volumes I can do one or the other. Both are in excellent condition. I also have the hardback one-volume edition, but the boards are very thin and of low quality, and it's very heavy (about 8 pounds), so difficult to use outside of a lectern. It is in new condition. Both paperback and hardcover are folio size (about 9 by 12 inches).Vol I: Old Testament and ApocryphaVol II: New Testament and Catholic Bible Dictionary.If Tim allows this comment to be posted, please e-mail him and see if he's willing to put you in touch with me -- I hesitate to put my email address in the comments section where it will be harvested by spambots.I'll do what I can to get it in your hands if you're interested, because it is the best Roman Catholic translation available, with notes of great use to traditional members of that communion (or modern members with a scholarly interest in traditional Roman Catholicism as expressed in the 18th century in the format of a catena of texts from counter-reformers and some Fathers).
Wow, The Little Rock Catholic Study Bible is #2 so far. It has more votes than both Oxford NABRE study Bibles combined. It must be that single column text layout because Oxford has so much more exposure in the books stores around my area (only Barnes and Noble left).
CJA,Send me an email, since I seem to have lost our last correspondence.
Rolf,As you know, the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible is beautiful. The only bad thing about it is the large size of it, but that is a very small gripe. I find it to be the best organized study Bible for Catholics, with an amazingly readable single-column text with extremely helpful in-text information placed at the most beneficial place for the reader. I have been teaching from it recently, particularly when I have a podium, and have grown very fond of it.
I have found despite its greater thickness and weight, The Little Rock Catholic Study Bible with the synthetic cover, is surprising comfortable to hold in one hand (while reading). I still suggest to people if they are thinking of getting this Bible, to get the synthetic leather (deluxe) edition.
As for the Little Rock's size it doesn't seem to be quite as big as a standard JB'66. But then again, if someone is looking for a study bible with the extra commentary, size is generally not a major concern (as long as its in 1 volume) Rolf-thanks for mentioning a red wagon. Now i have that stupid song from Boy Scout camp rattling around in my head... You cant ride my little red wagon. The wheels are busted and the axle's dragging.....
This comment/request is for Rolf. Regarding the deluxe cover for the Little Rock Study Bible would you be so kind as to supply a little more information as I am interested in purchasing a cover for my copy of the bible. Thanks for your assist.Lenny
Lenny, the deluxe edition of the LRCSB has a brown synthetic cover. The front of the cover has 'Little Rock Catholic Study Bible' written on the upper half and it has a 4 inch (diameter) circular blind imprint of a Celtic type cross that takes up the center of the cover. The synthetic cover is flexible and the Bible lays flat from most positions. The cover has a nice feel to it (better than bonded leather). The deluxe edition has a little bit darker print than the other two editions (I think this edition was printed later at a different location. The other advantage is that it comes with two ribbon markers (red and gold) which the other two editions don't have. Unfortunately, I checked their website and it does not look like they are offering this edition right now. There is also an e-bible. If you check around maybe you can find someone who has one.
I've seen a lot of praise for the Little Rock Study Bible and I wish to comment.First the positives:(1) It is one of the most elegant layouts of the NABRE around (I think the HarperBibles NABRE is even more elegant, but the Little Rock takes second place.)(2) The fact that Tim reports that he has had good success in using it when teaching is strong praise.But here are some criticisms:(1) Much of the added material is just fluff. * For example, on p. 1197 there is a photograph of the "Tree of life" (!?!). * On p. 1208 is an image of a fourteenth century manuscript illumination, but the quality of reproduction is so appallingly poor that I have to question why it was included at all. * Other images are so generic that they merely act as distraction, and do not give insight into the text. For example, on p. 1229, there is an image of Lady Justice holding scales next to the verse "Varying weights are an abomination to the LORD and false scales are not good." Now this misses the point of the text (Lady Justice balances the merits of arguments, not weights) and also is strange anachronistic inclusion of a Roman symbol (Proverbs predates the Roman era). In fact, Lady Justice is not only not a Near Eastern symbol, it is a pagan symbol! * Similarly, what useful information do I get from the photograph (p. 1236) of an (anachronistic) medieval wine glass and grapes or the photograph (p. 1239) of an (anachronistic) 19th century bushel filled with apples? (2) The textual sidebars are often odd: for example, on p. 1248, the sidebar states:This is a very wise prayer asking very simply for our needs, not too much, not too little. But how is one to be content with just enough. For many people the saddest day in their lives might have been the day they learned the meaning of the word more. What is enough for you?Now some people may benefit from this sort of statement, but it hardly lends an air of scholarship and scientific analysis the way an academic Bible does. It has a bit of a "Hallmark cards" style sentimentality about it. And it moves away from critical analysis. I also must question the basic grammatical skills of the editors. The sidebar is ungrammatical and uses poor word selection: note the use of "very wise" instead of "wise"; the double use of "very" in the first sentence; or the ungrammatical shift from the plural "lives" to the singular "day" in the third sentence (implying that everyone in the world learned the word "more" a single date, rather than each person learning the word on a particular day in that persons lifetime.)(3) The Bible does not really contrast Catholic interpretations of the Bible with other major traditions. In contrast, the (Oxford) Jewish Study Bible, explicitly discusses differences between mainstream Jewish readings of Isaiah and Christological readings of Isaiah. The ESV Study Bible, gives good insight into distinctly Calvinist interpretations of Romans. I have not found that the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible explains how Catholic understanding of the Bible is different than other traditions.(4) The "heavy lifting" in this volume is done by the NABRE notes -- so your opinion about the Bible is likely to largely guided by your opinion of those notes. (5) The cross references (which are from the NABRE) are simply dreadful. For example, Genesis 1:1 does not include a cross reference to John 1.(6) There is no glossary or concordance.(7) There is no useful index. For example, suppose you want to find the page(s) where where chiastic structure is discussed. It is not clear to me how a reader could find these, other than paging through the entire Bible until she found the discussion.(8) Overall, this is not at the level I would expect to be appropriate as a textbook for a college classroom.
Theophrastus,Let me preface my comments by saying I have been teaching from both the Catholic Study Bible and Little Rock. In the past year, I have been moving towards using the NABRE more exclusively for a couple of reasons: 1) No matter the situation, the vast majority of my students, both high school to adult, use some form of the NAB. 2) I have come to appreciate what the NAB revisers have attempted to do in producing an English language translation with a distinct American style. It is by no means always successful, but it reflects the majority of those students I am instructing. 3) The NAB is not going anywhere. I am quite hopeful in the eventual revised NT, which theoretically, according to Cardinal Donald Weurl, will finally accomplish the near impossible "dream" of having a Biblical text which is found not only in a published Volume, but also used at Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours, and other documents of the Church. 4) I am not convinced about the longevity of the RSV-2CE. It remains, even with the update, a translation that doesn't reference the DSS while also using manuscripts that may be less reliable. I am thinking of Tobit here. You also mention the NABRE cross references, which certainly could be better. They are however better than what is found in the RSV-2CE. The NJB may be better, but when someone wants a relatively formal equivalence Catholic Bible, the options are limited. It seems that there will never be a proper NRSV Catholic Study Bible, since we can't even get one with even minimal cross references!So, with all that being said (or written), the options for one who wants an NABRE study bible are limited, yet growing. (The Anselm Study Bible being an example.). The trick, of course, is how to supplement the already included notes. I think the key is providing additional material in places where the NABRE is lacking, most notably some of the OT historical books. The thing is, that the folks at Little Rock have attempted something here that they did a decent job at. While I don't necessarily need all the prayer stuff they include, nor the constant references to much beloved Pacem in Terres and the USCCB document of economic justice, thery have done something not found I practically any other Catholic study Bible. They have made an attractive looking text with helpful charts and maps that supplement the text and notes. They also have maps in the appendix and essays in the front, including one by Ronald Witherup on "A Catholic Approach to Scripture." It is obvious that the LRCSB is not a scholarly bible, rather it is meant for the everyday lay Catholic who attends a parish Bible study. Yet, I find it is made well, informative, and even lays open flat! :). It is made by people who clearly love Scripture and want to make it more accessible to lay Catholics. So, I remain optimistic that we will see more in the coming years. Perhaps we may have to wait until the NABRE NT is revised for something truly matching the ESV or NLT Study Bible. In my mind, it all depends on getting a proper, well-funded, publishing house to take a chance on producing a top of the line NABRE Study Bible. Oxford has been the only one I the past, but perhaps HarperOne will take a chance? I don't know, but I am willing to wait and see. It is interesting to compare the reality of waiting for 8-10 years for a revised NABRE NT or 14+ years for a completed ICSB
Timothy, I agree with both you and Theophrastus , this is not an academic type Study Bible as the Catholic Study Bible from Oxford. But is a cross between a study and devotional Bible. It is a lot more enjoyable reading this Bible than the others listed. Not everything that is in this Bible is going to please everybody, but it is there because it will please somebody. The single column print is enjoyable to read and though imperfect, the cross references are layed out very well. And the synthetic cover is nicer than the bonded leather cover on the Oxford study Bible (genuine leather is not offered on the new NABRE edition). I have both Study Bibles mentioned here and use the both.
There is no doubt that the (Oxford) Catholic Study Bible is used as a college textbook, but its awkward format (a 500 page commentary "reading guide" followed by the NABRE text) is not ideal. The fact that the commentary was not updated to match the revised NABRE text and notes leaves quite a few howlers in the current edition!It may actually be easier to use a stand-alone commentary (such as the New Jerome Bible Commentary, International Bible Commentary, Orchard's Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, or the Collegeville Bible Commentary). Alternatively, there are some accessible single volume commentaries (Berit Olam/Sacra Pagina and Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture.I do agree that it would be possible to make a very good Catholic Study Bible. For example, I am impressed by Oxford's outstanding Jewish Study Bible. Oxford could aim for a similar level of quality in its Catholic Study Bible. Given the big changes that are likely to be coming to the NABRE in the next few years, I wonder whether it is wise to invest time and energy in the current version of the NABRE (which, of course, does not match the current Lectionary texts). I agree with Tim that the RSV-2CE is likely a dead-end. Nonetheless, the NOAB-RSV (and the NRSV-based academic study Bibles) discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls and other textual issues.I do agree with Tim that there is considerable opportunity for a publisher to make a mark by publishing a competitive study Bible.
Why all this discussion about the NAB? Wasn’t it revised in 2011? Are they revising it again? I fail to understand why American Catholics are so enamoured with NAB or what forces enabled it to become the official Scriptures used for Mass in the USA. I own a NAB study Bible and it’s on my shelf collecting dust for two reasons:1. The translation is pathetic, especially of the Old Testament. When compared to the Hebrew, I can see how corrupt the NAB translation is. I will give you one example: “Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart” (Psalm 73:1 KJ) NAB deletes Israel out of the verse with no explanation in the footnotes even though Israel is in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Vulgate (Clementine). I will refrain from showing more Scriptural evidence. When I think about NAB, revised or not, this verse comes to mind: “A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9 DR).2. When looking at the NAB commentary, the lack of faith, lack of orthodox Catholic insight, and the higher critical analysis of Scripture cause me to wonder if it was written by infidels. The same could be said for most modern Bibles. Being a Jewish convert to Catholicism in some ways has become a curse for me. When I look at the Hebrew and the Latin (Clementine), I can’t help but get angry over the audacity taken by modern translators. What shocks me even more is that the American and Canadian Bishops voted to make NAB and NRSV the official Bibles for use during Mass. I fail to understand how having 20 or 30 English Bible translations helps us to better comprehend the Bible. It reminds of the OT story of the Tower of Babel. It only brings mass confusion into the church. Please forgive me for my passion and strong language used. Remember, one drop of poison can spoil the whole glass of water.
Alan:I am not defending the NAB(RE) translation or making any comment, positive or negative, on other aspects of your remark, but I think I can explain the NABRE translation of Psalm 73:1. If you look at the critical apparatus to the BHS (the standard scholarly Hebrew Bible), you can see what is happening: the translators are reading לַיָּשָׁר אֵל instead of the Masoretic Text לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. (This is a different vowelization, and a space is inserted in the words, but uses the identical letters.) There is considerable debate over the validity of this translation; with there being two arguments marshaled for this proposal: (1) synonymous parallelism, with a chiastic word sequence, and (2) the text of the psalm is not (primarily) about the relationship between God and Israel, but rather about the contrast between the godless and people who are pure in heart.I do agree with you that a footnote is required; you will see that both the RSV and NRSV have textual notes here, and a scholarly edition of the KJV (the Norton Critical Edition) notes the possibility of the alternative reading.You may also be pleased to learn that the Revised Grail Psalter translates the verse as "How good is God to Israel...."
Alan, your example of NAB's translation choice in Psalm 73:1 is followed by the NRSV, RSV, REB and even the New Latin Version Psalms approved by Pope Pius XII.
Theophrastus:Thanks for the info. I wasn’t aware of two different Hebrew manuscripts. I’m only aware of the Masoretic and would stick to that text along with the Latin (Clementine). You said, “(2) the text of the psalm is not (primarily) about the relationship between God and Israel, but rather about the contrast between the godless and people who are pure in heart.”This comment, although, scholarly is an interpretation of a biblical text rather than translation. I would argue that the psalms are a contrast between Israel and the nations. Indeed the OT doesn’t even speak about a church or the church age. Having said that, I would also argue the translator’s role is to translate as accurately as possible, not interpret. Regarding the footnotes, my NAB doesn’t have one regarding the verse in question. My RSV-2ed has a rather simple footnote stating the Hebrew has Israel in the text. In my opinion, the explanation is insufficient, as are most footnotes where words or whole verses are deleted or changed (perhaps for lack of space, especially in smaller bibles).I have looked at the revised grail psalms online, and I must admit they are an improvement. I’m looking forward to the new Liturgy of the Hours, which will contain the new grail psalms. Sometimes I have to take a break from praying the hours because I can’t stand the poor translation. The current LOTH really made a mess with Psalm 23 for Sunday daytime prayers. It translates my spirit from נַפְשִׁי When it should be my soul.
Rolf,I’m not sure what your point is. I only mentioned the fact that RSV, NRSV, and the Nova Vulgata also deleted Israel from the verse. The fact that RSV and NRSV agree with NAB doesn’t legitimize it. Personally, I don’t read the RSV and NRSV. If used, they should be read with caution. I’m in Canada and I wish the Canadian bishops would get rid the NRSV as the official text for Mass. I’m not sure what the Nova Vulgata has to do with Pope Pius XII. I thought Pope John Paul II commissioned this translation in the late 1970s.
Alan, My point was; are all the bible translators for these various translation committees wrong and you are right? The Pope Pius XII Psalms were authorized by the Vatican in 1945 for use in the Confraternity Bible. I think using terms like 'pathetic, infidels and poison' are not helpful when discussing Bible translation choices and notes. These translations (though you may not like them) are Holy Scripture for millions of people).
Alan -- you've put your finger exactly on the issues on the other side of the argument: the Masoretic Text at Psalm 73:1 is perfectly intelligible as it stands, and normally we only emend the MT when it is unintelligible, not because the fix "fits" better.Regarding the paucity of notes:We discussed the short textual notes in the RSV and NRSV. I looked in a few other translations to see if they discussed the issue more fully. I did find three translations intended for lay readers where there was a longer discussion -- none of these translations were Catholic, however. The three translations are: Robert Alter's translation, the NET Bible, and the Norton Critical Edition of the KJV.I mention this because it is consistent with my above comment that the best Catholic study Bibles are not competitive with the best non-Catholic study Bibles.I expect that most technical commentaries discuss the issue (I checked Hossfeld-Zengler), but it is unreasonable to expect that a general reader would consult a technical commentary.
Timothy, I know you still wonder about the longevity of the RSV-2CE, but it is doing pretty well in your poll. :)
I have no doubt that the complete ICSB will be great, I just don't see how it will ever surpass the NABRE. I continue to do bible studies and the overwhelming number of people who come use a NAB or NABRE and I don't see that ever changing.
Timothy, Yes, this is my experience as well.
Rolf said…“Alan, My point was; are all the bible translators for these various translation committees wrong and you are right?”The question should not be, “are all the bible translators for these various translation committees wrong and is Alan right?”I would frame the question this way: Are the translators of NAB, RSV, and NRSV right and all the translators who worked on all the bibles below wrong? (Compare Psalm 73:1)1. Hebrew manuscripts2. Greek manuscripts3. Latin (Clementine)4. Douay-Rheims5. King James6. New King James7. American Standard Bible (not to be confused with NAB)8. New American Standard Bible (not to be confused with NAB)9. New International Version10. New Catholic Grail Psalms11. Jewish Publication Society Bible12. The Koren Tanakh13. Basic English Bible14. Darby Bible15. Websters Bible16. Youngs Literal Bible17. The New Jerusalem Bible 18. English Standard Version19. Wycliffe Bible20. Liturgy of the Hours 1974 editionSo, I shouldn’t get too upset when three American Catholic bibles delete Israel from Psalm 73 since the majority of scholars translate this verse correctly.Rolf said…“I think using terms like 'pathetic, infidels and poison' are not helpful when discussing Bible translation choices and notes. These translations (though you may not like them) are Holy Scripture for millions of people).”No doubt, my language is strong. In the past 50 years, liberal scholars and liberal Catholics have dominated academic life and have had a major (negative) impact on modern bibles in North America. It’s not about what I like or prefer. It’s about accuracy. Deleting or adding one word can change the whole meaning of a verse. I will end with this quote from Pope Clement XIII:“Meanwhile the matter is such that diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.”
I'll stick with the 'modernist' translations, thank you. There are important mss that the new translators have at their disposal, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that the older translators did not have.
Rolf,I have no problem with translators using manuscripts and documents found in the caves near the Dead Sea. My problem is the translators’ world and religious views, which determine how they look at scripture and translate it. The dynamic equivalent model would be one example. I will give another example: I was taught this at university in a religion course. The professor was a Catholic nun. I’m paraphrasing as it was many years ago so I cannot quote her. This is what she taught the class:There are many so-called miracles and extraordinary things in the bible, but they are not to be taken literally. The biblical writers used hyperbole to drive a point home. For example, the virgin birth: in biblical times virgin births were quite popular and so were sons of god. When writing about someone, it was not considered fraud to claim someone was born of a virgin or that someone was a son of god. If you wanted to drive the point home that someone was important or special, you would say they were born of a virgin, thus exalting them. (End)This type of teaching is prevalent in religious academic circles. It goes far beyond the virgin birth and other biblical miracles. There is a strong stream of theologians and translators who have various kinds of theories and views regarding the origins and nature of religion and our biblical texts. Many of them consider themselves Catholic. So, when you look at the commentary in the NAB, for instance, much of it is not kosher according to many Catholic apologists.So, for me, I would rather use a bible where the translators used a literal model to translate the texts. Equally important, I want to use a bible, where the translators (catholic or protestant) were not influenced by the modern critical method of biblical analyses. I want to use a bible, where the translators held orthodox Christians views and held the bible with deep reverence and awe. This why I hold the DR and KJ Bibles in such high regard: they are not perfect but they use the literal model of translation and the translators held orthodox views regarding Christianity, religion, and the bible. The fact that they didn’t have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls doesn’t bother me. You can have the best manuscripts available, but if your religious and translation paradigm is erroneous, you will produce a corrupt bible.
Alan, you and I can agree on those points of modern historical- critical analysis that overstep their purpose (and objectivity). Those that propose that the God who created the Universe can't work miracles such as the Incarnation. As in any field of study there are those who go overboard. Because I prefer modern Bibles written in the language of our time, does not mean that I don't accept the teachings of the Church and believe that the Son of God did and said what is reported in the Gospels. I have had instructors that are modern biblical scholars (and priests) who are very spiritual men and love the Lord. Modern scholarship does not equal apostasy as many on other forums I visit believe. With that I will stop my rant.
Alan, Rolf, Theophrastus,I appreciate the discussion over the past day or so. I would like to add a few things:1) As this blog has shown, no translation is perfect and each has its positive and negative features.2) Every translation, from Jerome's Vulgate to the NABRE, has an agenda or philosophy. There is no such thing as a perfectly literal/formal translation, if there was one it would be unreadable. So in one way or another, each interprets, makes decisions, and tries to capture the meaning of the text for the modern reader. Some are more successful than others, but that may depend on the audience.3) The historical-critical method is an indispensable tool which the Church has endorsed. A quick read through B16's Jesus of Nazareth I foreword or the PBC's Interpretation of the Bible in the Church confirm this. It can, and has been, misused by some, but not all. All my professors during my graduate work were faithful Catholics who utilized the historical-critical method. There is nothing to fear from its use, and in the end keeps us safe from the "tyranny" of fundamentalism.4) I have also read a number of works from people that some may complain rely too heavily on the Historical-critical method, people like Brown, Harrington, Boadt, and Senior. One can certainly take issue with some of their conclusions, but I have no doubt in their love of Jesus and the Church. Many of these men were involved in the NAB, and it's revisions, or volumes utilizing this translation. So, I am extremely hesitant in calling out those who are not in the either than Haydock or Hahnite wings of Catholic biblical scholarship.
One more timing to add to #3:This method must be used, if done so properly, within the heart of the Church. This means following those rules of interpretation as outlined in Dei Verbum and echoed in the CCC.
Getting back to the topic of study Bibles:The other night, I was looking at the book list for Denver's Catholic Biblical School. (I could not find the equivalent material for the Michigan Catholic Biblical School where Tim teaches, but I understand that Michigan's program is based on the Denver program).I was struck how in the Year 3 book list (dealing with the Prophets, Tobit, Judith, and Esther), there is no Catholic material used -- the textbooks are by prominent Protestant teachers: J. Daniel Hays, Tremper Longman III, Eugene Peterson, Warren Wiersbe, Michael J. Williams. (Doubtlessly they are all godly men and skilled teachers.) Still, if there were adequate Catholic materials available (including a good comprehensive Catholic study Bible), wouldn't the program would use those? Don't you feel that this reflects a possible lacuna in Catholic study Bibles (and accessible Catholic Biblical material)? It strikes me that a strong study Bible could largely close the hole -- both for self-study and for this classroom situation.
The answer to your question is an unequivocal YES.I am teaching the third year class here in Michigan, we don't follow Denver in all things, hence we require Leclerc's intro to the Prophets for all third year students:http://www.paulistpress.com/Products/4492-1/introduction-to-the-prophets.aspx
Let me also say that there is a huge gap of quality materials and books for the OT courses I teach. We have quite a few options for the NT, but there isn't much for those looking for a Catholic understanding I particular OT books or sections, like the prophets. While I am sure the eventual complete ICSB will help, I don't like relying on one perspective. The Catholic Study Bible, for quick reference to the reading guides, has been a help this pas year teaching. I have been forced to utilize other commentaries and resources like the New Interpreters series for most of my prep.
Timothy, I like using the Navarre Bible commentaries(which tend to be more Catholic & theological) to balance the historical critical commentaries in other sources. This works for me in my Bible study class.
Hi Timothy, here's another vote for the Navarre Bible commentaries. St. Josemaria Escriva has a spiritual and personal way of interpreting Scripture, and while the Navarre Bible naturally cites Scriptures, Ap. Fathers, CCC, Denziger, the selections from St. Escriva's writings definitely give the commentaries a unique character.I would like to add Berit Olam/Sacra Pagina to the library one day when money falls out of the sky.
I think Saint Jerome had access to sources we probably have never heard of and were much older than the DSS. He also had access to the Hebrew texts before they were destroyed.
The question of what manuscripts Jerome had access to is really a moot point because the original Vulgate is a manuscript lost through centuries of copying. What we have now are many Latin manuscripts which have been edited together to produce several different editions of what we call "Vulgate."The question that arose on this thread was more of, "do we blindly trust the Massoritic tradition as many older translations have, or do we examine more ancient versions as well (including of course, the Latin!)I might of interest to note that in the Revisor's Preface to the English Revised Version (1885), the revisors state that they are aware of more ancient recensions than the Massoretic, but that the "state of knowledge on the subject is not at present such as to justify any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text..."
Post a Comment