www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Bible Commentaries

I have been dialoging with another member of the forum regarding bible commentaries. I have the old Collegeville Bible Commentary from my time in seminary, and I really enjoyed it. I also have the Matthew Henry�s Bible Commentary in One Volume, which I do not like at all. The other member of the forum has been acquiring the Ancient Christian Writers Series, and is not crazy about the biblical text (NRSV) but loves the citations from the fathers. I recently have started to acquire the Navarre Bible, and so far think I am going to complete the set since I like the references and commentary.

Any other posters with suggestions or recommendations for bible commentaries and study bibles.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture from Intervarsity uses the RSV, not the NRSV, unless they've made a change in editorial policy.

Unless that's not the book your friend was referring to.

Karl,

I am speaking to my friend of the phone right now, and he stands corrected, it is the RSV for that series.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Quite correct. Mental block on my part (Father Anthony & I were chatting about commentaries this evening). The Bible text is RSV and not the NRSV paraphrase (Yeah!). But the translations of the Church Fathers' commentaries are often laced with horrid agenda words like "humankind".

I have the entire set (that is, everything published so far). Interestingly, I was just thinking last night about Sunday's Gospel (the High Priestly Prayer from John 17) and lamenting that the first volume of commentary on John only goes through chapter 10. Guess what came today? The second volume of commentaries on John, for chapters 11-21.

I have 13 volumes of that series. I soundly appreciate it, even though I have yet to read much of what I have in full.

Perhaps it's from training in piano by ignoring sounds that could distract me, but the 'gender'-sensitive language does not bother me.

Even though I hate personally reducing a person to a point of grammar, as the term gender has been known for centuries, it had been a test of my patience to forgive editors and authors of that folly. That is until I began to ignore it altogether and focus on the substance of the translation. I would much rather listen to the Church Father than the nagging voice of a neologist.

May Christ our God remember your priesthood in His Kingdom!

I would say that the multi-volume Anchor Bible series is the best out there. However, it is multi-volume and would take up several shelves in one's bookcase. But, if you can get cheap copies from seminary book sales or Alibris.com, then I would recommend it.

A close second would be the Berit Olam/Sacra Pagina series published by Liturgical Press for "A Michael Glazier Book." Once again, a multi-volume and overly expensive series. But, very good, and from Catholic sources.

I've found the Collegeville Commentary serviceable. It boils things down for the non-technician.

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary/NJBC is still quite good -- though, obviously dated by many years. The only drawback in my view is that it uses the (typically awful) translation of the New Jerusalem Bible: a translation of a translation of the Hebrew and Greek originals! (Is that how biblical scholarship is done: from a translation of a translation?) And, the translation is frequently inaccurate and unnecessarily colloquial judging from the articles in the commentary itself. So, good commentary wasted on a lousy Bible version.

I haven't found the Navarre Bible Commentary to be a worthwhile investment. It has the novelty of including the text of the Nova Vulgata. (Athough, I'm not sure even the Vatican thinks the New Vulgate is useful for anything other than as a novelty.) It also has the Church Fathers in its extensive footnotes. As a biblical commentary, I wouldn't use it at all: First, since it's produced under the auspices of Opus Dei, it tends to use the footnotes as a sort of lectio divina for its founder, St. Josemaria Escriva, culling insights on the scriptural text from his writings. Fine . . . for doing lectio divina; but, not for a supposed commentary. No way. Second, the biblical scholarship (such as it is) represents a rather simplistic and misleading view of contemporary scholarship.

A good older commentary that I would recommend is Reginald Fuller's, New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. The scholarship is dated (ca. 1969). Still, a nice little one-volume commentary.

Dear Matthew,

I just got the second volume of the set in the mail as a gift today. It is the New Testament in one volume of the Navarre Series. It is sans the Latin quotations, but suits my purposes. I am looking forward to putting it to some use over the next few months. Also multi-volume commentary series do not bother me or my bookcases, for they have plenty of company . I rather thorough than skimpy when it comes to something like this.

Thanks for your insights and review.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Matthew:

I thought tht the Vatican stipulated in the past few years that the Nova Vulgata was to be used as the standard reading of Scripture for use in providing translations of Scripture and for comparisons to liturgical texts. There was one bishop in Pennsylvania who was supposed to have gone ballistic over that because he said it ignored all the Biblical scholarship of the past 40 years or so. My understanding was that Rome told the scholars that when there is a variant reading in any of the manuscripts that the reading in the Nova Vulgata was to be taken as the authoritative one to be used in preparing a Scripture translation and for use in liturgical books.

Is that not the case?

In Christ,

BOB

The only note I found so far is;

The Lectionary text will be taken from the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) corrected according to the Latin of the New Vulgate.

While the NRSV contains some questionable use of inclusive language, this is to be carefully monitored in terms of doctrinal precision.

james

There was a project to amend the NRSV to conform to the Liturgiam Authenticum. It was headed up by Henry Wansborough, who was the editor of the New Jerusalem (1985) edition. The original Jerusalem Bible is still used in most English speaking liturgies outside of the US. The Bishop's conferences for Canada and the United Kingdom had wanted to use the NRSV, but the Vatican rejected it because of inclusive language. Amending the NRSV to conform to the standards of the Liturgium Authenticum seemed to be a good solution for an universal, up to date and accurate Bible translation for use in the liturgy.

However, my understanding is that the project got canceled because the National Council of Churches, who own the copyright for the NRSV, decided that they did not want the inclusive language of the NRSV modified. It is precisely the inclusive language that Wansborough would have had to eliminate to make the NRSV acceptable to the Vatican.

It is too bad, the NRSV has many commendable aspects, it is some ways a good translation- apart from the inclusive language, which at times, can be not only inaccurate but inelegant.

One can find articles about the recent history of lectionary and translation issues at this site: http://www.adoremus.org/Transtoc.html

I am looking to see how widely the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic edition, will be used in the years ahead. I would like to see it form the basis for English speaking lectionaries all over the world, for all of the Catholic churches.

The original RSV seems to be the version of choice for English translation of official Church documents, and for all of Pope Benedict's books.

I am hoping a Byzantine Lectionary will be produced using the RSV II. Otherwise, we are stuck with the NAB. I do not care for its style.

I have a New Oxford Annotated NRSV (second edition), because I wanted a bible with 3rd & 4th Maccabees and Psalm 151.

But I much prefer the original Catholic RSV or the Second edition.

I tote around the RSV Catholic an Douay Rheims most of the time.

It makes little sense to me that the english speaking countries all have different scriptual texts for liturgical purposes...

james

My understanding is that in the United States, the New American Bible is used, and that in most of the other English Speaking liturgies outside of the US, the Jerusalem Bible is used. I believe this goes for Western and Eastern Rites.

Some have wanted to use the NRSV in English speaking liturgies, but it has been rejected by the Vatican because of inclusive language. This is also true of the NAB, but the US church amended the NAB to make it acceptable to the Vatican.

In the US Latin Church, the RSV and Jerusalem Bible used to be approved for use in the liturgy, but now only the amended NAB can be used.

I am not sure what we can use in the Byzantine Church. At our Church, we still have a Gospel book containing the older version of the NAB, and we also have one with Raya's translation, that one of our priests bought a few years ago.

From what I've seen, the UK uses the RSV, the US only the RNAB though it cannot be purchased, Canada NRSV, Australia the Jerusalem...they were leaning to the NRSV.

The Orthodox generally use a form of the KJV...

A Babel of translations...

james

It seems that the Holy see only has in mind the translation of the divine scriptures for the Sacred Liturgy -- at least, from my read of things. Otherwise, the Vatican would be supporting various translations of the NV into the vernacular, which it is not. Otherwise, it would not have let the NV go out of print, which it has.

Here's an interesting article from the website of the Catholic Biblical Association of America:

"The Authority of the Nova Vulgata" http://cba.cua.edu/clifnv.cfm

I don't necessarily agree with the author's negative view. (There are people -- especially academics -- who get angry at the Vatican for making a peep about anything.) But, he does have a point that there seems to be no rationale for the NV anymore . . . or, that the Vatican has given it a very limited one.

Look at the apostolic constitution of His Holiness Pope John Paul which approved the NV: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JPTHESAU.HTM

It doesn't give the NV a whole lot of reason for existing, except for use in the Sacred Liturgy. But, I'm open to POSSIBILITIES! ;-)

Matthew:

You're obviously much better informed than I. I just remember reading something about this Biblical controversy. Something about making the liturgical texts and the Scriptures used in the liturgy dovetail with a translation for the faithful that would bring it all together. Then the outburst from a bishop in PA in reaction.

I was told that the RNAB has never been given the recognitiofrom Rome to be published as a translation for Catholics, even though it neatly contains the approval from the first NAB translation, making it look like all is well.

Thanks.

BOB