Are there any problems with the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hmikell7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hmikell7 said:
That being said, I am finding the LRCSB very useful and informative, so I’ll probably end up using both it and Ignatius study Bible to study and read.
Click to expand...
Excellent choice! More sources > only one source. I usually cross reference my NABRE with Haydock, RSV-2CE and the New English Translation. Makes for very fruitful study sessions.

I don’t think anyone needs to be afraid of the NABRE.
 
Honestly the only translation I’ve ever had a significant issue with was the Good News Translation. Some of the wordings they used for certain verses just seemed to change the underlying meanings entirely
 
bobperk said:
For a more orthodox Catholic Study Bible, I suggest the Ignatius edition. But unfortunately, only the NT is available as a whole. The OT is still sold as individual books since the collection is not yet complete.
Click to expand...
It is now complete, the Didache Bible by Ignatius Press is the NT Ignatius Study Bible plus the Old Testament with commentaries. It’s very good.
 
Everything I’ve read seems to indicate that the Didache Bible and the Ignatius Study Bible are two separate projects. What makes you say that the Didache is the completed Ignatius?
 
Brendan_64 said:
It is now complete, the Didache Bible by Ignatius Press is the NT Ignatius Study Bible plus the Old Testament with commentaries. It’s very good.
Click to expand...
The preface talks about the origins of the Didache Bible. I think they would have mentioned that. :confused:
???
 
Last edited:
hmikell7 said:
What makes you say that the Didache is the completed Ignatius?
Click to expand...
I thought the NT section of the Didache Bible was essentially the Ignatius Bible, perhaps I’m wrong there. The OT commentaries are slightly less detailed, but it is very good.

The Didache Bible is an excellent study Bible, and rooted in the Catechism. Ignatius Press have done a great job there.
 
Last edited:
With limitations. Historical/critical leans heavily toward washing the supernatural out of the scriptures. It then becomes a really interesting novel. This type of thinking also produced the horrible notes in the NAB/NABRE.

Years back, I watched some Little Rock tapes and the presenter - forgive me - spoke in such an incredibly boring monotone that I could not remain awake.

There are far far better bibles. For that matter, the Oxford/Cambridge Study Bible using the Revised English Bible with the “Apocrypha” is almost certainly better. At least it provides Jewish, Catholic and Protestant insights.
 
I accidentally deleted my comment. briefly, there is an essay by a professed religious sister who is one of the main editors of this study Bible. She has an essay before the text of the Bible where she wanders off and makes a remark that Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German was one of the great accomplishments of the Reformation. I think that’s irrelevant to THIS Bible, so just be aware of this surprising statement. I questioned her essay and I don’t know if her essay is still in there. As a Catholic, I can’t think of ANY great accomplishments of the Reformation – you know what I mean?
 
Brendan, the Didache is published by Ignatius Press, but the Didache Bible is not the same thing as the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.

The Didache’s footnotes are mostly all references to the Catechism, or at least a great majority of them.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible has footnotes by the authors, along with references to the Catechism, the Church Fathers, and various saints.

I will also add that the Ignatius series provides much better introductions to the books of the Bible than the Didache, which gives only 1 page for each.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s a pretty solid translation. I prefer to read both Ignatius Study Bible and Little Rock. They come at the same topics from different perspectives. LR, as others have mentioned, has a commentary based on H-C. I think this has many benefits, but also some weaknesses (as does the Collegeville series). A Bible dictionary that I was supposed to use (in my 4 years of Diocesan sponsored study) was great, but informed of the more H-C extreme views: The Transfiguration was given many possible explanations, with the last one being ‘and some people even think it really happened’. Well, yeah.

Another slight issue is that modern scholarship follows the JEDP approach, and I’m not 100% sold on it.


So use the LR commentary with a critical manner! I don’t agree with everything Hahn says, but find value in most.
 
Are you kidding me? The author presents as unacceptable the idea that:
Despite its unity of plan and purpose, [Genesis] is a complex work, not to be attributed to a single original author. Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. These are the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), and Priestly (P) sources which in turn reflect older oral traditions.
Click to expand...
While concluding, he offers as an alternative:
These [toledoth] divisions represent either oral tradition or written texts passed down by the Genesis patriarchs to their descendants, which Moses then used to put Genesis into its final form under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
The only difference is whether Moses or someone else used “oral tradition or written texts passed down“?

The article would be much stronger if the author would grapple with the problems raised by historical criticism, instead of pretending to dismiss it. He relies too heavily on questionable readings of scriptural passages.

But then, I have never understood the position that Moses, a liberator who wandered 40 years without reaching his goal, wrote the Torah.
 
We used the Little Rock Scripture Study at our parish for our scripture study, and I absolutely hated it.

It strongly pushes the idea that the various events discussed in the Old Testament were made up by the Israelites to try to explain their salvation history.

I find such interpretation hard to stomach, particularly when Jesus himself cites some of the events as actual, historical events. And if you can say that those stories are all fictitious, what about the New Testament?
 
Larry1700 said:
It strongly pushes the idea that the various events discussed in the Old Testament were made up by the Israelites to try to explain their salvation history.
Click to expand...
Did you find these ideas particular to the Little Rock Bible, or are these the standard stock footnotes from any New American Bible?
 
I don’t know, since I use the RSV Bible. I’d like to know if that’s correct. I certainly hope not.
 
Last edited:
Larry1700 said:
It strongly pushes the idea that the various events discussed in the Old Testament were made up by the Israelites to try to explain their salvation history.
Click to expand...
the various events discussed in the Old Testament were told by the Israelites to try to explain their salvation history.

I cannot imagine you object to the version with “told” so I wonder why you think “made up” is a better description of the Little Rock studies. Did you make this up? Or did you have actual examples that demonstrate “made up” as opposed to “told”?
 
Sorry if I ticked you off. As for examples, no I can’t provide any, because I went through the study 5 or 10 years ago. I MIGHT still have the study book, so perhaps I could look for it to see what I can find. Nevertheless, I strongly remember how upset I was at what they were pushing in a Bible study. Strong emotions stick with a person. So no, I did not “make it up.”
 
Last edited:
Some of the footnotes in the NAB and NAB/RE are toxic. The imprimatur and nihil obstat state nothing about their orthodoxy - only that they do not directly oppose Catholic teaching. But, they remain modernist historical-critical, and suck the supernatural out of the faith.

I avoid them like the plague. Far better bibles are out there.

D-R
Knox
Any of the 1941-1969 Confraternity bibles
RSV-CE
RSV-2CE
Oxford-Cambridge Revised English Bible w/Deuterocanon
Even the:
Catholic New Living Translation (Tyndale)
Living Bible - Catholic Edition (ditto)

These run the gamut from stupid English to proper British English.
 
@po18guy, great post. The NAB and all of its spawn are skeptical for sure. They do not “directly oppose” but certainly oppose in roundabout double-speak with skeptical comments. Notes that use terms like “here, the Lukan Jesus” or “here, Matthew has Jesus” paint Christ as a character in a novel rather than our Lord and Savior. The imprimatur and nihil obstat were most likely given by clergy who were bred on skeptical Biblical studies. The shying away from the supernatural was en vogue for quite some time but thankfully a few publishers are offering better alternatives to Sacred Scripture than the problematic NAB.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, the American bishops sponsor and supervise the NAB. They participate in policy making sessions with editors and translators, setting direction and overseeing implementation of Church teaching on the study of Scripture. I am sure many bishops consider this presentation of Sacred Scripture to be a major component of their ministry!

This is somewhat more than an imprimatur or nihil obstat, or even a bishop’s approval of a different translation. IMO this as reliable as the Catechism for insight and information on the core of our faith. The NAB is the English translation used on the Vatican website.

What is “toxic” is not the NAB’s notes and introductions, but the efforts to instill fear of them, implying the NAB, and the bishops who sponsored it, are somehow heretical. You see that fear in the very existence of this thread, where people express uncertainty about using this reliable translation.
 
Last edited:
Your questions are a mish mash of things, not easily characterized. When I went to look at your first question, I discovered the NAB says
the Magnificat (with the possible exception of v. 48) may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate at this point in his story
Click to expand...
I can understand why you might have thought it assumed it was composed by Luke, but in fact, that is not assumed.

Seeing that, I doubt that there is much reason to consider your other questions. If you want to phrase them more carefully, I would be glad to give them a thoughtful consideration.

One further thought. peanut butter was patented in 1884. Since then, there has been a steady decline in Church attendance. Something to think about!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top