Bad Commentary in New Jerusalem Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rose_Commander
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rose_Commander

Guest
I was hearing around, on the web and by other people, that the New Jerusalem Bible has a liberal commentary to the point of borderline heresy like the New American Bible. Is this true? If so, please specify. If not, explain.
You see, I use the the New Jerusalem Bible as my study bible. I want to know that the commentary is good or not.

Thank you for your comments and time.
 
No Catholic Bible should have any heresy including the New American Bible since it contains an Impramatur, Nihil Obstat.

I don’t know why people repeat heresay without checking it out first. Slander, Gossip.

If you ever come across any thing in any Church document that you believe not to be in accord with Church teachings you have a personal obligation to contact the authors and those who gave the Imprimatur on the copywrite page.
 
do you have a source for the claim that there are problems with the commentary and notes in the NJB?
 
I’ve just joined Catholic Answers, and here I am almost six years after the fact offering this take in this thread about the New Jerusalem Bible.

I had bought it originally because of its copious and detailed footnotes. But I began to wonder about some of these as they often speculated that this or that line, verse, direct quotation, and so forth, were attributable to some later source “pasted into” the narrative in question. The NJB never claims that anything is anything less than the Truth in its own *peripheral *sort of way. Still, the frequency of attributions to anybody *but *whomever the scripture is quoting really adds up in a hurry.

Then I got to the Magnificat, and I knew the NJB had a serious problem.

Without having the actual text here as I finally ditched it, I can paraphrase closely enough. The footnote states that the words of the Magnificat were *likely *written by some 1st century Christian and backward-projected onto Mary as, after all, she had been an uneducated girl and the style of the context is more compatible to second or third generation Christians.

Think of it: No, the NJB was proposing; ***St. Mary, the Mother of God, was incapable of this prayer. ***But some unknown person inside the first hundred years of the Church, yeah, that person could have done the job.

That did it. I’ve never opened a NJB since.

The Magnificat, in fact, is a terrific and quick way to judge any bible’s adherence to Public Revelation and Tradition. If footnotes exist, see where they go. Anything that even *hints *at an origin for this prayer existing outside of Our Lady’s purview is highly suspect, to say the least.
 
I do not have the source for hearsay. I am just trying to make sure that I got a good study bible. I do not get much money and now that I am unemployed at the moment, I got to make sure it is good. I apologize if this has angered some people.
 
The NJB has some great notes and them some :eek: notes like the afore mentioned magnificat.

Next month, a great study bible, NT, is being released. Originally in various volumes it is now in one. It is called from memory the Ignatius New Testament Study Bible. It features greats notes and the RSV-CE2 which many posters here like. This may be more suited.
 
Yeah, I’ve noticed the NJB is ‘hit and miss’.

Sometimes it’s really good, other times the notes are just horrible.

I’d steer clear. Enjoy the text as much as you like, some of it is beautifully translated, but like the CTS New Catholic Bible, the notes are often full of liberal-modern ‘scholarship’; which often serves only to steer people away from Church teaching.

Your point on the Magnificat is interesting, as the CTS Bible says the same about Peter’s ability to write letters so eloquent.:mad: In other words, his authorship is highly doubtful. These things really annoy me.
 
It would be very helpful if someone out there could post a link to a scholarly article by reputable orthodox bible scholars who have reviewed the NJB and its commentaries and notes.
 
Agree with whoever said the NJB is “hit-or-miss”.

Some of the notes are genuinely helpful and provide social and historical background information. But other stuff follows the historical-critical party line a bit too much - the “four sources” of the Pentateuch, late dates for the composition of some of the New Testament, and so forth.

The following page is from a Conservative Protestant bible scholar, but it’s fairly accurate as far as its criticisms go:

bible-researcher.com/new-jerusalem-bible.html
 
For example, Hebrews 13:10–“We have an **altar **from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.”

Navarre Bible commentary-- “Very probably the term “altar” refers to the “eucharistic table” and possibly also to Christ in the Eucharist.”

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible commentary–“Many interpret this as a reference to the Cross or to the sacrifice of Jesus in general. **More likely, it refers to the eucharistic altar **of the Church…”

NJB footnote for the word “altar”—“Not the table used for the eucharist…”

The bold and underling are my emphasis. Just one of several footnotes that rile me up a bit; at least be *open *to traditional Catholic interpretation, for crying out loud!

Out of a half-dozen of thousands of footnotes in the NJB, nearly all are just innocuous commentary on grammar, except for the extended theological footnotes such as Romans 1:16h that piece together and explain verses in the light of (hopefully) Catholic tradition.

I became a Catholic from reading this bible and its footnotes before the Catechism came out. The emphasis on the historical-critical method is very real but not (I believe) unbearably so.
 
WatchingMedia said:
No Catholic Bible should have any heresy including the New American Bible since it contains an Impramatur, Nihil Obstat.

I don’t know why people repeat heresay without checking it out first. Slander, Gossip.

If you ever come across any thing in any Church document that you believe not to be in accord with Church teachings you have a personal obligation to contact the authors and those who gave the Imprimatur on the copywrite page.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the Impramatur, etc. applied only to the bible text, and NOT to the footnotes, study notes, etc. (That’s for any bible, not just the NJB).

BTW - I also have a NJB, and I find that the footnotes are hard to use. They are referred to by small letter superscripts in the text. If you are reading a footnote (or looking through the footnotes) - good luck trying to get back to the verse it applies to, since there are no verse numbers listed.
 
Mattjolley said:
Yeah, I’ve noticed the NJB is ‘hit and miss’.

Sometimes it’s really good, other times the notes are just horrible.

I’d steer clear. Enjoy the text as much as you like, some of it is beautifully translated, but like the CTS New Catholic Bible, the notes are often full of liberal-modern ‘scholarship’; which often serves only to steer people away from Church teaching.

Your point on the Magnificat is interesting, as the CTS Bible says the same about Peter’s ability to write letters so eloquent.:mad: In other words, his authorship is highly doubtful. These things really annoy me.
Click to expand...
 
Rose_Commander said:
I do not have the source for hearsay. I am just trying to make sure that I got a good study bible. I do not get much money and now that I am unemployed at the moment, I got to make sure it is good. I apologize if this has angered some people.
Click to expand...
Rose, you are asking a fair question as a faithful Christian, as well as consumer. You should NOT apologize if your query has angered some people. People should be able to bring their questions to the forums and get guidance or assistance from fellow Christians.

That being said, you may have been asked for the source because it may have served as clue to the poster about the basis of the objections to this particular version of the Bible.
 
I just purchased a copy of the NJB in June, and I’ve been using it in combination with other bibles for study. I’ve read a lot of footnotes and some of the introductions to books in the New Testament. I have not found ANY theological problem with the introductions or footnotes. In fact, I think they do a great job at integrating the results of modern biblical scholarship with Catholic tradition and discussing possible solutions to contradictions between the two. Furthermore, the NAB notes were certainly reviewed in the process of granting the imprimatur (source), so I don’t have any reason to doubt that the NJB notes were reviewed as well.

The problem notes that a few people have mentioned so far do not contradict the teaching of the church. Any of us can disagree with the interpretation expressed in a footnote, but that doesn’t mean that the footnote is contrary to the faith. The Church does not teach that Mary specifically uttered the words of the Magnificat, for example. We are free to believe that she did, and we are free to hypothesize that she didn’t in light of the style of the text and its similarity with the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2.

Based on my reading of the NJB so far, I think it is an excellent study resource, especially if you’re interested in learning more about modern scholarship in the light of Catholic tradition. The translation is very well done too. It’s very readable.
 
We have to remember that the headings, titles, footnotes and commentary are not the Bible. They are things which man added to the breathed word of God, but they are not given to us by the breath of the Holy Spirit. This is why I don’t read a Bible with commentary and footnotes - nothing can compare to the undiluted word of God anyway. I let the Holy Spirit guide me within the framework of Church teaching, the Church Fathers, etc.

Another point is that what most people think is commentary is really translation and transmission theory. This is especially true of the NAB. Most of the footnotes are not intended to assist in interpreting the text but to help us understand how the translators arrived at specific words, phrases and ideas.

-Tim-
 
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (c.1993) points out that there are very few official pronouncements about interpretations of the Catholic Bible.

So, undoubtedly, there is a slant by various translators and those who provide commentary.

I have been just re-reading the document on The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible" put out by the pontifical biblical commission, around 2005 (see here ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM).

This relatively recent document takes the documentary hypothesis for granted (“four sources”) and, it endorses the historical-critical method as valuable to understanding the topic of the paper.

That said, I would not be surprised to find footnote commentary to have some prejudice of some sort in it. Even the document referenced above has that tone to it, of Biblical material being redacted and having words attributed to Jesus, Mary, etc.

I spend time in Jewish commentaries, and Jewish scholars, from the same historical-critical point of view, say the same things about words and speeches being attributed to Moses, for example.

Commentaries are much more detailed than study bibles, as I have found. They can often incorporate alternate points of view about something. The ancient and modern Jewish commentaries are much more open to putting varying, even contradictory, opinions side-by-side, for the reader to consider.

That is one reason, alongside the whole issue of translation, why people who have already posted here have several Bibles for comparing. And, well they should.

In one of the opening visions of the book of Ezekiel, he sees a heavenly figure described as having a “writing case” on his belt or sash. Writing Case? Time to check the Septuagint (as in the Orthodox Study Bible) where it is translated more convincingly as a belt of sapphires. Some of us amateur, self-taught Bible readers have to pay sooner or later, one way or the other, to get through some problem like this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top