Best bible for understanding times

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arturo_Ortiz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arturo_Ortiz

Guest
What is the best Catholic bible for helping understanding the culture of the time that the bible was written, as well as things like archeology, the way people lived, and many other things like this. I would like to find out the customs and findings of how particular people lived during the time that certain books where written.

I think that by learning about the culture of the sacred authors as well as archeology and many other things that were during the time that the sacred authors were written helps me to understand the bible better.

I heard that the NABRE bible is really good for archeological purposes and that the Ingatius Study Bible is good for understanding the way people lived.

What are your opinions?
 
The New Jerusalem Bible is quite good that way; the chronological table at the end has been an invaluable study aid for me, and the footnotes are scholarly without being too esoteric.

The “full” edition of the NABRE (I think it’s called the St. Joseph Edition) is also a good resource, which has the added advantage of including images of archeological findings, steles, and so on.

The trouble with both these Bibles is their unorthodox view regarding the authorship of some books (particularly the Pentateuch, Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah, the Gospel of St Matthew and some of the Epistles), but the NJB is far more “orthodox” in its views, while the NABRE is “liberal” to a fault. If you’re willing to overlook this, either of these would be a good resource.
 
I would study those things on their own and not rely on a Bible edition, because it is better to study those fields individually rather than by a format that tries to wrap those things together with interpretation. Translators and historians usually make bad expositors of Scripture.
 
RPRPsych said:
The New Jerusalem Bible is quite good that way; the chronological table at the end has been an invaluable study aid for me, and the footnotes are scholarly without being too esoteric.

The “full” edition of the NABRE (I think it’s called the St. Joseph Edition) is also a good resource, which has the added advantage of including images of archeological findings, steles, and so on.

The trouble with both these Bibles is their unorthodox view regarding the authorship of some books (particularly the Pentateuch, Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah, the Gospel of St Matthew and some of the Epistles), but the NJB is far more “orthodox” in its views, while the NABRE is “liberal” to a fault. If you’re willing to overlook this, either of these would be a good resource.
Click to expand...
I will check these bibles thanks for the advice:)
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I would study those things on their own and not rely on a Bible edition, because it is better to study those fields individually rather than by a format that tries to wrap those things together with interpretation. Translators and historians usually make bad expositors of Scripture.
Click to expand...
I will try to focus mostly in these areas:)
 
RPRPsych said:
The trouble with both these Bibles is their unorthodox view regarding the authorship of some books …
Click to expand...
There is nothing even faintly unorthodox about the NABRE. It is on the USCCB site and the version of Scripture we are to use in America for Holy Mass. The notes and articles are scholarly and reflect the understandings of the Magisterium.
 
Julia_Mae said:
There is nothing even faintly unorthodox about the NABRE. It is on the USCCB site and the version of Scripture we are to use in America for Holy Mass. The notes and articles are scholarly and reflect the understandings of the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, perhaps “unorthodox” was a poor choice of words. I know it’s an official Catholic translation, and perhaps “un-Traditional” (as explained below) would be a better term. 🙂

What I meant was that some of the scholarly opinions on the authorship of certain books (which I listed in my previous post) are rather at variance with those that have been traditionally accepted, and that one would find in an “older” Catholic Bible such as the Douay-Rheims. For example, it is stated that both the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John “could not have been written by the Apostles”, and were probably put together by authors who may have belonged to their churches. While such a statement is comprehensible to scholars, it is often unpalatable to more “traditional” Catholics, or to converts from Evangelical Protestantism.

This is not meant to disparage the work of Scripture scholars. They are experts in their field, and I cannot claim any particular knowledge. And it’s also a fact that even in the early Church (as attested in Eusebius’ History) there were debates about the authorship of books such as 2 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation. I’m just warning the OP that he must be ready to deal with such scholarly theories (for they cannot be proven, unless we had a working time machine to take us back to 30-95 AD!).

However, the same reservations do not apply to archaeological and historical findings. The NABRE (or at least the St. Joseph Edition) has plenty of supplementary historical and archaeological material in the appendices and footnotes. These findings represent the “state of the art” in current Biblical archaeology and in chronology, which is why I recommended them to the OP.

And for the record, the NABRE is the Bible at my bedside right now. It’s a very good translation (apart from a few linguistic infelicities), but it must be read with discernment. 👍
 
There is not much that I find more interesting than Biblical archeology. All the artifacts and excavations and so on are extremely interesting. And with the internet there is sooooo much to discover with all the photos and information!

Now getting off topic from the OP, as for the so-called scholarly works that have developed theories about Biblical authorship, which appears to me to be an opponent to traditional Catholic thought, is not based on proven facts, but its more like a system developed by a minority of academic skeptics. They may have high IQ’s, but their philosophy and their approach to Scripture is not in line with those scholars who I lean towards who have a traditional approach.
 
RPRPsych said:
I’m sorry, perhaps “unorthodox” was a poor choice of words. I know it’s an official Catholic translation, and perhaps “un-Traditional” (as explained below) would be a better term. 🙂

What I meant was that some of the scholarly opinions on the authorship of certain books (which I listed in my previous post) are rather at variance with those that have been traditionally accepted, and that one would find in an “older” Catholic Bible such as the Douay-Rheims. For example, it is stated that both the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John “could not have been written by the Apostles”, and were probably put together by authors who may have belonged to their churches. While such a statement is comprehensible to scholars, it is often unpalatable to more “traditional” Catholics,:
Click to expand...
It’s not the job of scholars to be palatable. It’s their job to discern facts as much as possible. It’s not the Church’s job to be palatable. It’s the Church’s job to spread the Gospel and teach truth as much as possible.

The OP wanted to a reference that was most accurate and scholarly, iirc. The NABRE fills that bill quite well. We want to be careful that the designation “traditional” doesn’t start to imply “ignorant” or “fundamentalist.”
 
Julia_Mae said:
The OP wanted to a reference that was most accurate and scholarly, iirc. The NABRE fills that bill quite well. We want to be careful that the designation “traditional” doesn’t start to imply “ignorant” or “fundamentalist.”
Click to expand...
I’ll have to agree with you on that! 👍 Ultimately, as Pope John Paul the Great said, faith and reason cannot be in opposition; where there is an apparent contradiction, there is also a way of resolving it. I personally prefer the NJB because its historical timeline is more user-friendly, as is its table of theological concepts and footnotes, but the NABRE is very good as well. 🙂
 
I would start by picking up a copy of Manners and Customs in the Bible by Victor H. Matthews. It covers geography, family life, politics and military, diet, dress, industry and farming, etc., and has photographs of many of the places mentioned in the Bible. I find it incredibly interesting and use it frequently in the Bible study I attend.

bks3.books.google.com/books?id=KwwqGQAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE70pIgB329P8kOi8Chz9Ah2xcXa_FYi5vvzj3IEWC0FRnrgLXkZ-03UL5EfHqnQYsnS5bX0apCipRrFuBmXlL3mBRRN8am0XbPQgwYdR_Z6CC2cDNo2XImWpT4W-EJWRhEK0ZpLo

-Tim-
 
RPRPsych said:
I’ll have to agree with you on that! 👍 Ultimately, as Pope John Paul the Great said, faith and reason cannot be in opposition; where there is an apparent contradiction, there is also a way of resolving it. I personally prefer the NJB because its historical timeline is more user-friendly, as is its table of theological concepts and footnotes, but the NABRE is very good as well. 🙂
Click to expand...
I like the NJB as well, although I have a personal preference for the translation of the OLD JB!
 
Julia_Mae said:
I like the NJB as well, although I have a personal preference for the translation of the OLD JB!
Click to expand...
What a coincidence, that’s one of my favourites too! 👍

Unfortunately, the version I have is the “Reader’s Edition”, which only has brief footnotes and introductions; the “Full Edition” is no longer in print. (Do you own one? If so, I must confess that I envy you!) The translation is wonderful, but the “Reader’s Edition” wouldn’t have suited the OP’s purpose, which was to get historical and archaeological background.
 
Julia_Mae said:
The OP wanted to a reference that was most accurate and scholarly, iirc. The NABRE fills that bill quite well. We want to be careful that the designation “traditional” doesn’t start to imply “ignorant” or “fundamentalist.”
Click to expand...
There is nothing “fundamentalist” or “ignorant” about accepting that St. Peter wrote his second epistle.
 
Arturo_Ortiz said:
What is the best Catholic bible for helping understanding the culture of the time that the bible was written, as well as things like archeology, the way people lived, and many other things like this. I would like to find out the customs and findings of how particular people lived during the time that certain books where written.

I think that by learning about the culture of the sacred authors as well as archeology and many other things that were during the time that the sacred authors were written helps me to understand the bible better.

I heard that the NABRE bible is really good for archeological purposes and that the Ingatius Study Bible is good for understanding the way people lived.

What are your opinions?
Click to expand...
i like the ignatious study bible or the ignatious douey-rheims bible best but i have heard

these
are quite spiffy and excellent

Shalom
God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top