Bible Study Poll

[lumengentleman]

Can you take 25 seconds to give your (name removed by moderator)ut on this Bible study opinion poll?

I have been hearing more and more that good Catholic Bible studies are hard to find - but I know there is also a demand for them. Every time I have ever suggested a Bible study group to my Catholic friends, the suggestion meets with excitement. Inevitably, though, the question comes up: what’s a good book on Matthew’s Gospel? Where can I find a good Catholic commentary on Exodus? Are there any good Catholic Bible studies out there on this book, or that book?

Scott Hahn’s Ignatius Study Bible series is good, but it’s mostly limited to footnote-length comments - it doesn’t go very deep. The Haydock Bible has a lot of commentary notes, but the commentary spends a lot of time allegorizing, and not a lot of time doing literal-historical exegesis (i.e., the symbols in Isaiah may ultimately point to the Church, but what did they mean in Isaiah’s time, to Isaiah’s audience)? There are some pretty good scholarly studies out there that spend more time on the literal-historical analysis, and do a good job showing how this text is reflected in that text (i.e., how the NT writers draw on the Old Testament texts) - but these modern studies also come with some modern ideas about who did and didn’t write the biblical books, and anyway, they tend to have a lot of egg-headed notes about manuscript variants and Greek participles and so forth - which most people don’t want to read.

So here’s the poll. Tell me what book of the Bible you’re most interested in studying, assuming you could find a solid study guide that took advantage of the best in modern scholarship (without swallowing all of modern scholarship’s “findings”), balanced it with Catholic orthodoxy, and presented the material in a non-academic way (i.e., written for a layman to understand).

 

[NotWorthy]

I voted for:

Psalms
Acts
Hebrews

These seem to be the most difficult to get any good Catholic Study on. Anybody know of any good sources?

 

[RobDH]

There are some pretty good scholarly studies out there that spend more time on the literal-historical analysis, and do a good job showing how this text is reflected in that text (i.e., how the NT writers draw on the Old Testament texts) - but these modern studies also come with some modern ideas about who did and didn’t write the biblical books, and anyway, they tend to have a lot of egg-headed notes about manuscript variants and Greek participles and so forth - which most people don’t want to read.

…Tell me what book of the Bible you’re most interested in studying, assuming you could find a solid study guide that took advantage of the best in modern scholarship (without swallowing all of modern scholarship’s “findings”), balanced it with Catholic orthodoxy, and presented the material in a non-academic way (i.e., written for a layman to understand).

I’m not sure what it is you’re looking for. Your statements above seem to eliminate almost all “modern” commentary on the Bible.

As for the “modern ideas about who did and didn’t write the biblical books”, do you have a problem with any of the currently accepted scholarship concerning these issues? If so, why?

While it is interesting to me, personally, as to whether or not Paul was the actual author of some Epistles attributed to him in the past (aside from the fact that only one seems to have actually been written in his own hand, as opposed to being written by a scribe at his behest), it has no bearing on what the messages contained within those letters mean to me or the Church. The same goes for discussions concerning the “identity” of other Gospel and Epistle authors, as well as the authors of the Old Testament books. The fact that some of the individual books of both testaments contain such variations in style and vocabulary use as to seem to preclude even the attesting of individual authorship rather than an “edited” edition also is of no great effect, to me, concerning the messages themselves.

But back to your original question of good scholarly studies of the Bible, I have found much written by Father Raymond Brown to be useful for New Testament study. I found his “The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary” very interesting. His "An Introduction to the Gospel of John " is also very good, as is his “An Introduction to the New Testament”.

Brown was among the first Catholic scholars in the U.S. to use the historical-critical methods to study the Bible. Yes, I know that some have issues with some of what Brown wrote, but he is considered “the” expert in the writings of the Johannine community. One of the reasons that some have found some fault with Brown is that earlier in his writing career (mid-60’s I believe) he explored whether Jesus was ever called “God” in the New Testament. He concluded the answer was no.

Thirty years later, in his “An Introduction to New Testament Christology”, page 189, he revisited this issue and wrote that in “three reasonably clear instances in the NT [Hebrews 1:8-9, John 1:1, 20:28] and in five instances that have probability, Jesus is called God”, thus changing his earlier, controversial, opinion.

As with any author’s work, religious or otherwise, one must use one’s own mind when arriving at conclusions based on the written material.

For less controversial study material you might wish to look at (though you may find some “faults” similar to those you attribute to Scott Hahn’s work, these studies have multiple authors, thus more opinions) the “Emmaus Journey Catholic Bible Study” series and the “Come and See Catholic Bible Study” series. Also the “Navarre Bible” (commentary accompanying the Biblical text) is available for the New and Old Testaments in sets or individually. Also I believe a “compact” version is available in 2 volumes but with far less material than found in the multi-book series.

 

[RobDH]

Another interesting way of studying the Bible is on a thematic level (for some strange reason, I have noticed that this method is far more popular among Protestants than Catholics). Brown (yes, him again) has written some interesting New Testament theme studies.

His “The Community of the Beloved Disciple” is an interesting look at the Johannine community. He has also written a series of essays concerning the readings during the liturgical year. Here are some that I recommend:
“Christ in the Gospels of the Ordinary Sundays”
“Reading of the Gospels with the Church: From Christmas Through Easter”
“Coming of Christ in Advent: Essays on the Gospel Narratives Preparing for the Birth of Jesus”
“An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas Stories”
“A Crucified Christ in Holy Week: Essays on the Four Gospel Passion Narratives”
“A Risen Christ in Eastertime”
“Once and Coming Spirit at Pentecost: Essays on the Liturgical Readings Between Easter and Pentecost, Taken from the Acts of the Apostles and from the Gospel According to John”

Once again, I acknowledge that some of what Brown has written may be considered controversial by some. But I would also say that much of what he has written is worthy of study.

 

[Ruthie]

I’m blessed to be in the Archdiocese of Denver, home to the Catholic Biblical School. It’s a four-year course, and students at Regis University can get college credit for it.

Four years may seem like a long time - but I’ve already at least doubled my understanding. (I’m entering the 3rd year this fall.)

One of the benefits is that each book is studied within the context of the Bible as a whole. They don’t just take one book and read it as a “stand-alone” manuscript.

I know that CBS has been “exported” to at least one other archdiocese, though I can’t remember which. So ask your archdiocese to import it!

Ruthie
Tiber swim team '06

 

[lumengentleman]

As for the “modern ideas about who did and didn’t write the biblical books”, do you have a problem with any of the currently accepted scholarship concerning these issues? If so, why?

I think they’re interesting issues, but speaking personally, I find those kinds of discussions annoying in a bible study or commentary - authorship and dating might make an interesting “thematic” study, but when you’re trying to dig into the texts themselves, it can be a bit distracting to have to analyze whether this bit of text was original to the book, or whether this chapter was written by a different author.

I much prefer commentaries and studies that approach the biblical book in question from a “final canonical form” perspective, and dig into the issues of why the text is presented as it is. In other words, maybe five different hands did play a part in writing - for example - Jeremiah’s prophecies; but the real trick is to discover the unity in the book and how each chapter fits in as part of the whole.

But back to your original question of good scholarly studies of the Bible, I have found much written by Father Raymond Brown to be useful for New Testament study.

Yes, he is - as you said - the acknowledged expert on the Johannine writings. But as you noted, some people take issue with Brown; some people won’t touch his stuff at all, because of the reputation he picked up - and that’s a shame, because his commentaries on John’s Gospel are quite good.

 

[RobDH]

I much prefer commentaries and studies that approach the biblical book in question from a “final canonical form” perspective, and dig into the issues of why the text is presented as it is. In other words, maybe five different hands did play a part in writing - for example - Jeremiah’s prophecies; but the real trick is to discover the unity in the book and how each chapter fits in as part of the whole.

But there in, sometimes, lies the rub. In order to understand the text, it is sometimes also necessary to understand what the original author (whoever that might be) actually wrote, not what someone else may have inserted later.

As an example, if, as many scholars (not all, or even a majority, but more than a few) currently believe, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 were not authored by Paul, but inserted later (I don’t intend to speculate about the reasons for this insertion ), then one cannot but wonder if it should be used (by both Catholics and Protestants) to lend Paul’s “authority” to the exclusion of women from some activities (no I am NOT advocating female priests!) in the Church.

Another example would be the “endings” of Mark. Many, if not most, modern scholars believe that Mark originally ended after 16:8, but many translations, including the RSV-CE, include 16:9-20. The RSV-CE includes a footnote that reads: “Other ancient authorities omit verses 9-20. Some ancient authorities conclude Mark instead with the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”

Interesting interpretations of these verses have been made over the years, including 16:18, which mentions serpents and drinking “any deadly thing”.

If the original writer of Mark did not pen them…

My point here being simply, if one wishes to interpret the text, one would think it useful to be sure of what the original author wrote, as well as what someone else might have inserted at a later date.

Yes, he is - as you said - the acknowledged expert on the Johannine writings. But as you noted, some people take issue with Brown; some people won’t touch his stuff at all, because of the reputation he picked up - and that’s a shame, because his commentaries on John’s Gospel are quite good.

Though I love reading Fr. Brown, especially his Johannine studies, I admit I do understand the trepidation of some when his name is mentioned. One of his more controversial books is “The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus”. But if one takes the time to read it through, though it does have contentious conclusions within, I have found that these conclusions are based on solid study of Scripture and the early writings of the Church on Brown’s part. Whether you, I, or others, would reach the same conclusions is another matter.

I did find the concluding sentence of the first chapter a very interesting statement and, perhaps, a peek at Brown’s inner beliefs warring with the “facts” of his studies…
But as we discuss Mary’s virginity, we must assure all those ordinary people in our churches, the “little people” who happen to be God’s people, that in our quest we “experts” have not forgotten that we too must obey the biblical injunction (Luke 1:48) that all generations, even this “nosey” generation, shall call her blessed.