Build Your Own Ultimate Study Bible Here!

[zach_dunn]

← continued from previous post →

Graphic Preferences - Maps don’t do much for me. I could deal with many fewer maps than usually exist. I love the drawings like those in the ESV Study Bible though, and full color is cooler than greyscale.

I agree with you about fewer maps. I think it’s necessary to have a basic understanding of the geography of that region of the world, and I think it’s nice to see Paul’s exploits and the many OT conquests mapped out, but I think that would do. I really enjoy modern renderings of ancient places and structures, I think it can really help people understand the history behind the Bible more! And color is definitely better!

Book Details - Smyth sewn, meaning the pages are less likely to just fall out! Most books are put together using glue, which can fail. Hardcover is somewhat annoying with Bibles because the Bible paper is so thin, so a leather cover would be optimal. Also, THREE RIBBON BOOKMARKS! One is never enough.

Smyth sewn would have to be a given for me, if I were to put the money into something like this, I would want it to last darn near a life time. I like leather Bibles a lot . . . but only when it’s done right. I really don’t like bonded or genuine leather, but, as the author of the Bible Design and Binding Blog says, imitation leather is getting better and better. One thing I’ve noticed throughout my studies is that Catholics tend to not be great fans of leather Bibles, we prefer hardcover and paperback. I think the reason is that we haven’t been exposed to much quality leather like goat or calfskin. If Catholic publishers would splurge for good leather, I think more and more Catholics would jump on the bandwagon!

As for the ribbon bookmarks, I never really use them, they kind of just sit there . . . what do you guys use them for? Anyway, what is the right sized width for these ribbons? I’ve read that many Bibles have too small of ribbons that get lost in the page, what do you think?

Good Ones - My favorite study Bible and the one I use most is the NLT Study Bible.

Is there anything that really jumps out at you about this edition that you think should be incorporated into every study Bible out there?

One Last Thing - As far as I know, there is a Catholic Bible for college students which does include whichever encyclical talks about reading the Bible. It’s published by St. Mary’s Press. However, it is the NAB translation if I remember correctly.

That sounds great! I’ll have to look for it online!

Once again, thank you so much for your detailed response, it is GREATLY appreciated!

Now it’s time for me to make another plea that more people complete this survey thing please!

 

[patrick457]

Hmmm, that definitely would be the ultimate Study Bible . . . 40 volumes is a ton! Which ones would you put into it’s own volume? I’m not sure how you get 40, does that include appendices?

Depends on the length - if two or more parts can fit into one volume, we’ll do it, but otherwise, either one volume for one part, or (in the case of larger works) divide it among several volumes. For example: putting all of the Pentateuch or Samuel or Kings on one is quite impossible, so these would probably be divided into two or three volumes, perhaps even four. And, 40 volumes would probably still be not enough to include appendices. After all, we’re talking about a parallel-interlinear Bible (including footnotes) here!

You know, a multi-volume study Bible somehow reminds me of the ultimate Chinese character dictionary published here in Japan (the Dai Kan-Wa jiten, aka the Morohashi after its publisher, Tetsuji Morohashi) which has 13 volumes totaling 13,757 pages! My school has it, and I can tell you that all of the 13 volumes, while not too big, are VERY thick and bulky. IMO, one volume is probably as thick as one Bible.

A multi-volume work has the added edge of letting you become as comprehensive and in-depth as you want, but it has the disadvantage of being more pricey and unwieldy for daily reading, perhaps (as in my case) even being more bigger and heavier than regular Bibles.

 

[patrick457]

Hahaha, that would be pretty confusing . . . from the looks of it I prefer the names we have for them now! But I do like the idea of preserving the words when referring to God, it just makes it that much more . . . what’s the word, sacred?

My opinion as well.
Now we need not go to the same level as the most observant Jews and avoid saying God’s Name altogether and resort to euphemisms or slurred pronunciations, but having His names and titles in the original - as well as showing the Name as being simply YHWH instead of spelling it out in full either as “Yahweh” or as “Jehovah” or translating it merely as “LORD” - does give them an aura of otherness, mystery, and, as you mention, sacredness. But that’s just my personal opinion.

Here’s a little trivia: in Exodus, God introduces Himself to Moses as ehyeh-asher-ehyeh (Ehyeh is the first person singular imperfect form of the verb hayah, ‘to be’; hence, literally it can be translated as “I-(shall)-be what/who/that I-(shall)-be”). I am presently aware of a few translations which opted to leave it untranslated: the Targum Onkelos, the Targum Neofiti, the Syriac P’shitta OT (which itself was believed to be originally based on rabbinic targumim), and the 1985 JPS Tanakh (JPS stands for the Jewish Publication Society).
The Septuagint renders ehyeh-asher-ehyeh as ego eimi ho on, “I am who is”. Meanwhile, the Greek versions of Aquila and Theodotion have rendered it into Greek as esomai hos esomai, “I will be who I will be” (the Jewish ArtScroll Tanach, as well as the Anchor Bible render the engimatic phrase as Aquila and Theodotion did, BTW).
On the other hand, St. Jerome stays close to the Septuagint with his ego sum qui sum (“I am who am”), which seems to have influenced the way most English translators rendered the phrase afterwards (“I am that I am”). So, my question is, how would you treat this phrase? Would you leave it as it is or translate it?

 

[zach_dunn]

Depends on the length - if two or more parts can fit into one volume, we’ll do it, but otherwise, either one volume for one part, or (in the case of larger works) divide it among several volumes. For example: putting all of the Pentateuch or Samuel or Kings on one is quite impossible, so these would probably be divided into two or three volumes, perhaps even four. And, 40 volumes would probably still be not enough to include appendices. After all, we’re talking about a parallel-interlinear Bible (including footnotes) here!

You know, a multi-volume study Bible somehow reminds me of the ultimate Chinese character dictionary published here in Japan (the Dai Kan-Wa jiten, aka the Morohashi after its publisher, Tetsuji Morohashi) which has 13 volumes totaling 13,757 pages! My school has it, and I can tell you that all of the 13 volumes, while not too big, are VERY thick and bulky. IMO, one volume is probably as thick as one Bible.

A multi-volume work has the added edge of letting you become as comprehensive and in-depth as you want, but it has the disadvantage of being more pricey and unwieldy for daily reading, perhaps (as in my case) even being more bigger and heavier than regular Bibles.

Ha, I guess if I ever had this Bible I would have to go to Ikea and get myself a few bookshelves! I would really like having all of the in depth notes, essay, maps, etc. But I, personally, would like to be able to bring it with me when I travel, etc. So this is a problem. This is actually one of the reasons I want to see more wide-margin Bibles. If I had one of those, I could mark up the wide margin-ed one at home, and take it with me and study that, what do you think of an idea like that? I don’t really remember your stance on margins . . . I’ll have to go look it up!

 

[zach_dunn]

My opinion as well.
Now we need not go to the same level as the most observant Jews and avoid saying God’s Name altogether and resort to euphemisms or slurred pronunciations, but having His names and titles in the original - as well as showing the Name as being simply YHWH instead of spelling it out in full either as “Yahweh” or as “Jehovah” or translating it merely as “LORD” - does give them an aura of otherness, mystery, and, as you mention, sacredness. But that’s just my personal opinion.

And I wholeheartedly agree, I wouldn’t want to put “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” in there for the sole reason that those only might be the pronunciations, we really have very little clue into how this word was pronounced, right?

Here’s a little trivia: in Exodus, God introduces Himself to Moses as ehyeh-asher-ehyeh (Ehyeh is the first person singular imperfect form of the verb hayah, ‘to be’; hence, literally it can be translated as “I-(shall)-be what/who/that I-(shall)-be”). I am presently aware of a few translations which opted to leave it untranslated: the Targum Onkelos, the Targum Neofiti, the Syriac P’shitta OT (which itself was believed to be originally based on rabbinic targumim), and the 1985 JPS Tanakh (JPS stands for the Jewish Publication Society).
The Septuagint renders ehyeh-asher-ehyeh as ego eimi ho on, “I am who is”. Meanwhile, the Greek versions of Aquila and Theodotion have rendered it into Greek as esomai hos esomai, “I will be who I will be” (the Jewish ArtScroll Tanach, as well as the Anchor Bible render the engimatic phrase as Aquila and Theodotion did, BTW).
On the other hand, St. Jerome stays close to the Septuagint with his ego sum qui sum (“I am who am”), which seems to have influenced the way most English translators rendered the phrase afterwards (“I am that I am”). So, my question is, how would you treat this phrase? Would you leave it as it is or translate it?

Hmm, that’s a tough question. My immediate answer was to say translate it at least (and probably only) at Exodus 3:14. I thought this for a couple of reasons, 1) it a statement showing God’s fundamental nature, so it’s very important to see that, and 2) it is explained by the original languages (by that I mean writing ego eimi ho on instead of just YHWH). My only problem with this is that a random, not-so-educated person wouldn’t recognize that this is the essential meaning of the title YHWH. But I propose to fix that by simply adding one of our handy little footnotes.

 

[patrick457]

And I wholeheartedly agree, I wouldn’t want to put “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” in there for the sole reason that those only might be the pronunciations, we really have very little clue into how this word was pronounced, right?

Yeah. ‘Yahweh’ does enjoy some popularity today, but what it is, when we come to it, is a mere (educated) guess of how Yhwh may have been originally read.

Hmm, that’s a tough question. My immediate answer was to say translate it at least (and probably only) at Exodus 3:14. I thought this for a couple of reasons, 1) it a statement showing God’s fundamental nature, so it’s very important to see that, and 2) it is explained by the original languages (by that I mean writing ego eimi ho on instead of just YHWH). My only problem with this is that a random, not-so-educated person wouldn’t recognize that this is the essential meaning of the title YHWH. But I propose to fix that by simply adding one of our handy little footnotes.

As for me, I’m currently considering it to be retained as it is, as the Aramaic targums of old did, to make the perceived connection between Yhwh and 'ehyeh (hayah) more visible. And yes, footnotes make everything convenient, don’t they?

And no, I’m afraid that even this simple sentence - 'ehyeh-asher-'ehyeh is not an easy one to translate. The question rests on how we are to understand 'ehyeh. The challenge this verse presents is not in its grammar, but in its meaning: does the word as it occurs in this verse refer to God in the sense of His absolute and eternal being, or does it refer to Him in relation to His actions in space and time and so to temporal being?

Translating the imperfect (the imperfect tense in Hebrew was used for uncompleted actions, and thus could imply either the present or future) 'ehyeh as ‘I-be’, ‘I-am’ or ‘I-am-being’ does present us with considerable exegetical difficulty, but so too does translating it as ‘I-will-be’.

The crucial difference between the two is that whereas the words ‘I-am’ in isolation can be meaningfully understood in the context of God’s self-designation, the absolute declaration ‘I-will-be’ cannot, if read as a reference to the Divine nature. The ‘ongoing, continuous being’ idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time: He just ‘is’. The traditional English “I am that I am” and the Septuagint paraphrase “I am who is” understands the Name as referring to God’s unchanging, ever-constant, ever-present nature.

One problem with rendering with in the future tense is that if God were to designate Himself in terms that specifically refer to the future it could be misread as implying that God is not yet God (taking 'ehyeh to refer to His nature), or that He is in a state of becoming somehow different to how He now is, both of which are rather absurd and unacceptable to the Mosaic monotheist, and even defy coherent articulation.

Thus, when referring to God, future 'ehyeh requires some expansion in order to render it theologically meaningful, one such as the oft-suggested “I will be with you” (cf. Exodus 3:12), which turns it into a reference in relation to His actions within temporal space (this is the interpretation Aquila and Theodotion favored).
In this interpretation, the Name does not (merely) reveal the essence of God but His relationship with His people. They need to know not merely that He ‘is’ but that He will work on their behalf: “I will be understood by my acts and revelation.” The rabbis of the Talmud have paraphrased the passage: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘Go and say to Israel: I was with you in this servitude, and I shall be with you in the servitude of the [other] kingdoms.’ He [Moses] said to Him: ‘Lord of the universe, sufficient is the evil in the time thereof!’ Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: ‘Go and tell them: I AM has sent me unto you.’” 'Ehyeh-asher-'ehyeh is thus interpreted as a statement of God’s abiding presence with Israel, while the ehyeh of 3:14b is interpreted as a shortened version of this declaration and as a gesture of God’s compassion towards Israel in response to Moses’ appeal on their behalf.

 

[zach_dunn]

Yeah. ‘Yahweh’ does enjoy some popularity today, but what it is, when we come to it, is a mere (educated) guess of how Yhwh may have been originally read.

Agreed!

As for me, I’m currently considering it to be retained as it is, as the Aramaic targums of old did, to make the perceived connection between Yhwh and 'ehyeh (hayah) more visible. And yes, footnotes make everything convenient, don’t they?

And no, I’m afraid that even this simple sentence - 'ehyeh-asher-'ehyeh is not an easy one to translate. The question rests on how we are to understand 'ehyeh. The challenge this verse presents is not in its grammar, but in its meaning: does the word as it occurs in this verse refer to God in the sense of His absolute and eternal being, or does it refer to Him in relation to His actions in space and time and so to temporal being?

Translating the imperfect (the imperfect tense in Hebrew was used for uncompleted actions, and thus could imply either the present or future) 'ehyeh as ‘I-be’, ‘I-am’ or ‘I-am-being’ does present us with considerable exegetical difficulty, but so too does translating it as ‘I-will-be’.

The crucial difference between the two is that whereas the words ‘I-am’ in isolation can be meaningfully understood in the context of God’s self-designation, the absolute declaration ‘I-will-be’ cannot, if read as a reference to the Divine nature. The ‘ongoing, continuous being’ idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time: He just ‘is’. The traditional English “I am that I am” and the Septuagint paraphrase “I am who is” understands the Name as referring to God’s unchanging, ever-constant, ever-present nature.

One problem with rendering with in the future tense is that if God were to designate Himself in terms that specifically refer to the future it could be misread as implying that God is not yet God (taking 'ehyeh to refer to His nature), or that He is in a state of becoming somehow different to how He now is, both of which are rather absurd and unacceptable to the Mosaic monotheist, and even defy coherent articulation.

Thus, when referring to God, future 'ehyeh requires some expansion in order to render it theologically meaningful, one such as the oft-suggested “I will be with you” (cf. Exodus 3:12), which turns it into a reference in relation to His actions within temporal space (this is the interpretation Aquila and Theodotion favored).
In this interpretation, the Name does not (merely) reveal the essence of God but His relationship with His people. They need to know not merely that He ‘is’ but that He will work on their behalf: “I will be understood by my acts and revelation.” The rabbis of the Talmud have paraphrased the passage: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘Go and say to Israel: I was with you in this servitude, and I shall be with you in the servitude of the [other] kingdoms.’ He [Moses] said to Him: ‘Lord of the universe, sufficient is the evil in the time thereof!’ Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: ‘Go and tell them: I AM has sent me unto you.’” 'Ehyeh-asher-'ehyeh is thus interpreted as a statement of God’s abiding presence with Israel, while the ehyeh of 3:14b is interpreted as a shortened version of this declaration and as a gesture of God’s compassion towards Israel in response to Moses’ appeal on their behalf.

You pose many thought-provoking questions; but, alas, I am not educated enough to understand all of it . . . sorry! I’m just 18 and learnin’. I’m just curious as to how you know these languages so well, did you study Hebrew, Latin, and Greek? Are you fairly fluent in all of them? I’m hopefully going to major in Classical Languages (Latin and Greek) in college!

 

[patrick457]

You pose many thought-provoking questions; but, alas, I am not educated enough to understand all of it . . . sorry! I’m just 18 and learnin’. I’m just curious as to how you know these languages so well, did you study Hebrew, Latin, and Greek? Are you fairly fluent in all of them? I’m hopefully going to major in Classical Languages (Latin and Greek) in college!

Well, I’m just 17 and learnin’ myself.
And no, I’m not fluent in these languages - I’m mostly self-taught, and even then, I only have a very rudimentary grasp of them.

 

[didymus]

http://ilmaccompagne.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/codex-gigas.jpg

WHEN is someone going to invent computers?

 

[zach_dunn]

Well, I’m just 17 and learnin’ myself.
And no, I’m not fluent in these languages - I’m mostly self-taught, and even then, I only have a very rudimentary grasp of them.

I have another question regarding this translation . . .

What would you do with verses like Matthew 18:11 which are frequently being altogether removed from modern Bibles, or reduced to footnotes at the least? Would you follow suit or leave them in the text?

 

[patrick457]

I have another question regarding this translation . . .

What would you do with verses like Matthew 18:11 which are frequently being altogether removed from modern Bibles, or reduced to footnotes at the least? Would you follow suit or leave them in the text?

Right now, I’m thinking of putting them IN the text, but with some features that show their difference - for example, containing them within brackets or having them in another font or having them in italics or something (along with ever-trusty footnotes explaining the whole thing).

BTW, not too many people know this (ironic since this was once apparently a quite familiar variant), but did you know that a few early manuscripts had another sentence in Matthew 27:49?

But the rest said, “Leave be; let us see if Elias comes to save Him.” Now another took a spear and pierced Him in the side, and there came out water and blood. (ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἒνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὖδορ καὶ αἳμα) And Jesus again cried out with a great voice and let go the spirit.

Containing the sentence: Codices Sinaiticus (c. 330-360), Vaticanus (c. 325–350), Ephraemi Rescriptus (c. 450), Regius (8th c.), Nanianus (9th c.), Tischendorfianus IV (9th-10th c.), Minuscules 1010, 1293, Palestinian Syriac, Ethiopian, some Vetus Latina (such as Usserianus II*) and Vulgate MSS
Omitting the sentence: Codices Alexandrinus (400-440), Bezae (c. 400), Basilensis (8th c.), Boreelianus (c. 875-975), Seidelianus I (9th c.), Seidelianus II (9th c.), Cyprius (9th c.), Campianus (9th c.), Vaticanus 354 (949), Washingtonianus (c. 400), Sangallensis 48 (9th c.), Koridethi (9th c.), Rossanensis (6th c.), Uncial 090 (064) (c. 550), the Byzantine text-type, other Vetus Latina and Vulgate MSS, Curetonian Gospels (Syriac), Coptic (Sahidic and Bohairic), Armenian, Georgian, Minuscule 892 (9th c.)The placement of this sentence makes it appear that the spear thrust was the direct cause of Jesus’ death, rather than being a precautionary measure done post-mortem (as in John).

The authenticity one is rather hard to determine, and there is still some disagreement as always: those who think it as genuinely Matthean think that this was removed in order to smoothen out apparent internal (while the bystanders were waiting for Elijah to rescue Jesus, a soldier, in complete opposition to the preceding thought, steps in and kills Him off!) and external discrepancies between Matthew and John. Detractors propose that because this comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34, it was probably just lifted from John’s account by early scribes and inserted into this verse, since if it was originally from Matthew, it is rather hard to explain why the vast majority of other manuscripts would omit it (this is where some folks step in and claim some sort of conspiracy…). There’s even a theory that this sentence was specifically inserted to combat Docetism, which attempts to remove the shame of the cross by teaching that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was His crucifixion: He did not really die, but just appeared to do so.

 

[zach_dunn]

Right now, I’m thinking of putting them IN the text, but with some features that show their difference - for example, containing them within brackets or having them in another font or having them in italics or something (along with ever-trusty footnotes explaining the whole thing).

BTW, not too many people know this (ironic since this was once apparently a quite familiar variant), but did you know that a few early manuscripts had another sentence in Matthew 27:49?

But the rest said, “Leave be; let us see if Elias comes to save Him.” Now another took a spear and pierced Him in the side, and there came out water and blood. (ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἒνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὖδορ καὶ αἳμα) And Jesus again cried out with a great voice and let go the spirit.

Containing the sentence: Codices Sinaiticus (c. 330-360), Vaticanus (c. 325–350), Ephraemi Rescriptus (c. 450), Regius (8th c.), Nanianus (9th c.), Tischendorfianus IV (9th-10th c.), Minuscules 1010, 1293, Palestinian Syriac, Ethiopian, some Vetus Latina (such as Usserianus II*) and Vulgate MSS
Omitting the sentence: Codices Alexandrinus (400-440), Bezae (c. 400), Basilensis (8th c.), Boreelianus (c. 875-975), Seidelianus I (9th c.), Seidelianus II (9th c.), Cyprius (9th c.), Campianus (9th c.), Vaticanus 354 (949), Washingtonianus (c. 400), Sangallensis 48 (9th c.), Koridethi (9th c.), Rossanensis (6th c.), Uncial 090 (064) (c. 550), the Byzantine text-type, other Vetus Latina and Vulgate MSS, Curetonian Gospels (Syriac), Coptic (Sahidic and Bohairic), Armenian, Georgian, Minuscule 892 (9th c.)The placement of this sentence makes it appear that the spear thrust was the direct cause of Jesus’ death, rather than being a precautionary measure done post-mortem (as in John).

Yay! I feel smart now! Haha, I guess footnotes really are informative!

The authenticity one is rather hard to determine, and there is still some disagreement as always: those who think it as genuinely Matthean think that this was removed in order to smoothen out apparent internal (while the bystanders were waiting for Elijah to rescue Jesus, a soldier, in complete opposition to the preceding thought, steps in and kills Him off!) and external discrepancies between Matthew and John. Detractors propose that because this comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34, it was probably just lifted from John’s account by early scribes and inserted into this verse, since if it was originally from Matthew, it is rather hard to explain why the vast majority of other manuscripts would omit it (this is where some folks step in and claim some sort of conspiracy…).

I’m just curious . . . what do you think? I think it’s kind of, in a way, eerily similar to that of John, but I don’t think that’s inconsistent with its being authentic.

There’s even a theory that this sentence was specifically inserted to combat Docetism, which attempts to remove the shame of the cross by teaching that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was His crucifixion: He did not really die, but just appeared to do so.

Oh the theories people cook up (referring to Docetism).

 

[zach_dunn]

This is one last bump for those people who want to contribute their ideas to this thread. After this I’ll let the thread die (if no more people respond) and I’ll simply give the OP as a survey to participating Catholics on this forum, thank you to all who responded to the OP!

 

[patrick457]

Just to give off an idea of the parallel columns:

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5465/poliglotta.png

Hebrew
MsT: Masoretic Text
ST: Samaritan Torah

Aramaic/Syriac
Onq: Targum Onkelos
PsJ: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Nf: Targum Neofiti
FTP: Paris (Bibliotheque Nationale Hebr. 110)
FTV: Vatican (Vatican Ebr. 440) Fragment-Targum
SyrP: Syriac Peshitta

Greek
LXX: Septuagint
Aql: Aquila of Sinope

Latin
Vg: Vulgate

 

[zach_dunn]

Just to give off an idea of the parallel columns:

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5465/poliglotta.png

Hebrew
MsT: Masoretic Text
ST: Samaritan Torah

Aramaic/Syriac
Onq: Targum Onkelos
PsJ: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Nf: Targum Neofiti
FTP: Paris (Bibliotheque Nationale Hebr. 110)
FTV: Vatican (Vatican Ebr. 440) Fragment-Targum
SyrP: Syriac Peshitta

Greek
LXX: Septuagint
Aql: Aquila of Sinope

Latin
Vg: Vulgate

I really wish I knew Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

 

[JRRTFAN]

First of all, before getting into it, I’d just like to say that this is for Catholics and Protestants alike, although for some aspects (i.e., articles that you’d like in the Bible) I’d be paying more attention to Catholic needs as I am Catholic . . . but all design features (i.e. font type, size, etc.) is welcome to everyone because I assume all Bible readers have some sort of preference for that stuff. Now, without further adieu, let me explain:

So, I’ve been looking for study Bibles to purchase (so far I have ordered the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and am waiting to get it) and I’ve been reading reviews and noticing that many people have certain “nit-picky” preferences and I thought it would be interesting to start a kind of survey to see what average Bible studiers would like to see in some future study Bible (cough cough). Now, as a warning, I am going to ask you to​

Here’s what I’ve done to build a resource. I have a number of translations: DRC, CE, RSV-CE, RSV-CE2, NIV, JB, NJB, NAB, then I bought the Faith Database program, then I bought McKenzies’s Dictionary of the Bible, then I bought Dom Bernard Orchard’s Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. So I feel like I am cometently equiped to dig out just abou any conundrum after a few hours work.