Catholic Bible with good footnotes

  • Thread starter Thread starter CountrySteve
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CountrySteve

Guest
Well, i was wondering whats a good Catholic Bible with good footnotes cause no offense to the New American Bible, but there footnotes stink. :confused:
 
The Ignatius Study Bible is based on the RSV-CE2, and it has excellent footnotes. There’s a complete New Testament {single volume}, and there are Genesis and Exodus, in separate volumes, complete from the Old Testament.

Also, I don’t have either of these, but I’ve heard that the Haydock and Challoner {sp?} Bibles {both of which use the Douay-Rheims translation} are also very good to have.
 
CountrySteve said:
Well, i was wondering whats a good Catholic Bible with good footnotes cause no offense to the New American Bible, but there footnotes stink. :confused:
Click to expand...
In order from “most orthodox” to “least orthodox”:

(the ones in bold are recommended)

1. Douay-Rheims Challoner
2. Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic Edition
3. Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, Catholic Scripture Study*
4. Jerusalem Bible
5. New Jerusalem Bible
6. New American Bible
7. Christian Community Bible
8. New American Bible, Revised Edition
  • not the “plain” RSV-CE which has very few notes; this version is published by St. Benedict and has a lot of helpful essays.
 
Ignatius Study Bible is good because its modern but traditional-minded. The Haydock Bible is excellent, but I recommend you get familar with how its layed out and how it quotes brilliant sources such as Medieval commentators and later commentators such as Witham, Calmet, Menochius, etc.

The Challoner version is awesome but very concise in the footnotes.
 
Amen to the Ignatius RSV CE 2. The commentaries by Hahn and Mitch rock!
 
By the way, just to add to what I was saying concerning the Haydock Bible, once a person realizes that George Haydock (1774-1849), when compiling his commentary, he layed it out as a chain of quotes from earlier commentators. For example, here is a passage that he gives a comment on Romans 1:30

Hateful to God. The Greek may also signify, haters of God. (Witham) — theostugeis means either haters of God, or hated by God. (Menochius) — Disobedient to parents. The Greek literally signifies, Not listening to the advice of their parents; who rise up against them, and refuse to obey. (Calmet)

I put the commentators that he quoted in red just to point them out out. The first one is Father Robert Witham (1667 - 1738). The second one is Jacobus Menochius (1532-1607). And the third commentator quoted by Haydock is the French Benedictine monk Dom Augustin Calmet (1672-1757).

Haydock weaves earlier commentators together in a way that makes for an awesome commentary that I feel many people don’t understand enough to fully appreciate how excellent it really is. Once people get familiar with Haydock’s style and those who we draws from then they will see how this commentary is a treasure!
 
COPLAND_3 said:
By the way, just to add to what I was saying concerning the Haydock Bible, once a person realizes that George Haydock (1774-1849), when compiling his commentary, he layed it out as a chain of quotes from earlier commentators. For example, here is a passage that he gives a comment on Romans 1:30

Hateful to God. The Greek may also signify, haters of God. (Witham) — theostugeis means either haters of God, or hated by God. (Menochius) — Disobedient to parents. The Greek literally signifies, Not listening to the advice of their parents; who rise up against them, and refuse to obey. (Calmet)

I put the commentators that he quoted in red just to point them out out. The first one is Father Robert Witham (1667 - 1738). The second one is Jacobus Menochius (1532-1607). And the third commentator quoted by Haydock is the French Benedictine monk Dom Augustin Calmet (1672-1757).

Haydock weaves earlier commentators together in a way that makes for an awesome commentary that I feel many people don’t understand enough to fully appreciate how excellent it really is. Once people get familiar with Haydock’s style and those who we draws from then they will see how this commentary is a treasure!
Click to expand...
👍
 
CountrySteve said:
Well, i was wondering whats a good Catholic Bible with good footnotes cause no offense to the New American Bible, but there footnotes stink. :confused:
Click to expand...
there are lots of discussions of the NAB, but they start up again and again. I haven’t thrown away either of the two copies of it that I have. I am impressed by its translations – and I was somewhat critical of the NAB at one point.

Could you give us a short list of examples in the NAB that upset you?
 
The NAB uses a lot of the historical-critical method in its footnotes, which can be helpful IMO, so it’s good to keep that. A good, and cheap (free), way to get a more traditional/spiritual commentary to go along with it would be, like others have said, check out the DRB with Haydock Commentary.
For the E-Sword software and the DRB Click Here.

For the Haydock Commentary to use with E-Sword Click Here.

AND…there’s another great resource for the computer that has the RSV-CE, NAB, lectionary, and tons of documents, a few commentaries, etc… You can either check out the info at the site itself, or download the software. Click Here
👍
 
sirach2v4 said:
there are lots of discussions of the NAB, but they start up again and again. I haven’t thrown away either of the two copies of it that I have. I am impressed by its translations – and I was somewhat critical of the NAB at one point.

Could you give us a short list of examples in the NAB that upset you?
Click to expand...
Yea, i can for example in Luke 1:28 it says "And coming to her, he said, “Hail favored one! The Lord is with you.” This imo takes away the true meaning of that which in other Bibles reads “Hail Mary, Full of grace” and other things as well. I feel i’ll go with buying a DOUAY-RHEIMS Bible. OH and also i prefer traditional language, must be cause i grew up being Baptist and always reading a King James Version lol
 
sirach2v4 said:
there are lots of discussions of the NAB, but they start up again and again. I haven’t thrown away either of the two copies of it that I have. I am impressed by its translations – and I was somewhat critical of the NAB at one point.

Could you give us a short list of examples in the NAB that upset you?
Click to expand...
One example of questionable NAB translation and notes concerns the Annunciation. Here is Luke1:34 in the NAB:

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

Here is footnote 12:

[34] Mary’s questioning response is a denial of sexual relations and is used by Luke to lead to the angel’s declaration about the Spirit’s role in the conception of this child (Luke 1:35). According to Luke, the virginal conception of Jesus takes place through the holy Spirit, the power of God, and therefore Jesus has a unique relationship to Yahweh: he is Son of God.

Here is the related footnote 9, attached to Luke 1:20 (concerning Zechariah):

[20] You will be speechless and unable to talk : Zechariah’s becoming mute is the sign given in response to his question in v 18. When Mary asks a similar question in Luke1:34, unlike Zechariah who was punished for his doubt, she, in spite of her doubt, is praised and reassured (Luke 1:35-37).

Doubt and denial (as if accused) on Mary’s part. Let’s look at the verse and footnote from the older Confraternity New Testament (never a part of the NAB, unlike the Confraternity Old Testament) :

But Mary said to the angel, “How shall this happen, since I do not know man?”

Confraternity footnote 2:

Mary did not doubt, as did Zachary, that the angel’s words would be fulfilled, but prudently enquired how this would be accomplished, since she had firmly resolved to remain a virgin. The angel explained to her that her conception would be produced by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High.

Mary never doubted God. The use of the word “shall” in the Confraternity New Testament preserves that idea. And notice no extraneous references in the note to the evangelist Luke, as if he is choreographing the scene.

You might also check the NAB’s footnote 3 in Matthew chapter 5. You may be surprised to read that Matthew “probably” composed half of the beatitudes of the sermon on the mount himself!

It is not just the notes that are problematic in the NAB. As shown above, the translation has fundamental flaws as well. Here is a description of another example from an essay by the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus:

In the English tradition, solidly grounded in the Hebrew as well as in Jerome’s Latin translation, Genesis 1 begins with the majestic words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Here is what the NAB offers us: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters”. Compare that with the English tradition, followed almost exactly by Douay-Rheims: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”. Apart from the NAB’s deaf ear to poetry and theological suggestiveness, the very first words of the very first verse of the Bible raise a question of no little importance. Note the difference between “In the beginning God created …” and “In the beginning, when God created…”

“In the beginning God”. Homilies and theological reflections beyond numbering have pondered and probed those four words. It is God and God alone who is in the beginning; He is the source and acting subject of all that follows. If we do not get that right, we will not get right all that follows. Very different is the NAB’s rendering, “In the beginning, when God”. Here there is no invitation to ponder and probe what and who is meant by God. The knowledge is taken for granted; the reader’s attention is immediately turned from the acting subject to His actions. “In the beginning was the Act”. That is not, from the beginning, how Christians have understood the matter. The writer of the fourth Gospel begins with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The great student of the fourth Gospel, C.K. Barrett, writes, “John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous”. That, says Barrett, is the significance of the tie to Genesis 1, “In the beginning God …”

From the apostolic and patristic eras up through magisterial and theological writings of the present day, the parallel between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 has been the source of the most profound reflections. God who was in the beginning is now revealed in Jesus the Christ who is God. The great Augustine, writing in the fifth century, insists upon the parallel wording. As in the beginning is God, so in the beginning is the Word who is God. Here he is preaching against the Arian heresy which claimed that the Son is not truly God but was created as an agent for creating the world. No, insists Augustine: As in the beginning God, so in the beginning the Word. That parallel, so crucial to the entire gospel story, is quite thoroughly obscured by the NAB.
 
Cranch said:
It is not just the notes that are problematic in the NAB. As shown above, the translation has fundamental flaws as well. Here is a description of another example from an essay by the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus:

In the English tradition, solidly grounded in the Hebrew as well as in Jerome’s Latin translation, [etc.]

“In the beginning God”. Homilies and theological reflections beyond numbering have pondered and probed those four words. It is God and God alone who is in the beginning; He is the source and acting subject of all that follows. If we do not get that right, we will not get right all that follows. Very different is the NAB’s rendering, “In the beginning, when God”. Here there is no invitation to ponder and probe what and who is meant by God. The knowledge is taken for granted; the reader’s attention is immediately turned from the acting subject to His actions. “In the beginning was the Act”. That is not, from the beginning, how Christians have understood the matter. The writer of the fourth Gospel begins with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The great student of the fourth Gospel, C.K. Barrett, writes, “John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous”. That, says Barrett, is the significance of the tie to Genesis 1, “In the beginning God …”

From the apostolic and patristic eras up through magisterial and theological writings of the present day, the parallel between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 has been the source of the most profound reflections. God who was in the beginning is now revealed in Jesus the Christ who is God. The great Augustine, writing in the fifth century, insists upon the parallel wording. As in the beginning is God, so in the beginning is the Word who is God. Here he is preaching against the Arian heresy which claimed that the Son is not truly God but was created as an agent for creating the world. No, insists Augustine: As in the beginning God, so in the beginning the Word. That parallel, so crucial to the entire gospel story, is quite thoroughly obscured by the NAB.
Click to expand...
Regarding this whole subject, Neuhaus is being somewhat misleading here – at least from what other sources say.

Even the RSV-2CE offers both translations of Gen 1:1, as simple alternate ways of translating the original Hebrew. The Torah Commentary on Genesis from the Jewish Publication Society has a rather lengthy discussion of the translation.

Everyone learns sooner or later that Hebrew has no punctuation, no lower case, no vowels, no parenthesis or footnotes, etc. It is really too much 1) to take one English translation over the other as definitive, and therefore 2) to invest too much energy at all in a debate about this.

Jewish commentaries spend a LOT of energy on translating the Hebrew and they look at the alternatives NOT as a contest to disapprove of any one or other (unless they have a good technical reason for doing it) but to get as much OUT of ALL of the ways of rendering a verse. This is a frustrating situation for people who don’t think this way or don’t think this is a good way of doing business.

There was a Jewish translation of scriptures around 1917. Then, another translation was undertaken, yielding the 1985 (and latest) English version of the OT, given what the Dead Sea Scrolls yielded in aiding the translation.

Undoubted Neuhaus had his favorite translation, but even the Vatican encourages Catholic scholars to undertake studies in the original languages for ongoing research and hopefully new insights.

On the previous question about the words of Mary and whether she had doubt, again, I am
at the level of amateur Bible study that I appreciate different points of view, rather than bristle at them. That’s why I read the Jewish commentaries – to search out different ponts of view.

One major one I found: book of Ruth. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary says that the marriage of Ruth and Boaz WAS a levirate marriage. The Jewish Publication Society commentary on Ruth says that it WAS NOT a levirate marriage. Ruth is only 76 verses. Read it for yourself. The text seems to say directly that there was NOT anyone to marry Ruth by the levirate rule.

Another variation: Book of Esther. JPS commentary says that this book is a ROLLICKING COMEDY. IT’S HILARIOUS. It all sounds deadly serious, of course – it’s in the Bible! But, why do the Jews think it’s so funny? The events are so improbable, and the situation was simply not as stated. For example, it was not impossible for the king to reverse his previous decree (you gotta read the story to understand this).

In roadrunner cartoons, you could take THEM as serious, with the coyote chasing the roadrunner. But, the book of Esther has reversals as improbable and sudden as the coyote getting hit with a safe, out of the clear blue sky.

The point of the book of Esther, the Jews say, was to SHOW how the feast of Purim came about. This is significant because it was the emergence of (the first of several) Jewish feast that was NOT commanded in the Torah. The feast of Purim is a happy holiday. If you’re not happy on Purim, you haven’t had enough to drink.

As I’ve said a few times, it’s good to have a budget for building up a collection of Bibles and commentaries to get a well-rounded picture of things. The Catholic Church actually encourages and* recommends* “appropriate” use of Jewish scripture study materials.

Opinions are great. Get lots of them.
 
CountrySteve said:
Well, i was wondering whats a good Catholic Bible with good footnotes cause no offense to the New American Bible, but there footnotes stink. :confused:
Click to expand...
Hi, CountrySteve!

My very first Bible (though I did not valued it at the time) was the Jerusalem Bible, Spanish Edition which is a translation of the 1973 French Edition… loads of footnotes + built-in concordance… it is where I picked up my signature (Maran atha)!

…if you could get this edition in English it might be just what you’re looking for!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
sirach2v4 said:
Regarding this whole subject, Neuhaus is being somewhat misleading here – at least from what other sources say.

Even the RSV-2CE offers both translations of Gen 1:1, as simple alternate ways of translating the original Hebrew. The Torah Commentary on Genesis from the Jewish Publication Society has a rather lengthy discussion of the translation.

Everyone learns sooner or later that Hebrew has no punctuation, no lower case, no vowels, no parenthesis or footnotes, etc. It is really too much 1) to take one English translation over the other as definitive, and therefore 2) to invest too much energy at all in a debate about this.

Jewish commentaries spend a LOT of energy on translating the Hebrew and they look at the alternatives NOT as a contest to disapprove of any one or other (unless they have a good technical reason for doing it) but to get as much OUT of ALL of the ways of rendering a verse. This is a frustrating situation for people who don’t think this way or don’t think this is a good way of doing business.

There was a Jewish translation of scriptures around 1917. Then, another translation was undertaken, yielding the 1985 (and latest) English version of the OT, given what the Dead Sea Scrolls yielded in aiding the translation.

Undoubted Neuhaus had his favorite translation, but even the Vatican encourages Catholic scholars to undertake studies in the original languages for ongoing research and hopefully new insights.

On the previous question about the words of Mary and whether she had doubt, again, I am
at the level of amateur Bible study that I appreciate different points of view, rather than bristle at them. That’s why I read the Jewish commentaries – to search out different ponts of view.

One major one I found: book of Ruth. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary says that the marriage of Ruth and Boaz WAS a levirate marriage. The Jewish Publication Society commentary on Ruth says that it WAS NOT a levirate marriage. Ruth is only 76 verses. Read it for yourself. The text seems to say directly that there was NOT anyone to marry Ruth by the levirate rule.

Another variation: Book of Esther. JPS commentary says that this book is a ROLLICKING COMEDY. IT’S HILARIOUS. It all sounds deadly serious, of course – it’s in the Bible! But, why do the Jews think it’s so funny? The events are so improbable, and the situation was simply not as stated. For example, it was not impossible for the king to reverse his previous decree (you gotta read the story to understand this).

In roadrunner cartoons, you could take THEM as serious, with the coyote chasing the roadrunner. But, the book of Esther has reversals as improbable and sudden as the coyote getting hit with a safe, out of the clear blue sky.

The point of the book of Esther, the Jews say, was to SHOW how the feast of Purim came about. This is significant because it was the emergence of (the first of several) Jewish feast that was NOT commanded in the Torah. The feast of Purim is a happy holiday. If you’re not happy on Purim, you haven’t had enough to drink.

As I’ve said a few times, it’s good to have a budget for building up a collection of Bibles and commentaries to get a well-rounded picture of things. The Catholic Church actually encourages and* recommends* “appropriate” use of Jewish scripture study materials.

Opinions are great. Get lots of them.
Click to expand...
…so Saul never intended to hurt David?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
sirach2v4 said:
Regarding this whole subject, Neuhaus is being somewhat misleading here – at least from what other sources say.
Click to expand...
In what way misleading? Fr. Neuhaus is discussing Genesis 1:1 “In the English tradition.” Are there translations outside the English tradition? Obviously. One of them is the subject of his essay. Are you prepared to contest that the English traditional translation is NOT “solidly grounded in the Hebrew as well as in Jerome’s Latin translation”? If not, then I say you have mischaracterized Fr. Neuhaus’ writing. Here is a link to the complete essay. You may be interested to know that where the 1970 NAB has changed since, it is in the direction of Fr. Neuhaus (e.g. Psalm 23, Luke 18:9).
sirach2v4 said:
Even the RSV-2CE offers both translations of Gen 1:1, as simple alternate ways of translating the original Hebrew. The Torah Commentary on Genesis from the Jewish Publication Society has a rather lengthy discussion of the translation.
Click to expand...
Being a Catholic and not a Jew, I wonder how much of that commentary is devoted to the idea that “the parallel between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 has been the source of the most profound reflections.”
sirach2v4 said:
On the previous question about the words of Mary and whether she had doubt, again, I am
at the level of amateur Bible study that I appreciate different points of view, rather than bristle at them. That’s why I read the Jewish commentaries – to search out different ponts of view.
Click to expand...
Not very helpful on that particular topic however. Or whether Mary is the New Eve. Nor I imagine does the JPS commentary spend a lot of time talking about Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Messianic psalms. Jewish theology informs Jewish commentary nevertheless I’m sure it is interesting.
sirach2v4 said:
As I’ve said a few times, it’s good to have a budget for building up a collection of Bibles and commentaries to get a well-rounded picture of things.
Click to expand...
You’re quite right. I will review whether I should pick up a seventh (English) translation. 🙂
sirach2v4 said:
The Catholic Church actually encourages and* recommends* “appropriate” use of Jewish scripture study materials.
Click to expand...
Though we are now far off-topic, I’m interested to see this in context. Do you have a document link? Appropriate use would be wise in keeping with these thoughts from the The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE:

It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolised the Jewish Bible and reading there what no Jew has found. Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins?

In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.
And again:
What distinguishes early Christianity from all these other currents [in Judaism at the time] is the conviction that the eschatological prophetic promises are no longer considered simply as an object of future hope, since their fulfilment had already begun in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. It is about him that the Jewish Scriptures speak, in their whole extension, and it is in light of him that they are to be fully comprehended.
 
CountrySteve said:
Well, i was wondering whats a good Catholic Bible with good footnotes cause no offense to the New American Bible, but there footnotes stink. :confused:
Click to expand...
Well, I use the New American Bible: Revised Edition published by St. Benedict Press and I find that it has pretty good footnotes in it. You may want to check this one out. If you do, and money is not really an object, purchase the ultra-soft edition of it at about 45 dollars because it is well worth it and will last a lifetime.

God bless!
 
I have a Jerusalem Bible from the 60’s and it has lots of good footnotes. Of the several Bibles I have, this is the one with the footnotes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top