Catholic Study Bible

[SavedByFaith]

I know that the Ignatius RSV-CE comes highly recommended but can anyone tell me if it is a study bible or a text only edition? I am interested in finding a good, conservative Catholic Study Bible that has some notes that reference Catholic Doctrine and explains scriptual referrences for same. Any recommendations? Also, does anyone know of a Catholic Bible Commentary that one may access online? Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Navarre Bible has a good rep.
TAN has some good conservative stuff as well
“A Practical Commentary On Holy Scripture” is very good.

 

[SavedByFaith]

Church Militant:

The Navarre Bible has a good rep.

Is this a Bible (all in one cover) or a series of “bibles” each being its own individual book? All I seem to be able to find is a series of “Navarre Bibles”

 

[Axion]

The **Christian Community Bible ** has good Catholic commentary with a Life-Application. rather than academic or Liberal bias.

Read reviews here:-

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/8428520496/qid=1108868416/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-4176903-2632003

 

[Todd_Easton]

SavedByFaith:

Also, does anyone know of a Catholic Bible Commentary that one may access online?

This might help:

Haydock’s Catholic Commentary on the Old Testament (incomplete) and Revelations.

Haydock’s Catholic Commentary on the New Testament (incomplete).

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Todd!
The entire Haydock is available from Catholic Treasures:
they are easily Googled

P.S. Navarre Is indeed still unfinished and in series…
I do have a Haydock…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[adnauseum]

Many will disagree with me here, and I fully understand and sympathize with the disagreement, but I am going to recommend the study version of the New Jerusalem Bible [the one with all the footnotes and commentary].

It sounds like you are aware that many bibles distort scripture or place a liberal spin on it, so if you are already aware of this, you will be on your guard.

What is *good* about the Jerusalem Bible far outweighs what is *bad* about it.

For example, some criticize it for advocating the JEDP theory of the Old Testament. Well, like it or not, the JEDP theory is a mainstream view; it is not fringe, and any educated person should be familiar with it. You won’t find a clearer exposition of it than that of the New Jerusalem Bible.

The footnotes are a treasure trove of good, sound text criticism, and they often give you profound insight into the scriptural passages.

The translation suffers from post-modernist clap trap like “inclusive language” as did many books in the 70s and 80s. But I have learned to see past these embarrassing anachronisms.

I hope you can see I am very conservative in my views. But I am also a scholar at heart, and like St. Thomas Aquinas, I am open to the truth without fear, because nothing true could ever contradict God.

I read the daily readings directly from the Latin Vulgate, and I meditate on the commentary from the Navarre series. But I find myself often coming back to the New Jerusalem Bible for the Psalms, and the Proverbs, and the Wisdom literature; because it really is a work of profound literary and academic achievement despite its many flaws.

 

[serendipity]

adnauseum:

Many will disagree with me here, and I fully understand and sympathize with the disagreement, but I am going to recommend the study version of the New Jerusalem Bible [the one with all the footnotes and commentary].

It sounds like you are aware that many bibles distort scripture or place a liberal spin on it, so if you are already aware of this, you will be on your guard.

What is good about the Jerusalem Bible far outweighs what is bad about it.

I have found the New Jerusalem Bible the beststudy version too. When reading David’ Currie’s book on the rapture, there are instances when he says things like “Paul uses the word for Temple only to refer to Christian sources of worship in the New Testament. And there are two words that refer to temple; one usually refers to the Jewish Temple and the other the places of worship, but the English translation of the Bible (revised standard version Catholic edition and all Protestant editions) translate both words as Temple, which leads some to the (unCatholic) conclusion that a new Temple needs to be built in Jerusalem before the second coming of Christ can occur.” Then I looked in the RSV-CE and the New American Bible, and both used the words Temple with no explanation not, but the New Jerulaem Bible translated to word to something like holy sanctuary, which is a more accurate meaning of Paul’s uisage of the term.

There are several other instances where rough translations led to confused thinking, and the Jerusalem Bible did not have them other, but used better words, which makes me have more confidence in using it. The study notes are great (much better in the hardback than paperback version; I bought a paperback version on ebay and was diasppointed that it did not have the same information because I thought that a paperpack version meant the same edition but in soft cover). It always cites prallels of texts that exist elsewhere throughout the entire Bible, old and new testament, whereas other versions tend to cite only parallels in the gospel passages or the sources of the exact quotes Jesus or Paul (or anyone else but these two do the most often) use that evoke Old Testament scripture.

I think the fotn is easy to read, and I make plenty of use of the wide margines, where I make insert notes from other Biblical analyses in my Bible (like stuff from Damasus Winzen, Scott Hahn, Davide Currie, Patrick Madrid, Dave Armstrong, a few saints; ect).

 

[Todd_Easton]

SavedByFaith:

Also, does anyone know of a Catholic Bible Commentary that one may access online?

St. Thomas Aquinas’ patristic commentary on the Gospels, called Catena Aurea (Golden Chain), is available at here. (incomplete; the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are currently (2/21/2005) available.)

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

adnauseum:

Many will disagree with me here, and I fully understand and sympathize with the disagreement, but I am going to recommend the study version

of the New Jerusalem Bible [the one with all the footnotes and commentary].The owner of our local Catholic book store also recommended the New Jerusalem Bible to me as her favorite. Based on what I’m reading here I will give it a good look.

For example, some criticize it for advocating the JEDP

theory of the Old Testament. Well, like it or not, the JEDP theory is a mainstream view; it is not fringe, and any educated person should be familiar with it. You won’t find a clearer exposition of it than that of the New Jerusalem Bible.I must not be very educated. What is this JEDP theory?

The translation suffers from post-modernist clap trap like “inclusive language” as did many books in the 70s and 80s. But I have learned to see past these embarrassing anachronisms.

I picked up an NRSV-CE. It has all the inclusive language. That didn’t bother me as much as the butchering of Gn 1:1 and some other traditional passages. As long as the inclusive language expresses what the writer actually meant then I’m okay with it. Most of us aren’t scholars so we need a Catholic bible we can trust.

I hope you can see I am very conservative in my views. But I am also a scholar at heart, and like St. Thomas Aquinas, I am open to the truth without fear, because nothing true could ever contradict God.

 

[MaggieOH]

adnauseum:

Many will disagree with me here, and I fully understand and sympathize with the disagreement, but I am going to recommend the study version of the New Jerusalem Bible [the one with all the footnotes and commentary].

It sounds like you are aware that many bibles distort scripture or place a liberal spin on it, so if you are already aware of this, you will be on your guard.

What is good about the Jerusalem Bible far outweighs what is bad about it.

For example, some criticize it for advocating the JEDP theory of the Old Testament. Well, like it or not, the JEDP theory is a mainstream view; it is not fringe, and any educated person should be familiar with it. You won’t find a clearer exposition of it than that of the New Jerusalem Bible.

The footnotes are a treasure trove of good, sound text criticism, and they often give you profound insight into the scriptural passages.

The translation suffers from post-modernist clap trap like “inclusive language” as did many books in the 70s and 80s. But I have learned to see past these embarrassing anachronisms.

I hope you can see I am very conservative in my views. But I am also a scholar at heart, and like St. Thomas Aquinas, I am open to the truth without fear, because nothing true could ever contradict God.

I read the daily readings directly from the Latin Vulgate, and I meditate on the commentary from the Navarre series. But I find myself often coming back to the New Jerusalem Bible for the Psalms, and the Proverbs, and the Wisdom literature; because it really is a work of profound literary and academic achievement despite its many flaws.

I agree with the endorsement of the Jerusalem Bible, though I do think the notes are a little bit on the scant side. The Christian Community Bible Catholic Pastoral Edition is far better with the notes.

I have a variety of these Bibles, and I do find myself heading towards my favourite few on most occasions. I have been purchasing the Navarre as it has become available, but my finances are non-existant at the moment due to lack of paid work. It is well worth having the Navarre commentary. I find it is excellent for reflection and there is lots and lots of information.

My personal view is that all commentaries other than the NAB commentary are satisfactory. If you want a study Bible that has notes and questions for study then it is better to hang tight for the Ignatius Study Bible when it becomes available. The notes are quite extensive and I must add comprehensive.

BTW I agree with the JEPD because it is a more accurate way of seeing the Old Testament. On the other hand the Q theory is just not on.

MaggieOH

 

[philipmarus]

I just got my RSV-CE from Scepter Press with Leather binding. What I wanted to pass on is this:

The box came with a catalog. Apparently
the NAVARRE Bible - Major Prophets will be released
in June 2005 which will include

-Isaiah
-Jermiah
-Lamentations
-Baruch
-Ezekiel
-Daniel

 

[MaggieOH]

philipmarus:

I just got my RSV-CE from Scepter Press with Leather binding. What I wanted to pass on is this:

The box came with a catalog. Apparently
the NAVARRE Bible - Major Prophets will be released
in June 2005 which will include

-Isaiah
-Jermiah
-Lamentations
-Baruch
-Ezekiel
-Daniel

I hope that I am in paid employment when this hits Australia

MaggieOH

 

[SavedByFaith]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

I must not be very educated. What is this JEDP theory?

I must agree - what is JEDP Theory, I am coming from a lifetime of Protestantism and have never heard that term. I know I could Google it, but that usually results in a plethora of contradicting views that just confuses me. I have gotten good, conservative opinions on this forum and would prefer to continue that routine. Would someone care to address this for me?

 

[Absalom]

I think the JEPD theory is the idea that the Peneteuch was actually written by four different sources (Yahwist being one, I think; and Priestly(?) being another, I think) . . . I know I’m screwing up the names but I don’t have my NJB on hand right now. The New American Bible also outlines the theory. I believe this theory explains why there are two differing accounts of creation in Genesis. Anyway, a lot of people vehemently oppose any suggestion that Moses didn’t write the entire Penteteuch, but I personally have no problem with this notion.

 

[Michael_C]

Absalom!:

I think the JEPD theory is the idea that the Peneteuch was actually written by four different sources (Yahwist being one, I think; and Priestly(?) being another, I think) . . . I know I’m screwing up the names but I don’t have my NJB on hand right now. The New American Bible also outlines the theory. I believe this theory explains why there are two differing accounts of creation in Genesis. Anyway, a lot of people vehemently oppose any suggestion that Moses didn’t write the entire Penteteuch, but I personally have no problem with this notion.

Hi Absalom, I just started learning about this theory my class on thursday. It’s very interesting. It also helps explain the two creation stories in a row opening in Genesis. I’m no authority since I just started learning it last week. I have alot of questions…