Douay Rheims questions

[floresco]

You’ll have a hard time convincing me, and the readers of this thread, that the Jewish scribes made deliberate and frequent scribal errors.

Indeed it would be difficult for me to make a case for a position that I have neither stated nor believe. But perhaps I can convince people of what I actually do think. I am saying that, even with the great care taken by Jewish scribes, some scribal errors occurred. These errors created variant texts. Later, when given a choice between these variant texts, other Jewish scribes prefered texts which support Jewish interpretations rather than Catholic interpretations.

Some people in this thread seem to have the assumption that a priori Hebrew sources are more accurate than the Vulgate. Not only does this position contradict the Church teaching that the Vulgate is the official form of Scripture, it is not necessarily supported by scholarship. Both our faith and our reason allow us to give priority to the Vulgate when it contradicts Hebrew sources.

 

[crazzeto]

Nice to see your posts on this topic.

Very refreshing

Of course the surviving Greek and Hebrew texts do not, by any means, predate the surviving vulgate.

 

[MarkThompson]

Of course the surviving Greek and Hebrew texts do not, by any means, predate the surviving vulgate.

That is not correct.

 

[GerardMajella]

These errors created variant texts. Later, when given a choice between these variant texts, other Jewish scribes prefered texts which support Jewish interpretations rather than Catholic interpretations.

Explain. This is pretty vague and ambiguous. When exactly did Jewish scribes make a “choice” between texts? And which specific texts are you describing? Who were these “other” Jewish scribes?

According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, as I quoted earlier from the Oxford Companion to the Bible, any discrepancies found were most often differences between two “variant” texts — not scribal errors as you are suggesting.

It would be helpful if you could direct the readers of this thread to a historical, academic, or even Catholic document that clarifies your statements, and gives credence to your assertions.

Let me be clear: It is my assertion that the Jewish scribes were quite meticulous and careful in transcribing the Torah. The support and evidence that I have for this assertion is the Dead Sea Scrolls, as I noted earlier.

Some people in this thread seem to have the assumption that a priori Hebrew sources are more accurate than the Vulgate. Not only does this position contradict the Church teaching that the Vulgate is the official form of Scripture, it is not necessarily supported by scholarship. Both our faith and our reason allow us to give priority to the Vulgate when it contradicts Hebrew sources.

I am not speaking theologically, but rather academically. Original sources are always more accurate than translations. Whether you are translating an original German text into English, or a Hebrew text into Latin, it does not matter. Information is always lost in translation due to the nature of translation itself.

If your goal is to truly understand any particular text, it always help to look at original source material and not a translation. Hence, we see these obscure passages in the Douay-Rheims that are completely insensible due to a translation from Hebrew to Latin to English, but if you look at the original Hebrew, the passage is quite clear and understandable.

 

[floresco]

Explain. This is pretty vague and ambiguous. When exactly did Jewish scribes make a “choice” between texts? And which specific texts are you describing? Who were these “other” Jewish scribes?

According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, as I quoted earlier from the Oxford Companion to the Bible, any discrepancies found were most often differences between two “variant” texts — not scribal errors as you are suggesting.

When there are manuscripts that are different from each other these are called variant texts. One reason that these variations occur is that scribes copy things differently. If a scribe has two or more variant texts available to him, he has to choose which one he is going to put in the copy he is making. Scribal errors are a cause of variant texts. Your comment on the Oxford Companion is like saying, “His red hair was due to hair colour differences not genetics.”

It would be helpful if you could direct the readers of this thread to a historical, academic, or even Catholic document that clarifies your statements, and gives credence to your assertions.

The scholarly work that I could find was too technical for most of the readers here to follow (and it assumes the reader knows Hebrew.) I suggest reading the wikipedia article on “Masoretic text” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text Unfortunately it lacks credibility but it would give people a better grasp on the subject.

The Masoretic Text (MT) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible regarded almost universally as the official version of the Tanakh.[citation needed] It defines not just the books of the Jewish canon, but also the precise letter-text of the biblical books in Judaism, as well as their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles.[1] In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others.

Let me be clear: It is my assertion that the Jewish scribes were quite meticulous and careful in transcribing the Torah. The support and evidence that I have for this assertion is the Dead Sea Scrolls, as I noted earlier.

Have you checked that personally? Here is the experience of someone who checked out this claim for himself:

I have read the above quote recently and have also heard very similar statements in chat rooms, forums, bulletin boards, web sites and other publications in the past. While I have reviewed several passages of the book of Isaiah to compare the text of the Great Isaiah scroll found in the Dead Sea Caves with the Masoretic text, I decided to put the above quotation to the test. I began with verse 1 of chapter 53 and found that it did not take long to find 17 letters that varied from the Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text. In just the first 3 verses of chapter 53, a total of 23 words in the Masoretic text and 24 words in the Great Isaiah scroll, I found 19 letters that were different between the two texts.
ancient-hebrew.org/31_masorite.html

I am not speaking theologically, but rather academically. Original sources are always more accurate than translations. Whether you are translating an original German text into English, or a Hebrew text into Latin, it does not matter. Information is always lost in translation due to the nature of translation itself.

If your goal is to truly understand any particular text, it always help to look at original source material and not a translation. Hence, we see these obscure passages in the Douay-Rheims that are completely insensible due to a translation from Hebrew to Latin to English, but if you look at the original Hebrew, the passage is quite clear and understandable.

We do not have any original sources of the Bible. Everything we have is copies of copies of copies. Some of these are copies of the original languages and some are copies of translation. Being in the original language is no guarantee that something accurately reflects the original.

It is a characteristic of scribal transcription to take ambiguous passages and rewrite in a way that is clearer. Clarity is not necessarily a sign of being close to the original.

 

[Jakub]

Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint ; The Song of Songs 3:5…

• I have charged you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the powers and by the virtues of the field, that ye rouse not nor awake my love, until he please.*
  **
  **
  **

 

[GerardMajella]

The Masoretic Text (MT) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible regarded almost universally as the official version of the Tanakh.[citation needed] It defines not just the books of the Jewish canon, but also the precise letter-text of the biblical books in Judaism, as well as their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles.[1] In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others.

Here you have the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanach (Jewish Old Testament) being handed down generation after generation nearly identically dating to 200 B.C.E.! This only goes to support what I have been saying from the get-go: That the Jewish scribes were quite meticulous in their transcribing of the Old Testament.

Are there non-authoritative texts of the Tanach that differ from the Masoretic text? Of course. That, however, does not negate the fact that, for centuries, the Jewish scribes did a remarkable job of transcribing the Tanach.

Have you checked that personally?

No. I am relying on credible academics with much greater expertise than my own. It would be interesting to see how your cited example would be debated by Oxford theologians, however. Nonetheless, I would stake the reputation of an Oxford scholar against a quote on the Internet any day of the week.

We do not have any original sources of the Bible.

You’re missing my point entirely. Any translation from one language to another, whether from German to English, Latin to English, etc. results in errors, omissions, and mistranslations — just by the very nature of the process of translation itself.

It is always best to seek out and read texts in their original language and context, versus reading a translation of the original text. I am speaking in academic, not theological terms. The same concept applies to whether you are reading a French novel, Franz Kafka, or the Bible. It does not matter – The concept remains the same. Go to the oldest, most original source you can find, and, when possible, avoid reading translations of translations lest you lose content and understanding of the original meaning.

The translation from Hebrew to Latin to English is quite a stretch. Best to dive direct into the Hebrew (if you are able to do so), then to read a translation of a translation. Much is lost in the process, as we see quite clearly – and evidently – by the biblical passage cited in this thread with a multitude of misinterpretations.

 

[floresco]

Here you have the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanach (Jewish Old Testament) being handed down generation after generation nearly identically dating to 200 B.C.E.! This only goes to support what I have been saying from the get-go: That the Jewish scribes were quite meticulous in their transcribing of the Old Testament.

Are there non-authoritative texts of the Tanach that differ from the Masoretic text? Of course. That, however, does not negate the fact that, for centuries, the Jewish scribes did a remarkable job of transcribing the Tanach.

We have no way of determining which, if any, versions of Tanach found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were considered authoritative at the time they were written. (When it says “authoritative” that means for Jews, not Catholics. The authoritative text for Catholics is the Vulgate.) All we know is that some of them matched the Masoretic text fairly closely and others did not. And even for the ones that matched closely, this only applies to the consonants.

Hebrew Scriptures were originally written with consonants only. This is the form of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew language itself is structured so that most words have a three consonant root that contains the basic meaning. Variations on the is meaning are indicated by vowels. For example, by changing the vowels with the “love” root, we can get words that mean various tenses of “love” (the verb) “love” (the abstract noun) “beloved” (feminine) and “beloved” (masculine).

When the Masoretes added vowels to the Scriptures (hundreds of years after the time of Jerome) this gave them huge control over its meaning. And they did not always agree among the themselves about what vowels to add. The Hebrew Bible (and Hebrew based translations) just aren’t as reliable as you think they are.

No. I am relying on credible academics with much greater expertise than my own. It would be interesting to see how your cited example would be debated by Oxford theologians, however. Nonetheless, I would stake the reputation of an Oxford scholar against a quote on the Internet any day of the week.

And if I cite a book you will be able to say that you do not have access to the book and cannot check the context. Even though you asked for evidence to back up my position, it looks like nothing I present will be acceptable to you. I studied Scripture and textual criticism with world-class scholars of the subject. I have some idea of what I am writing about.

It is always best to seek out and read texts in their original language and context, versus reading a translation of the original text. .

This is not true. It is often best, but it depends on the text in question. There are other issues involved in textual criticism of which you appear to be unaware.

 

[floresco]

The translation from Hebrew to Latin to English is quite a stretch. Best to dive direct into the Hebrew (if you are able to do so), then to read a translation of a translation. Much is lost in the process, as we see quite clearly – and evidently – by the biblical passage cited in this thread with a multitude of misinterpretations.

Since my post was getting quite long, I will give this point a post of its own. The specific passage cited - with the uncertainty over using the word “love” or “beloved” - in this thread shows the limitations of the Masoretic text. In its original consonantal form, the Hebrew word for “love” and “beloved” are identical. The vowels that make the distinction were added in around the 10th century AD. Jerome was writing over 500 years before that. When word meanings depends on vowels (as it does in this case) the Vulgate is the older source.

I’m not sure what you are calling a misinterpretation. Some of your earlier comments sound like you think that Jewish interpretations are more accurate than Catholic ones. If you do indeed think that, you are incorrect.

 

[GerardMajella]

We have no way of determining which, if any, versions of Tanach found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were considered authoritative at the time they were written. (When it says “authoritative” that means for Jews, not Catholics. The authoritative text for Catholics is the Vulgate.) All we know is that some of them matched the Masoretic text fairly closely and others did not. And even for the ones that matched closely, this only applies to the consonants.

No one has suggested that one Tanach version from the Dead Sea Scrolls was more “authoritative” to the Jews than another at the time it was written.

Nonetheless, the very fact that even some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are close matches to the current authoritative Jewish Tanach, only gives credence to my assertion that the Jewish scribes were meticulous in their transcription methods.

While I find your comments regarding consonants interesting, and even notable, it says nothing about the actual* actions* of the Jewish scribes in their concerted and genuine attempt to maintain their religious texts with as few errors as possible. The Jewish scribes tried to minimize scribal errors as much as possible.

And if I cite a book you will be able to say that you do not have access to the book and cannot check the context.

No, go ahead and cite a book. I would be quite interested in academic, historical, or Catholic texts on the subject matter under discussion.

This is not true. It is often best, but it depends on the text in question. There are other issues involved in textual criticism of which you appear to be unaware.

Looking at original source material – regardless of the text in question — is, as you state it, oftentimes “best”. I am simply making the suggestion and recommendation to look at original source material for clues to understanding an obscure passage that has been translated from another language. Meaning can get lost in translation.

I’m not sure what you are calling a misinterpretation. Some of your earlier comments sound like you think that Jewish interpretations are more accurate than Catholic ones. If you do indeed think that, you are incorrect.

I am not referring to accuracy. I am referring to understanding the meaning of a particular text through the use of original sources.

My personal opinion is that when you look at the Douay-Rheims-Haydock quote:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes and the harts of the fields, that you stir not up, nor awake my beloved, till she please.

…that this translation from Hebrew to Latin to English, is much more difficult to understand than the Hebrew-English translation from the traditional Jewish Siddur:

I adjure you, O Nations who are destined to ascend to Jerusalem — for if you violate your oath you will become as defenseless as gazelles or hinds of the field — if you dare provoke God to hate me or disturb His love for me while He still desires it.

As a lay reader reading the Douay-Rheims-Haydock quote noted above, you might ask yourself, “Who are the daughters of Jerusalem?”, and “Who is “my beloved”?”

By contrast, the Hebrew-English translation makes it pointedly clear that the daughters of Jerusalem are the non-Jewish nations, and the “Beloved” refers to God. The meaning is clear, concise, and straightforward.

 

[floresco]

My personal opinion is that when you look at the Douay-Rheims-Haydock quote:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes and the harts of the fields, that you stir not up, nor awake my beloved, till she please.

…that this translation from Hebrew to Latin to English, is much more difficult to understand than the Hebrew-English translation from the traditional Jewish Siddur:

I adjure you, O Nations who are destined to ascend to Jerusalem — for if you violate your oath you will become as defenseless as gazelles or hinds of the field — if you dare provoke God to hate me or disturb His love for me while He still desires it.

As a lay reader reading the Douay-Rheims-Haydock quote noted above, you might ask yourself, “Who are the daughters of Jerusalem?”, and “Who is “my beloved”?”

By contrast, the Hebrew-English translation makes it pointedly clear that the daughters of Jerusalem are the non-Jewish nations, and the “Beloved” refers to God. The meaning is clear, concise, and straightforward.

I am not very interested in Jewish commentaries on and interpretations of Scripture. I am Catholic. Jewish ideas do not somehow become right because they are based on the “original language”. Scripture comes from the Church. The Church set the canon. The Church decides which version is authoritative. The Church decides the interpretation. There is no way that I am taking Jewish understandings in preference to Catholic ones (often written by saints). I am not looking for “clear, concise and straightforward”. I am looking for true and for truth I go to the Church.

(I’ll try to find some book citations for you next time I am at the university library. I no longer have my old books on textual criticism.)

 

[floresco]

My personal opinion is that when you look at the Douay-Rheims-Haydock quote:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes and the harts of the fields, that you stir not up, nor awake my beloved, till she please.

…that this translation from Hebrew to Latin to English, is much more difficult to understand than the Hebrew-English translation from the traditional Jewish Siddur:

I adjure you, O Nations who are destined to ascend to Jerusalem — for if you violate your oath you will become as defenseless as gazelles or hinds of the field — if you dare provoke God to hate me or disturb His love for me while He still desires it.

As a lay reader reading the Douay-Rheims-Haydock quote noted above, you might ask yourself, “Who are the daughters of Jerusalem?”, and “Who is “my beloved”?”

By contrast, the Hebrew-English translation makes it pointedly clear that the daughters of Jerusalem are the non-Jewish nations, and the “Beloved” refers to God. The meaning is clear, concise, and straightforward.

I am not very interested in Jewish commentaries on and interpretations of Scripture. I am Catholic. Jewish ideas do not somehow become right because they are based on the “original language”. Scripture comes from the Church. The Church set the canon. The Church decides which version is authoritative. The Church decides the interpretation. There is no way that I am taking Jewish understandings in preference to Catholic ones (often written by saints). I am not looking for “clear, concise and straightforward”. I am looking for true and for truth I go to the Church.

(I’ll try to find some book citations for you next time I am at the university library. I no longer have my old books on textual criticism.)

 

[GerardMajella]

I am not very interested in Jewish commentaries on and interpretations of Scripture. I am Catholic. Jewish ideas do not somehow become right because they are based on the “original language”. Scripture comes from the Church. The Church set the canon. The Church decides which version is authoritative. The Church decides the interpretation. There is no way that I am taking Jewish understandings in preference to Catholic ones (often written by saints). I am not looking for “clear, concise and straightforward”. I am looking for true and for truth I go to the Church.

Catholic theologians do study Jewish commentaries and interpretations on the Old Testament. In fact, many Catholic theologians make it a practice to learn Hebrew, and study the Tanach and Talmud to gain a better understanding of the Old Testament. (The quote from the Song of Songs, by the way, was from the traditional Jewish Siddur, not a Jewish commentary.)

In some respects, the concept is similar to “interdisciplinary studies”, where a scholar looks at a particular subject area from multiple perspectives and academic disciplines.

In fact, the Hebrew-English translation given above does not conflict with Catholicism in any manner. It only enhances the reader’s ability to understand the text more clearly. The only possible argument you might make regarding the quotation from the Siddur, would be in regards to Christian symbolism, and there are plenty of thoroughly Catholic resources that can explain the symbolism of the Song of Songs from a Catholic perspective.

As I stated in an earlier post – There are multiple facets to understanding Scripture. You can learn the literal/original meaning and historical context, while also learning the symbolism, allegories, and metaphors in Holy Writ.

 

[floresco]

Catholic theologians do study Jewish commentaries and interpretations on the Old Testament. In fact, many Catholic theologians make it a practice to learn Hebrew, and study the Tanach and Talmud to gain a better understanding of the Old Testament. (The quote from the Song of Songs, by the way, was from the traditional Jewish Siddur, not a Jewish commentary.)

In some respects, the concept is similar to “interdisciplinary studies”, where a scholar looks at a particular subject area from multiple perspectives and academic disciplines.

In fact, the Hebrew-English translation given above does not conflict with Catholicism in any manner. It only enhances the reader’s ability to understand the text more clearly. The only possible argument you might make regarding the quotation from the Siddur, would be in regards to Christian symbolism, and there are plenty of thoroughly Catholic resources that can explain the symbolism of the Song of Songs from a Catholic perspective.

As I stated in an earlier post – There are multiple facets to understanding Scripture. You can learn the literal/original meaning and historical context, while also learning the symbolism, allegories, and metaphors in Holy Writ.

I understand the value of learning Hebrew. That’s why I learned it. But you seem to be paying more attention to Jewish sources than to Catholic ones. And you have seemed to imply that the Jewish ones are valuable or even better because they are based on the original language. That just isn’t good reasoning. (I’m sorry if I am being too blunt with you. I cannot think of a more tactful way to put this.)

By the way, the word “Tanach” is the Jewish name for the Old Testament. It is an acronym using the initial letters for the Hebrew words meaning Law, Prophets, Writings (Torah, Naviim, Ketuvim) the three divisions of the Jewish Bible. “Old Testament” is a Christian name for that part of the Bible and has implications that many Jews find offensive. Thus Jewish scholars tend to prefer the term “Tanach”.

 

[JackQ]

O my luve is like a red, red rose
That’s newly sprung in June;
My love is like the melodie
That’s sweetly played in tune.

As fair art thou, my bonny lass,
So deep in luve am I;
And I will luve thee still, my dear,
Till a’ the seas gang dry.

Till a’ the seas gang dry, my dear,
And the rocks melt wi’ the sun;
I will luve thee still, my dear,
While the sands o’ life shall run.

And fare thee weel, my only love!
And fare thee weel, awhile!
And I will come again, my love
Though it were ten thousand mile. --Robert Burns

 

[awatkins69]

I might be wrong, but I’ve noticed that my Latina Vulgata Sacra, when compared with the Greek Critical Edition, is REALLY REALLY accurate. In fact, you can usually just copy the Vulgate word for word right above the Greek. So I think that if we had a faithful translation of the Latin we’d have a faithful translation of the Greek.

 

[GerardMajella]

But you seem to be paying more attention to Jewish sources than to Catholic ones. And you have seemed to imply that the Jewish ones are valuable or even better because they are based on the original language. That just isn’t good reasoning.

I study both. Raised a devout Catholic, I have a pretty good handle on the New Testament, but not the Old Testament. Unfortunately, this problem is all too common for many Catholics.

When it comes to Old Testament commentaries, however, I do find the Jewish Sages to be invaluable. They are able to fill in the gaps, provide historical context, and decipher hidden meanings of Hebrew, unlike many of the other commentaries I have read.

Right now, I just finished reading a particularly intriguing Orthodox Jewish commentary on Genesis and Exodus, and am working through Leviticus. The commentary is excellent, complete with very detailed graphics on the construction of the Tabernacle, attire of the Kohen, Ark of the Covenant, etc. It’s truly an academic masterpiece unlike any other commentary I have read. (I would also point out that the commentary, as noted above, is Orthodox Jewish, so it takes a pretty strict, conservative, and literal Jewish perspective, as compared to other divisions of Judaism that would be less so (Reform Judaism, etc.).)

I have only noticed a couple of references in the commentary that might (potentially) conflict with traditional Catholic doctrine. And, naturally, the Jewish Sages are not interpreting the text in messianic terms, but more in historical, and explanatory terms. Given the archaic language of the Old Testament, having a good Jewish commentary handy has been invaluable for me. I can finally make sense of the text in plain language I actually understand.

I am not yet at the point where I am ready to tackle the more advanced, symbolic, allegorical, and metaphorical commentaries on the Old Testament. At this stage, I am simply looking at the basics – who, what, where, when, why, and how. As I have made mention elsewhere in this thread, I have not found the Douay-Rheims-Haydock to be able to provide the same level of explanation and context that I need at this point in my studies.

What is intriguing to me, given my Catholic background, is my ability to read the Jewish Sages and interpret various passages and commentary in a Catholic light. For example, in part of the commentary, the Jewish Sages make mention of the “wave service”, which involved the Kohen lifting a sacrifice (animal, etc.) in all directions (north, south, east, west, etc.), not unlike the Sign of the Cross that a Catholic priest makes during the Tridentine Mass…!

Is it possible that our ancient Jewish brethren were making the Sign of the Cross in the days of Moses during their sacrificial rites? The description is close, but slightly differing from the Sign of the Cross we use today. Nevertheless, it’s a remarkably unusual similarity.

Or, take the daily Jewish ritual of washing of the hands – pouring water over each hand three times – as is the daily Jewish morning ritual. Three times…The Trinity? You get my drift. The sometimes surreal commonalities are striking.

We have to remember, Jesus was a Jew. In the Old Testament, if carefully studied, we can begin to see the foundations of how the Catholic Church originated, and where the foundations of our liturgy, rituals, and prayers originated. It’s a fascinating study.

It’s also helped me to have a deeper appreciation for our Jewish brethren. Despite our differences theologically, we do have a lot in common.

 

[floresco]

I have only noticed a couple of references in the commentary that might (potentially) conflict with traditional Catholic doctrine. And, naturally, the Jewish Sages are not interpreting the text in messianic terms, but more in historical, and explanatory terms. Given the archaic language of the Old Testament, having a good Jewish commentary handy has been invaluable for me. I can finally make sense of the text in plain language I actually understand.

If you keep immersing yourself in Jewish thought, you will become less and less able to notice the places where it conflicts with Catholic doctrine. I strongly suggest that you balance your studies with some Catholic sources. If you want an Old Testament with Catholic commentary, I’ve heard good things about the Navarre Bible. It incorporates modern scholarship while remaining orthodox. It is pretty expensive though. Or if you want an introductory work on Catholic O.T. theology, try Theology of the Old Testament by Paul Heinisch. You can find used copies of this around for very good prices.

 

[GerardMajella]

If you keep immersing yourself in Jewish thought, you will become less and less able to notice the places where it conflicts with Catholic doctrine.

The particular commentary I am reading doesn’t drift into heated theological debate with Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. It’s much better at providing historical context, background information, and expansion of the narrative.

An obscure or confusing passage is given additional detail, explanation, and context. For the lay reader, unfamiliar with the Old Testament, this kind of commentary enriches the reading experience.

The Jews take the Torah very seriously, and have a great deal of insight into the Mosaic Law not found elsewhere.

I strongly suggest that you balance your studies with some Catholic sources.

I have the Douay-Rheims Haydock, St. Jerome’s Commentary on the Bible, 40 volumes from the Church Fathers, and various other resources. I will look into your recommendations - Thank you.

 

[floresco]

The particular commentary I am reading doesn’t drift into heated theological debate with Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. It’s much better at providing historical context, background information, and expansion of the narrative.

Even when it is not explicitly discussing theology there are underlying assumptions that just aren’t compatible with Catholicism. For us the Old Testament is both understood through the New and also points towards it. There is a connection in both directions. For us, it is not something that exists in isolation. This is not part of Jewish thinking. Furthermore we understand Scripture as coming to us through the Church, which obviously Jews do not.

Even though these sorts of assumptions might not be expressed, they are always there and can interfere with your ability to think with the mind of the Church. If you are going to be studying Jewish sources, it should probably be under the supervision of a spiritual director who can be watching out for it having a negative effect on your faith.