How do you explain Exodus 4 verse 24?

[bonaventura]

Exodus 4:19-28 (New International Version)

 19 Now the LORD had said to Moses in Midian, "Go back to Egypt, for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead."

20 So Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt. And he took the staff of God in his hand.
21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’ "
24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Him/Moses/Moses’ Son?} a] and was about to kill him.
25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched {Moses’} feet with it. **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 4:19-28;&version=31;#fen-NIV-1627b”)] “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said.
26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)
27 The LORD said to Aaron, “Go into the desert to meet Moses.” So he met Moses at the mountain of God and kissed him. 28 Then Moses told Aaron everything the LORD had sent him to say, and also about all the miraculous signs he had commanded him to perform.
So, the Hebrew, in verse 25 doesn’t say clearly whether it’s talking about Moses, or the son of Moses. Why does God intend to kill “him”, “him” being Moses if you believe the NIV translation, or possibly moses’ son?

I am stumped. This is one of the verses that anti-bible types point at with derision. I found this article on another website. I’ve been reading my bible since I was a little kid but I never noticed this story before.

Warren

 

[Eucharisted]

Here’s my thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=338612

 

[Lancer]

First…as best as I can determine…search for insight…it is not clear at all.

Origen (185-232 AD Alexandria–one of the Fathers of the Church) has no clear answer…he asks the same questions you are asking…he does make a vague reference to Leviticus 16 (esp 16:8 and the sin offerings)…but it is not very clear to me…unless the sin offerings are a type of “original sin” removal offerings??

Saint Augustine (in his writing on Questions on Exodus II) has no clear answer…“whom did the angel want to kill…Moses or the child…it appears the child because his mother Zipporah circumcises the child and the angle relents.” Augustine relates some of these words to words found in the psalms. He simply calls it a scriptural problem!

I like this one best:
John Cragen of Liturgical Press says that maybe as a Hebrew born and raised in Egypt…Moses and his family must be “purified” to be part of God’s chosen people…and “circumcision” is their “baptism” into God’s family of chosen people. This also portends to how serious God takes this “sacrament of circumcision” and its requirement to be part of his adopted family…without it you will die. Later, Jesus introduces the real sacrament of baptism…and says to Nicodemus that without baptism of spirit and water…you will not see the Kingdom of God (John 3:3 & 5).

He also relates episode of Jacob wrestling with a “an angel of the Lord”…(Gen: 32:-24-32)…with this episode of Moses’ encounter with “an angel of the Lord”…they are both on a mission for the Lord but have to encounter problems – Jacob and Esau – and – Moses and Pharaoh. The key between the two men…they are both on their way to the promised land.

Genesis 32:24-32 (New International Version)

24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.

Thanks for asking the question…it really stumped me…but I believe that we are in good company…a saint…a father of the Church…and a biblical scholar!

Pax Christi

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The Septuagint makes sense here where the Hebrew does not.
In Exodus 4:25 – it references the miracle of the parting of the waters in the blood of the foreskin of the child. What Sephora is saying is that God made the blood stop flowing while she circumcised the child.

It prefigures the baptism of the Israelites walking through the sea, and especially when they cross the Jordan river on their entry into the promised land.

The explanation for why the angel of God (LXX Exodu 4:24 εγενετο δε εν τη οδω εν τω καταλυματι συνηντησεν αυτω αγγελος κυριου και εζητει αυτον αποκτειναι ) tries to kill “him” is apparently back in Exodus 4:22.

It refers to both Moses and his firstborn son. Pharaoh, recall is slain by drowning in the waters because he did not let God’s firstborn son Go.
Here in this passage, you need to recall that circumcision is how Israel became God’s firstborn son – eg: through Abraham.

What has happened here is that Moses has not let his own son go to serve God (worship him) – for the first act of worship is the circumcision.

The child itself is spared by the circumcision – and the blood standing still ties it to the baptism (going down) into the watery bed without causing death.

Many of the Egyptians are actually Hagar’s offspring through Ishmael.
There is some indication that Hagar’s family line (and thus Egyptians) circumcise at a later time because Ishmael was circumcised at age 13.
Thus it is, that since Hagar was cut off from the promise – hers is not the firstborn of God – and thus by NOT circumcising his son, moses is symbolically allowing his son to be the same as Ishmael.

In what is to come, God’s angel would be in Egypt to destroy the firstborn of the foreigners. There is a mismatch between the covenant of God, and the practice of Moses. Thus God informs him of it BEFORE he enters Egypt as part of the sign.

Baptism is something the parents are responsible for. If the parents (or Govt. leaders) do not speak for the child entering God’s covenant – they too are preventing the firstborn of God to serve him. Thus both child and parent are under the sentence of death by refusing to do as God commanded.

I’ll have to do a grammatical analysis of the Greek in question on another day – I’m too messed up right now to think about it.
But, the ambiguity that Augustine speaks of is likely from a cursory glance – and I think it is on purpose.

–Andrew.

 

[Crumpy]

There are a lot of good, plausible comments in both threads.

I have a Jewish commentary which spends three pages discussing various aspects of this. (I don’t always find this commentary complete or accurate.)

The commentary cites this story as being incomplete, as other stories that are in the books of the Torah. It says that there are real problems with the use of language, such as the meaning of the pronoun which refers to whom is in danger of death by God. It’s simply not clear.

Moses’ wife is a Midianiate, and circumcision is a common practice in the mid-east. Her motives were not clear, but the use of flint suggests an ancient non-Hebrew custom for circumcision. Feet is probably a euphemism for genitals.

The phrase “bridgegroom of blood” is also probably a foreign phrase, which has not found a parallel in mid-Eastern studies – which in turn makes this English rendering a compromise, possibly misleading, at best.

The commentary summarizes that the circumcision involves a bloodletting that must be spiritually related to the passover bloodletting, in providing protection to the individual and community.

The commentary suggests that the episode is a very deliberate insertion (for a variety of textual reasons) in the general flow to underscore the importance and sanctity of the covenant of Abraham.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

There are a lot of good, plausible comments in both threads.
Moses’ wife is a Midianiate, and circumcision is a common practice in the mid-east. Her motives were not clear, but the use of flint suggests an ancient non-Hebrew custom for circumcision. Feet is probably a euphemism for genitals.

Well, yes and no. – circumcision is common, but using a “rock” is not a foreign custom.
See Josua 5:2.
μαχαιρας πετρινας εκ πετρας
eg: Make flint-knives out of-rock.

This is the feminine ending; and this is a hand-held flint-knife.
πετρος is the masculine version.

The commentary summarizes that the circumcision involves a bloodletting that must be spiritually related to the passover

Hmm, Exodus 4:24 is before passover ever happened. So, why the relation based on circumcision?

The other thing that is odd, is that the Greek text does not say she touched “his” feet with anything. What it says is that she “fell at his feet saying…”
A literal translation would read more like:

Exodu 4:24 εγενετο δε εν τη οδω εν τω καταλυματι συνηντησεν αυτω αγγελος κυριου και εζητει αυτον αποκτειναι

4:24 on the (en)hodus(in road) in the lean-to, an angel-of-the-Lord (met)/came-together-with him and looked-for-an-opportunity to-slay him.

Exodu 4:25 και λαβουσα σεπφωρα ψηφον περιετεμεν την ακροβυστιαν του υιου αυτης και προσεπεσεν προς τους ποδας και ειπεν εστη το αιμα της περιτομης του παιδιου μου

4:25 and Sephora took a gemstone, pruned-around the foreskin of-her son and fell at his feet and said, “the-blood-of-my-child’s-around-scroll stood-still, itself.”

The gemstone/(voting stone) is an item one uses in deliberations over law with; it is a symbol of reasoning, and Greek Voting; (eg: I cast my vote against them). It implies Sophira had choice based on reason. It could also just be a jewel of some kind – eg: like Aaron wore on the Ephod; with the names of the children of israel carved into them.

Scrolls are made of leather – which is skin. The skin which goes around appears to be the circumcision skin left on the genitals after the foreskin is removed. It also suggests that the child is written in a book / is the proclamation of his Israeliteness. The Him in Exodus 4:25 could be three things – Moses, the angel, or the child.

If “feet” really meant genitals, then – the Syro-Phonecian woman grabbed Jesus’ , because the Greek is IDENTICAL. Not to mention, that the feet are explicitly plural – so, it would be a bit of genetics problem for an angel to have more than one.
The act is one of begging worship – prostration – so it would be Moses’ or the Angel’s feet (or both for it is plural) – since the child is not the source of the miracle; but the recipient.

If you allow it to be the angel, then she falls at his feet acknowledging the miracle and his power.

In the sentence which follows – she partially repeats herself:
Exodu 4:26 και απ-ηλθεν απ’ αυτ-ου διοτι ειπ-εν εστ-η το αιμα της περι-τομης του παιδι-ου μου
"and he-went away from him because-of-when she-said “the blood of the around-scroll of my child stood-still, itself.”

In order to match the previous subject, the “him” here, ought to be the one the angel was trying to slay and “he” the angel. It also has to be the one whom the angel met first. Since the child is Moses, as Israel is the children of Jacob in addition to Jacob himself – if Moses is meant (which I champion) the I would think both him and the child were implied. The previous statement about the firstborn, Israel, leading to that conclusion.

If you wish to make it only the child, then the problem is that I would expect that Moses was standing guard over his lean-to/make-shift such that the angel couldn’t get to the child without going through him first; which also explains the choice of word – searching-for-an-opportunity – as the angel was blocked.

There is one other twisted possibility – angel means messenger; and Moses is the messenger of God explicitly – in that case, Moses sought to slay the child because he was at odds with Sophira, and she capitulated to his demand and witnessed a miracle. But I don’t think that is likely, because they were traveling together – and it says he (obviously the slayer) went his way, afterward – the cause being the words Sophira spoke. Moses wouldn’t have gone away from the child, but would have remained with them regardless, for he was leading the pack animal that he put the childr(en) on a few sentences back.

The angel would have gone away from Moses, though.

I also think the miracle is that the circumcision site on the child refused to bleed. Perhaps looking forward to Jesus’ circumcision.

Hope this helped.
–Andrew.

 

[Crumpy]

Joshua 5:2 does not prove that granite (flint) was not used outside of Israel for circumcision.

Near eastern studies show that it was, and that circumcision would have commonly been performed by a woman.

It is a key point in the Jewish commentaries, that a custom like circumcision practiced outside of Abraham and his descendents could be adopted by Abraham and his descendents with a totally new meaning, and would be stripped of any pagan mythology surrounding its significance.

For example, writing things on stone tablets, like the decalogue, was a familiar practice in the Middle East. It was not a novelty as it may appear, but to the contrary, since important things were written in stone, the decalogue in stone meant that it was important.

Aside from direct exegesis of the text, the Jewish commentary speculates that the circumcision of his youngest son was delayed by Moses for practical reasons, until the journey to Egypt was complete. Truthfully, Moses had one command from God (travel to Egypt) bumping into another command from God (to circumcise the infant) and it is thought that Moses made an executive decision, you might say, knowing what is involved in the circumcision, to delay it until he arrived in Egypt.

Obviously, the point of the story is that was the wrong decision, and so the infant was circumcised. As I stated previously, the bloodletting of the circumcision and of the passover victim was believed to provide protection for the individual and the community. If there is a better explanation, I’m sure we’re all “ears” to hear what it may be.

 

[marymol]

Good commentaries and for those of us in The Church , is it not always gratifying to see what The Father is trying to tell us , in light of the fulness of revelation in the New , in Bl.Mother and our Lord !

Was the child not circumcised due to Moses having become under the Midianite influence of Zeporah … his inaction at the warning seems puzzling … yet ,may be almost like that of Adam … … frozen in fear …and is it that fear , with the weight of what was on his shoulders that kept him from stepping in … yet , his helpmate steps in …and inspite of such shortcomings , God chose him… ( we also hear of the other instances of those shortcomings , like that of St.Peter …)

if the prior omission was from the negative influence of Zepporah , it also serves to highlight the perfection of our Bl.Mother’s role - always ready to do God’ s will …water turned to wine …when she stepped in , to help and bless a couple and their start of mission in life …and both Mother and Son well knowing what it stood for too …

It may be also to give us glimpses of the seemingly small and hidden roles of mothers …and all that Motherhood is for …the courageous mother of Moses, whose choice was instrumnetal in a whole nation being delivered …so also Zepporah’s act …

And also may be to help us to build up trust …that seemingly weak men …men with fallen natures , when under Godly command and authority , can be infallible - such as that same Moses , at the Red Sea , not waiting on opinion of councils but trusting in God’s clear command …
and leading out a whole nation …

Peace !

 

[marymol]

Could this not also be an instance of cautioning the faithful, esp. those who are to lead , down through the centuries , against so called inculturation that comes in a variety of formats …

such as may be execessive fear from centuries of persecutions that then comes expressed as difficult ot be rid of and entrenched traditions …

and may be …may be it somehow highlights the Fatherly care of our Lord who thought of the welfare of His Disciples even when on the verge of His own upcoming Passion …He had asked them to be prepared , with swords … He who knew and predicted their fear and abandonment of Him … that they would possibly trust their weapons more than His words when they were to flee in fear …and He , instead of resenting same , chose to show them mercy , by letting them be prepared , even while still showing them where real strenght is to be …when He touched and healed the ear of the servant of the chief priest …

.would The Passion have been less intense , if the disciples then had chosen to step in and defend The Lord …well, may be it was not to be …for down through the centuries , when the children too had grudges about trials that were not helped enough , they had to look at Him …and His forgiveness …

Mercy !

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Joshua 5:2 does not prove that granite (flint) was not used outside of Israel for circumcision.

I apologize for not being clear; I find it difficult to think some days.
I do not doubt your assertion that the flint knives were used outside of Israel for Circumcision. I have cited one example of this already, through Hagar and the Ishmaelites – though I know there are others.
I meant foreign as in alien to Israel; and also excepting Sephora, for she is not a native Israelite.

a totally new meaning, and would be stripped of any pagan mythology surrounding its significance.

No disagreement comes from me on this point.

writing things on stone tablets … It was not a novelty …

Property markers were typically carved in stone, which contained curses of the local dieties for those who violated the agreement, etc. They were more or less playing on the general susperstitions of the local people even with differing gods – I am well aware of those.
And, often a king wanting to make a permanent modification to local mythology would publish certain items in stone; But most important items were written on clay tablets and fired. These could be kept for a long time; or broken – as Moses did with the first set of stone tablets …

Aside from direct exegesis of the text, the Jewish commentary speculates that the circumcision of his youngest son was delayed by Moses for practical reasons …
Obviously, the point of the story is that was the wrong decision, and so the infant was circumcised.

I am not sure; These are the only two examples of stone circumcision knives that I am aware of – and they both are tied to the sin of the parents. You may have more information on these knives than I have come across – for the primary sources I have examined do not appear to record this rite outside of scripture. So, I would need more information to really grasp the implications of what you are saying.

In the story of Jesus, son of nun (Yoshua) he is instructed to make the knives by God, and to circumcise the children (now grown) immediately after the waters of the Jordan stood still in a heap to allow their passage. Notably; In the Greek the same idea of standing still is used of the blood in Moses’ child’s circumcision as the waters of the Jordan, and also of the pillar of the cloud which blocked the Egytptians by standing “between” them and the Israelites exuding fire. The parents being spoken of include the fathers of the Children of Core (or Korah) who were swallowed up whole by the sand in the desert; so that their children were left orphans.

The Hebrew, too, appears to identify the stone knife as the same in both stories – of stone – though I am not an expert.
The Greek idea, however, is not the letting of blood at all; it is in fact the absence of the expected and normal course of nature which is highlighted. In the second story, in Joshua, not even the Hebrew mentions blood letting as part of the ceremony.

Perhaps you have come across more information and could point some sources out; but my understanding is that military expeditions of various conquerors went to extremes to remove the water supply from cities under siege – to the point of manually building dams and rerouting rivers.

God used the common signs and practices of the time to communicate with the pagans about his people; in language the pagans would clearly get the message from.

Here too, (In Joshua) is spoken of placing marker stones for the crossing of the Jordan; and although I don’t recall where – I believe that elsewhere in scripture there is spoken of carvings on these stones; or ones in the same place; with the ten commandments on them.

As I stated previously, the bloodletting of the circumcision and of the passover victim was believed to provide protection for the individual and the community. If there is a better explanation…

I am not at a better explanation; but I am at a loss to fully understand yours; for again – there was no blood let out according to the Greek copy of the OT. The Hebrew is unclear what the reference to blood is – and in Joshua, blood is not the point of the exact same ceremony.

The standing of the waters as a wall to the right and left as the sea was crossed, and the waters of the Jordan, are both the waters of baptism in the New Covenant.
As St. Peter says, were they not all baptized into Moses – referring to the crossing of the Sea…

The main idea which resonates in both of these stories and the Egyptians is the idea of a foreign child cut off from the covenant of God, and therefore his mercy – vs. the native child who is allowed in the covenant. In 40 years of being in the desert, no one chose to circumcise the orphans of parents who were cut off from the covenant – as God swore in his wrath, they would not enter into his rest. But no angel threatens the children.

In the first story, the messenger is made out (IMHO) to be attacking the parent for a sin; and he is spared upon the completion of the circumcision. In the second story; the parents are dead. So, I would totally agree with you on the idea of the “decision” being wrong.

I think, that, the people in the desert had no way of knowing if the children were to be circumcised or not; as their parents were cut off – and so, then, they may have thought the children were as well. It is after the miracle (Sephora witnessed in her son’s blood stopping) being repeated by the water of the Jordan that the command was understood to circumcise them.

Thus, a plausible explanation is that Moses, for some reason, may not have believed the particular son of his, in question, could enter the covenant. eg: that since he had married a Midianite – he perhaps thought she was like unto Hagar, and not permitted into the fullness of the covenant.

What was the reasoning for Blood in your mind?

Peace.

 

[ronald_louis]

Please be sure that the Bible translation you’re reading/studying has been approved by the Catholic Church; that is, the translation is considered free from doctrinal or moral error (designated Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in the book’s Copyright Notice.)

The “New International Bible” you reference in your post appears to be protestant: biblegateway.com/preferences/

Here are eight English language translations that are Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

Douay-Rheims Bible
Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible
New American Bible
NRSV Catholic Bible (Anglicized)
Jerusalem Bible
Good News Translation
New Jerusalem Bible
Christian Community Bible

Hope this helps, and God bless.

Ron

 

[hooch]

Not related to your question but I must ask… as a Catholic, why are you reading the NIV? I have fundamentalist protestant friends (King James only types) that refer to it as the “Non Inspired Version.” You should be reading the Douay-Rheims or the RSV (not the NRSV!).

Peace.

 

[ronald_louis]

Hello hooch,

As this thread contains no references to “NRSV” other than yours and mine, I thought that you should know that the “NRSV Catholic Bible (Anglicized)” translation that I refer to in my post is indeed approved by the Catholic Church.

It is: New Revised Standard Version Bible, Catholic Anglicized Edition, copyright 1999, 1995,1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

I’m trying to point out to the original poster that the NIV translation he’s using is regrettably protestant; hoping that he will, in turn, research some of the Catholic translations that I cited to find clarification and meaningful answers to his original questions on Exodus c.4, v.24.

Regards,

Ron

P.S. You can read a bit about “NSRV” “CE” here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

 

[PJM]

Exodus 4:19-28 (New International Version)

 19 Now the LORD had said to Moses in Midian, "Go back to Egypt, for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead."

20 So Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt. And he took the staff of God in his hand.
21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’ "
24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Him/Moses/Moses’ Son?} a] and was about to kill him.
25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched {Moses’} feet with it. **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 4:19-28;&version=31;#fen-NIV-1627b”)] “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said.
26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)
27 The LORD said to Aaron, “Go into the desert to meet Moses.” So he met Moses at the mountain of God and kissed him. 28 Then Moses told Aaron everything the LORD had sent him to say, and also about all the miraculous signs he had commanded him to perform.

So, the Hebrew, in verse 25 doesn’t say clearly whether it’s talking about Moses, or the son of Moses. Why does God intend to kill “him”, “him” being Moses if you believe the NIV translation, or possibly moses’ son?

I am stumped. This is one of the verses that anti-bible types point at with derision. I found this article on another website. I’ve been reading my bible since I was a little kid but I never noticed this story before.

Warren

***Hi,

I had to look this one up myself. Here is what I found in Haydocks Catholic commentary.

Ver. 24. The Lord met him, and would have killed him. This was an angel representing the Lord, who treated Moses in this manner, for having neglected the circumcision of his younger son: which his wife understanding, circumcised her child upon the spot, upon which the angel let Moses go. (Challoner) — Both his children were born about this time. But Eliezer, the younger, had not been circumcised; and therefore remained under the power of the destroying angel. (Origen, contra Cels. v.) Others think the angel was going to kill Moses***

From Mt. Henreys Protestant Comentary

24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD a messenger from God; an angel PJM] met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. [Moses had failed to have his son circumstanced in accordance to jewish law and custom PJM] 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

The moral: Better late than never!"

Love and prayers,

 

[hooch]

Ron,

When I first replied to Warren (original poster) I had not read your reply, the one in which you listed all of the “approved” translations (including the NRSV). My point to him was that he should not be using the NIV. I then opined that he should be reading the Douay-Rheims or the RSV. When I wrote “not the NRSV” I meant to warn Warren to not confuse the RSV with NRSV.

I am aware of the fact that the NRSV is a Catholic-approved translation. My opinion is that it is not a good one. The priests and other Bible scholars that I have consulted are not fans of it, and have always steered me to the RSV. Similarly, I am not a fan of the New American Bible either. A very solid and orthodox priest friend years ago had pointed out to me its problems. Supposedly the group that put it together did so in only about 5 years, and according to him their haste was manifested in a poor translation. Ironically, the NAB is the version used in the lectionary (novus ordo). I’ve grown to become skeptical anytime I see the word “new” related to anything Catholic.

My experience has been that the Tridentine Mass types like the Douay-Rheims and that “novus ordo” Catholics (that are interested in or serious about scripture) favor the RSV. A bit of trivia, the RSV is the only Bible translation that is approved by both Protestants and Catholics alike. This makes it handy for doing apologetics, by which I mean actually sitting down and debating with them in person.

The Bible I use for apologetics which I carry in the trunk of my car is “The New Oxford Annotated Bible With The Apocrypha, Expanded Edition, Revised Standard Version” which is technically a protestant assemblage since the deuterocanonical books are at the end, and not in their proper place in the OT. It has been out of print for years, and I bought it at Loome. I got the idea for it about 13 years ago when I was in Steve Wood’s office and saw it on his bookshelf. At that time it was the only RSV “study” Bible available. One thing cool about this Bible is that besides the seven deuterocanonical books, there are eleven other apocryphal books (such as 3rd and 4th Maccabees) in the back.

Around that same time Scott Hahn had told me he was working on a project with Ignatius Press to come up with a RSV CE Study Bible, but it was still years off. I’m not sure whatever happened to that project but some people think that the result was the Ignatius RSV CE, which is the one with a blue cover with gold lettering, and has become very popular in recent years. It is not a “study” bible however, since it lacks extensive footnotes.

In my briefcase I carry a pocket-sized New King James which I have tabbed and highlighted with my key verses. The only reason I carry a KJV is because it’s the only pocket-sized one I have found! I don’t read it, and only use it to refer to my key verses.

I believe that the best Bible for a Catholic to read and study is the Navarre Bible, which is also a RSV, and is extensively footnoted (but not readily transportable!). Maybe the answer would be to study the Navarre and carry the blue Ignatius one.

Hooch

 

[PJM]

Ron,

When I first replied to Warren (original poster) I had not read your reply, the one in which you listed all of the “approved” translations (including the NRSV). My point to him was that he should not be using the NIV. I then opined that he should be reading the Douay-Rheims or the RSV. When I wrote “not the NRSV” I meant to warn Warren to not confuse the RSV with NRSV.

I am aware of the fact that the NRSV is a Catholic-approved translation. My opinion is that it is not a good one. The priests and other Bible scholars that I have consulted are not fans of it, and have always steered me to the RSV. Similarly, I am not a fan of the New American Bible either. A very solid and orthodox priest friend years ago had pointed out to me its problems. Supposedly the group that put it together did so in only about 5 years, and according to him their haste was manifested in a poor translation. Ironically, the NAB is the version used in the lectionary (novus ordo). I’ve grown to become skeptical anytime I see the word “new” related to anything Catholic.

My experience has been that the Tridentine Mass types like the Douay-Rheims and that “novus ordo” Catholics (that are interested in or serious about scripture) favor the RSV. A bit of trivia, the RSV is the only Bible translation that is approved by both Protestants and Catholics alike. This makes it handy for doing apologetics, by which I mean actually sitting down and debating with them in person.

The Bible I use for apologetics which I carry in the trunk of my car is “The New Oxford Annotated Bible With The Apocrypha, Expanded Edition, Revised Standard Version” which is technically a protestant assemblage since the deuterocanonical books are at the end, and not in their proper place in the OT. It has been out of print for years, and I bought it at Loome. I got the idea for it about 13 years ago when I was in Steve Wood’s office and saw it on his bookshelf. At that time it was the only RSV “study” Bible available. One thing cool about this Bible is that besides the seven deuterocanonical books, there are eleven other apocryphal books (such as 3rd and 4th Maccabees) in the back.

Around that same time Scott Hahn had told me he was working on a project with Ignatius Press to come up with a RSV CE Study Bible, but it was still years off. I’m not sure whatever happened to that project but some people think that the result was the Ignatius RSV CE, which is the one with a blue cover with gold lettering, and has become very popular in recent years. It is not a “study” bible however, since it lacks extensive footnotes.

In my briefcase I carry a pocket-sized New King James which I have tabbed and highlighted with my key verses. The only reason I carry a KJV is because it’s the only pocket-sized one I have found! I don’t read it, and only use it to refer to my key verses.

I believe that the best Bible for a Catholic to read and study is the Navarre Bible, which is also a RSV, and is extensively footnoted (but not readily transportable!). Maybe the answer would be to study the Navarre and carry the blue Ignatius one.

Hooch

Thank you, and for what ever it’s worth I concur