I'm going back to using my old protestant study Bibles!

  • Thread starter Thread starter luvlyknits
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Khalid said:
Yeah, pretty much. The introduction to the book and the essays are anti-Catholic (and useless even according to many Orthodox), and the notes on Papal/Petrine passages are biased to outright incorrect (repeating the old, long-discredited Protestant canards, with no regard to Greek grammar - you’d think Greeks could do better! - about how the Church was built on Peter’s confession of faith, and that “peter” and “petra” are pebble/boulder respectively…), but, beyond that, it’s a decent Bible. Some of their statements about the Trinity, disregarding the essence-energies distinction, are of dubious orthodoxy (they call the Trinity “they”, and the Holy Spirit “it” several times, off the top of my head).

The OT notes are especially great, shining with a complete and utter Christocentrism. However, it is translated from the Septuagint, so certain mathematical facts, such as the ages of the Patriarchs in Gen 5 and 11, are incorrect, and it does contain two books that are apocryphal (I/III Esdras and III Maccabees).

The layout leaves a bit to be desired, and the binding is glued, whether in hardcover or bonded leather. The notes are very sparse, too, even for a study Bible - it’s good to “dip one’s toes in the water”, but has very little depth beyond, surprisingly, pointing out Christological and typological interpretations that even modern multi-volume commentaries do not.

Even with all of these drawbacks, it would still be in the top five of single-volume study Bibles that I would recommend, and probably in the top three, after the Ignatius and the Haydock. (Even though the OT is translated from the LXX, the NT uses the NKJV, which is based on the correct Traditional/Byzantine text with all alternative readings - from Nestle-Aland and from the Majority Text - noted in the margin.)

The man mentioned above, Theodore of Mopsuestia, was declared a Monophysite by, I believe, the Fifth Ecumenical Council. However, other heretics (Origen, Tertullian, etc.) are still considered Fathers of the Church, and highly influential ones at that.

Let it be known, that there are very few Patristic quotations, and, honestly, quite few Patristic paraphrases, in the Orthodox Study Bible (Nelson, 1 vol.), no matter what it claims on the cover and in the introduction - it can be quite foreign to the “mind of the Fathers”. The commentaries of Aquinas (published by SSPX [Matthew, John] and Baronius [the Catena]), the Navarre Bible (10 vol. cloth, Universidad de Navarra/Four Courts/Scepter), Haydock’s Bible (Catholic Treasures, 2 vol. paper or 1 vol., leather over board), and the Lutheran Study Bible (Concordia, 1 vol.), all draw heavily and directly from the Fathers, and use direct Patristic quotations, unlike the OSB.
Click to expand...
Thank you for a very open and factual look at study bibles.

I have trouble placing the Orthodox Study Bible in third place. As I read through the introduction I could not help but question why the editors were placing their anti-Catholic opinions prior to the word of God.

I would mention the “Commentary of Cornelius A. Lapide”, as a scholarly work.
 
AnotherVoice said:
I have trouble placing the Orthodox Study Bible in third place. As I read through the introduction I could not help but question why the editors were placing their anti-Catholic opinions prior to the word of God.
Click to expand...
That was my experience also.
 
The Ignatius Catholic Study bible is very useful.
Also, there is the Logos software Catholic edition.
www.logos.com/catholic

Also some catechisms have a scriptural reference in them so you can see how the Church interprets the passage.
 
Get the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, with subtitles of “Second Edition” and “Translated from the Editio Typica”. It’s a small white hardcover book with gold corners on the cover. That’s the standard Catechism for the Church now." Along with this I would read the book entitled “Catholicism” by Fr Robert Barron (it’s also a ten-part TV series, which is excellent), which is a good introduction to the entire spirit, world, and aesthetic of Catholic Christianity.

If you need help locating any of these books, tell me, and I’ll link you to them on Amazon and/or give your their ISBNs, so you get a good copy of a good catechism (there are some bad so-called “catechisms” or “introductions to Catholicism” out there).

Once you’ve read it, get the Roman Catechism (also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent). It is no longer the normative catechism, but is still useful, faithful, traditional, and doctrinally correct, except for omitting some mentions of Vatican I dogmata as dogmata (they were just fides ecclesiastica or proxima sententiae fidei then). Remember that Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, but a pastoral one - pre-conciliar materials are still doctrinally correct (and, often, more doctrinally correct, as the Church was deluged with apostasy in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II” soon after - a spirit which has not fully receded - a spirit which was actually diametrically opposed to the Holy Spirit-guided will of the Fathers of the Council).

Stay away from the red paperback “United States Catholic Catechism for Adults” (which is not normative where it contradicts the editio typica, as conferences of bishops have no authority beyond that of individual bishops), and go for the white hardcover edition that is normative for the entire Church universal. Once you’re grounded in that, it may be profitable to read older catechetical materials.
 
Get the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, with subtitles of “Second Edition” and “Translated from the Editio Typica”. It’s a small white hardcover book with gold corners on the cover.

ISBN would be great! Cheers
 
amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0385508190/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

There it is, used, like new, for eight quid and a few pence plus delivery (shipped from UK) from seller “langton_info_england”. Amazon Marketplace sellers are trustworthy, unlike, necessarily, eBay ones - your purchased is backed by Amazon’s authority and return policy and guarantees. Most of my Amazon purchases are from the Amazon marketplace.

It may not be readily available in the UK because it’s published by Doubleday - it may be published by someone else in the UK (like the Jerusalem Bible is published by Doubleday in the US, with inferior printing, and by Darton, Longman, and Todd in the UK, with superior printing, with bold capital letters in the dustjacket that say, “Not for sale in the US” - I’ve still bought two of them, as the Doubleday printing is a nigh-unreadable photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy, maybe of the eighth generation or so).

I believe, although I am not certain, this is the UK edition equivalent to the US edition listed above, although published by Continuum instead of Doubleday (it is described as a translation of the universal editio typica, not a regional catechism based on it):

amazon.co.uk/Catechism-Catholic-Church-catholic-church/dp/0860123278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358884977&sr=1-1

The other book I recommended, “Catholicism” by Fr Barron, is in the “customers also purchased” section of the above page, as well, in third place.
 
Khalid said:
For the NT, the ICSB is good. For the whole Bible, the Navarre is nice (but $400 and using a sub-par translation) with exceptional annotation.
Click to expand...
While the Navarre Bible includes the New Vulgate text of 1986, which is “the Western Church’s official Latin version of the Bible,” it does not present a new English translation. The Navarre Bible uses the Revised Standard Version for the English language scripture text. I would not call the RSV a “sub-par” translation!
 
Hunho said:
While the Navarre Bible includes the New Vulgate text of 1986, which is “the Western Church’s official Latin version of the Bible,” it does not present a new English translation. The Navarre Bible uses the Revised Standard Version for the English language scripture text. I would not call the RSV a “sub-par” translation!
Click to expand...
I agree!!!
 
Hunho said:
While the Navarre Bible includes the New Vulgate text of 1986, which is “the Western Church’s official Latin version of the Bible,” it does not present a new English translation. The Navarre Bible uses the Revised Standard Version for the English language scripture text. I would not call the RSV a “sub-par” translation!
Click to expand...
I’m outvoted by a minimum of two-to-one here, but I consider the RSV-CE to have a somewhat-to-moderately inferior OT translation of a good textual basis (the Masoretic text w/ some influence from ancient versions), and the to have an average NT translation of an marginally-inferior textual basis (the Nestle-Aland critical text).

The OT translation is inferior because, like the original RSV, the OT has been deliberately and thoroughly de-Christianized, sometimes by resorting to a conjectural emendation (translating an invented reading that appears in no text or ancient version) or outright mistranslation of the Hebrew. “Thou” is used inconsistently in such a way (it is used to address deity, although one man has said otherwise, that it was used in poetry alone), that the reality of Christ’s deity has doubt subconsciously cast upon it by use of the Archaic Pronoun, or lack thereof: etc.

Bibles with good Old Testaments include, the KJV, the RV, the ASV, the DRC, the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, and, to a far lesser extent, the RSV-2CE (at least it puts “virgin” back in Isaiah 7:14) and the OSB (NKJV warmed over with LXX), the NETS (NRSV conformed to LXX), and Brenton, to name a few. Bibles with good New Testaments include the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the Confraternity, and to a marginally-lesser extent, the DRC (there are some corruptions in the NT Vulgate text, such as 1 Tim 3:16, but very, very few compared to the modern critical text).

As you see, it’s hard for me to find a Bible that has, by my lights, a good translation of the OT from a good text, and a good translation of the NT from a good text, and the deuterocanonicals. I’m left with, essentially, the KJV, the DRC, the OSB, or an NASB or NKJV w/ the “apocrypha” in a secondary volume.
 
Khalid said:
I’m outvoted by a minimum of two-to-one here, but I consider the RSV-CE to have a somewhat-to-moderately inferior OT translation of a good textual basis (the Masoretic text w/ some influence from ancient versions), and the to have an average NT translation of an marginally-inferior textual basis (the Nestle-Aland critical text).

The OT translation is inferior because, like the original RSV, the OT has been deliberately and thoroughly de-Christianized, sometimes by resorting to a conjectural emendation (translating an invented reading that appears in no text or ancient version) or outright mistranslation of the Hebrew. “Thou” is used inconsistently in such a way (it is used to address deity, although one man has said otherwise, that it was used in poetry alone), that the reality of Christ’s deity has doubt subconsciously cast upon it by use of the Archaic Pronoun, or lack thereof: etc.

Bibles with good Old Testaments include, the KJV, the RV, the ASV, the DRC, the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, and, to a far lesser extent, the RSV-2CE (at least it puts “virgin” back in Isaiah 7:14) and the OSB (NKJV warmed over with LXX), the NETS (NRSV conformed to LXX), and Brenton, to name a few. Bibles with good New Testaments include the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the Confraternity, and to a marginally-lesser extent, the DRC (there are some corruptions in the NT Vulgate text, such as 1 Tim 3:16, but very, very few compared to the modern critical text).

As you see, it’s hard for me to find a Bible that has, by my lights, a good translation of the OT from a good text, and a good translation of the NT from a good text, and the deuterocanonicals. I’m left with, essentially, the KJV, the DRC, the OSB, or an NASB or NKJV w/ the “apocrypha” in a secondary volume.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure whether I agree with you about how good the RSV translation is, but I have to accept that it was a reasoned judgement.

Do you know of a NASB that has an “apocrypha” with it? I spent a number of years as a Methodist before I became Catholic and the NASB was my preferred translation.
 
iloveangels said:
Easy on the condemnations. The text of the bible is very similar. It’s the footnotes that are the problem. Maybe Catholics should produce a bible with decent footnotes that doesn’t cost and arm and a leg?
Click to expand...
I do not see it as a condemnation. “Wary” allows - even advises - that one “test the spirits” as John taught in 1 John 4:1, does it not?

All protestant translations will have some error, however small it may be. Some are horrible (GNT). Facts are facts. That is why we have a Church to discern for us. That is why the Church had to revise the protestant Revised Standard Version into a Catholic Edition.
Still, we very badly need a pure English language Catholic translation with acceptable notes.
 
Hunho said:
I’m not sure whether I agree with you about how good the RSV translation is, but I have to accept that it was a reasoned judgement.

Do you know of a NASB that has an “apocrypha” with it? I spent a number of years as a Methodist before I became Catholic and the NASB was my preferred translation.
Click to expand...
Nope - the Lockman Foundation (translators and copyright holders of the NASB) did not translate the apocrypha. However, as I mentioned, one can get many versions of the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals in a separate volume (the King James Apocrypha in at least four editions, at least two editions of Oxford Annotated Apocrypha in RSV and NRSV, etc., the Lutheran Annotated Apocrypha [ESV]), which is becoming my preferred solution, so that I may use any Bible, Protestant or Catholic, based on its translational and textual merits and not its canon, and still have the full canon to hand. (I use the Lutheran Annotated ESV Apocrypha and a paragraphed Barnes and Noble edition of the KJV Apocrypha.)

Before that, and still quite a bit, I use a King James Bible with the Apocrypha, the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (which is paragraphed and single-column, as the name implies), or a Haydock Bible. The main problem with Haydock is format: one could not carry it around, God forbid! one can barely read it without a lectern or sturdy desk (it’s about a foot by fourteen inches, and eight pounds). There are many good portable King James, New King James, and New American Standard Bibles in good bindings (calfskin or goatskin, smyth-sewn).
 
po18guy said:
Still, we very badly need a pure English language Catholic translation with acceptable notes.
Click to expand...
AGREED! Hear, hear!

There was a book written called The Catholic Religion Proved out of the Protestant Bible, back in the days of the KJV (it is a very accurate and Catholic, capital “C”, translation, with only minor error, and I believe that to be unintentional - unlike the NIV, it was not translated with bias, insofar as I can tell).

One could today write Liberal Protestantism or Secular Humanism or Atheism Proved From the Catholic Bible, using the NAB/RE with notes, or Judaism Proved from the Christian Bible using any version of the RSV or NRSV (not counting RSV-2CE).
 
Khalid said:
You’re understanding me correctly. The notes to every edition of the NAB that comes with notes are written from an atheistic, unbelieving point-of-view.
Click to expand...
Precisely. They can be toxic to faith. As I recall, they tend to pooh pooh the supernatural and overemphasize the natural causes of miracles, much like the infamous “Jesus Seminar”
 
Khalid said:
AGREED! Hear, hear!

There was a book written called The Catholic Religion Proved out of the Protestant Bible, back in the days of the KJV (it is a very accurate and Catholic, capital “C”, translation, with only minor error, and I believe that to be unintentional - unlike the NIV, it was not translated with bias, insofar as I can tell).

One could today write Liberal Protestantism or Secular Humanism or Atheism Proved From the Catholic Bible, using the NAB/RE with notes, or Judaism Proved from the Christian Bible using any version of the RSV or NRSV (not counting RSV-2CE).
Click to expand...
One of the absolute worst aspects of the faulty implementation of Vatican II was the disordered tilting toward ecumenism, at the cost of accuracy in scruptural translations. The NAB and NAB/RE were ostensibly Catholic translations, but with protestant (name removed by moderator)ut for the sake of, apparently, inclusiveness. What resulted was more like relativism. “Let’'s all be equally wrong!” Ugh. Despite any recent (post WWII) concerns about Vulgate-based translations raised by Divino Afflante Spiritu, is it any wonder why the D-R remains so popular?

Is it so unreasonable to ask that it be easy to defend Catholic teaching form a Catholic bible? It is far easier to defend Church teaching from the KJV than from the NAB/NABRE. I cannot help (and hope) but think that official eyes at the Vatican have been watching and considering this exact point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top