Judaism and the Bible

[alcuin18]

Hello. I wasn’t sure where to put this question but since it pertains to Scripture I chose here.

I am a big fan of Brant Pitre’s books. I’ve read all those available at my local library and bought a couple, and hope to read more in the future. I love his Jewish exegesis of Scripture, seeing the things of the New Testament the way a first-century Jew would’ve seen it, connecting it to both the Old Testament and extra-biblical Jewish tradition.

My question is: can you refer me to any other available books by Catholic scholars with a similar focus as Brant Pitre? He’s the only one I’ve seen who refers to Jewish tradition alongside the Old Testament, but are there others I don’t know? I’m familiar with Bergsma and hope to get his upcoming book about the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I would love to know about other similar Catholic scholars. There are a few non-Catholics who did this kind of scholarship, but I would prefer not to have to sift through doctrinal errors.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. God bless!

 

[Zach]

Scott Hahn - The Fourth Cup. Parallels Passover traditions with The Last Supper, Passion and sacrifice on the Cross. If you want scripture commentary try The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. It’s only The New Testament but there are a lot of of essays and footnotes referencing Judaism and the Old Testament.

 

[BartholomewB]

This looks like a question for @billsherman, if he’s around …

 

[billsherman]

can you refer me to any other available books by Catholic scholars with a similar focus as Brant Pitre?

Sure thing: John Meier and Raymond Brown are the two best examples. Their (many) books and articles are fairly widely available, and are as good as biblical history gets. Pitre in many ways, is an heir to their work. They are/were also both Catholic priests (Brown passed away about 20 years ago, Meier has just retired from Notre Dame).

He’s the only one I’ve seen who refers to Jewish tradition alongside the Old Testament, but are there others I don’t know?

If you’re looking for history, you will find virtually all scholars of the historical Jesus and early Christianity focus a lot of the Jewish roots of both these days. Over the past generation it has become more and more the focus to look at the Jewish roots of Christianity. You will not be disappointed by the amount of scholarship taking this view!

There are a few non-Catholics who did this kind of scholarship, but I would prefer not to have to sift through doctrinal errors.

This is where you may be disappointed. Scholars, Catholic and otherwise, try to look at history without the benefit of doctrine. You will find that outside the field of theology, doctrine has no role to play. Because, well, doctrine is a theological concept, not a historical concept.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. God bless!

Hope I offered something useful. Reply if you’re looking for something different!

 

[alcuin18]

I appreciate the help everyone. Just as a side note, my comment on preferring orthodox Catholic scholarship is largely based on the bias which erroneous beliefs of historians frequently causes in their books, while Catholic scholars, imo, tend to be more objective and historically accurate, especially because history actually does align with Catholic understanding. For me it’s just easier to read and more reliable.

Thanks again guys, God bless.

 

[billsherman]

ust as a side note, my comment on preferring orthodox Catholic scholarship is largely based on the bias which erroneous beliefs of historians frequently causes in their books, while Catholic scholars, imo, tend to be more objective and historically accurate, especially because history actually does align with Catholic understanding.

You should probably avoid history then and read apologetics or theology. History done correctly, including history written by Catholic priests in good standing, isn’t concerned about a Catholic agenda it is concerned about being as objective as possible given the sources. You will probably be very disappointed by Meier and Brown if you are looking for doctrinal orthodoxy in your history.

 

[alcuin18]

I’m not looking for a Catholic agenda, I’m looking for lack of anti-Catholic bias, and the only historians I’ve found who are not biased against Catholicism are orthodox Catholic historians. Others interpret history, translate ancient texts, etc., according to Protestant customs, popular scholarly ideas or their own preferences, contrary to the truth if the truth is too obviously in accordance with Catholic teaching. For example, historians who say there is no evidence of the Papacy in the early Church and specifically ignoring the wealth of evidence as shown by Catholic historians, or translating Bible passages based on Protestant customs or scholarly opinion even if they are not as faithful to the actual text if the better translation would be too Catholic. Scholars like Brant Pitre and Scott Hahn show how this is done.