Navarre Bible Commentary vs the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture?

[atassina]

What are the relative distinctions between the Navarre Bible Commentary and the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture?

 

[phil19034]

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have not done any extensive study with either but on my limited observation of them I do know that the Navarre Bible is laid out like a study Bible and the CCSS is laid out as a Bible commentary. In my opinion I feel that the Navarre Bible is nearly unbeatable. The CCSS impressed me as well, for its laid out beautifully. If I was you I would get a volume of each and see what you think before committing to one or the other.

 

[drforjc]

If by CCSS you mean the one by Orchard, et.al., I’d add that Navarre tends to be a very “spiritual” commentary vs. a “scholarly” one.

Not that the NB authors aren’t scholars-- but what I see is that NB is more speaking of application to our spiritual lives vs. an academic commentary.

To be sure, there is crossover in both directions, but, to me, that’s a major difference.

 

[atassina]

Thanks to all

i’m settling on your distinctions

a

 

[CountrySteve]

I think the Navarre Bible series reflects on the spiritual side and reflects the four senses on Scripture; its not too technical.

The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture focus on the first sense on Scripture primarily, and is a good balance between technical and spiritual.

Both are excellent

 

[Robbinson]

I use them both, but have set the Navarre as my preferred commentary in Verbum (the bible study software I use for study). That said, on difficult passages I consult both (as well as a variety of other sources).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Richca]

What are the relative distinctions between the Navarre Bible Commentary and the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture?

I am not sure which Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture you are referring too. The Navarre Bible I am familiar with and it has excellent explanatory notes. I think one thing you can be sure about the Navarre Bible is that you won’t find in any of the commentary anything that is contrary to the catholic faith. The commentary in the Navarre Bible is according to catholic faith and interpretation and Tradition and there are lots of references to the fathers and doctors of the Church.

I am also familiar with the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, both of which I have. These are very scholarly and informative as they take into account new things we have learned from archaeology, the study of the languages used in the Bible, ancient cultures, history, the various ancient manuscripts of the Bible, etc. Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) opened the way to a modern, scientific study of the Bible which has been very fruitful. However, I simply do not agree with everything that some biblical scholars of the modern historical-critical approach say and I have found such things in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary if I remember correctly. I can’t remember what exactly or where at the moment. Some biblical scholars of the modern historical-critical approach may question, for example, if Jesus actually said some of the things the gospel writers say he did or if it was an addition of some sort by the gospel writer. Or, whether Jesus actually knew he was divine! How can a divine person not know he is divine? Things of this nature are not according to catholic faith and interpretation and are simply false.

The New Jerusalem Bible also has a very good commentary with it. I use a number of sources, as well as what the fathers and doctors of the Church had to say and especially what the Church may have said officially, when investigating a particular passage or book of the bible.