New Jerome Biblical Commentary

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmansTheou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmansTheou

Guest
Hello, I have the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and am already wary of some of its content, but would like to know what I should generally and specifically look out for. I would also like to know which of the various authors are trustworthy and which aren’t. Thank you.
 
AmansTheou said:
Hello, I have the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and am already wary of some of its content, but would like to know what I should generally and specifically look out for. I would also like to know which of the various authors are trustworthy and which aren’t. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I bought a copy so that I would be familiar with the standard liberal positions.
 
AmansTheou said:
Hello, I have the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and am already wary of some of its content, but would like to know what I should generally and specifically look out for. I would also like to know which of the various authors are trustworthy and which aren’t. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I understand your question, but NO ONE can or will probably take the time to answer your question in all the gory detail (sorry).

But, let me get you started.

I just read the commentary in TNJBC on Ruth by Alice Laffey. Now, that’s a short article. It has “bookend” comments – comments at the beginning and at the end that I think are prejudicial and very opinionated.

At the beginning, she says that although the story in Ruth is “plausible” she says that “most scholars” consider the book to be fictional. Her very closing words of the commentary are that the book is an example of the “literature” (not sacred inspired writing, mind you!) of a great period of Israel.

Inbetween those remarks, and throughout the short commentary, she beats to death the issue that the marriage of Boaz and Ruth was a levirate marriage.

I have a thread that is still on the first page of the scripture forum here, about the JPS Commentary on Ruth. The authors there state that the marriage of Ruth is NOT a levirate marriage. So, you have your choice of interpretations. TNJBC being on one side.

If you actually READ Ruth, you will note that Boaz is the “kinsman redeemer” not a “levir” (brother in law). So, the “case” stacks quickly against TNJBC, in my opinion. These are not the same things. Yes, the issue of a possible levirate marriage is discussed over and over, but the actual marriage is NOT a levirate marriage. In Chapter One of Ruth, Naomi explicitly says there IS no one to fulfill the levirate marriage. She goes on at some length to explain to Ruth and Orpah that SHE is not married, and if she was, they probably wouldn’t want to hang around waiting for her babies to grow up to BE levirate husbands. I mean, I think the case against levirate marriage couldn’t be plainer – to me and you, but not, it seems, to Alice Laffey.

At a sale at a Christian bookstore, years ago I picked up a copy of the Matthew Henry commentary on the Bible (for about $22). I’m reading through that now. MH’s commentary is one that gives a lot of meditations on the scripture, and he talks about “practical” aspects of scripture.

Fr. Raymond Brown is one of the main editors of TNJBC. He has a mixed reputation, as I can tell. Some hold him in absolutely the highest regards and virtually unimpeachable, but I can’t hold to that, myself.

see next post
 
If you read Brown’s essays, it will be a revelation to you.

He feels that the infancy narratives of the gospels are all fiction. (actually, this may be in one of Brown’s other books.) He says that TNJBC should NOT be quoted as “gospel truth” and that if someone comes along to eventually update it, they will probably (let me be kind here) update it considerably.

so, if HE tells you not to take TNJBC too seriously, then who better should you listen to?

In one of his essays, he also remarks that the first chapters of Genesis being fictional, he thinks the Church should throw out the doctrine of original sin (this is in TNJBC!).

WELL. Check your catechism to see if Brown was heeded on this point (I don’t think so).

Now, Brown was ON the Pontifical Biblical Commission for a while, which is a testimony to his high reputation.

There are other issues I have stumbled on in his essays. HE thinks that the best way to learn scripture is to learn from a qualified person, that is teacher.

WELL, maybe it’;s a different issue, but the Pont Bibl Comm issued its document on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church in 1993 or 1994, and it recommends that you or I should read the Bible alongside a commentary. So, ,maybe those are not mutually exclusive ideas, but they are different. Take your pick.

I have not read the entire TNJBC, but I have found good essays in there.

Go ahead. Start reading Brown’s essays and see if I have misrepresented him in any way. He’s had his say, and I’ve now had mine.
 
If you read the TNJBC entry for the gospel of John, you will find the basis for some controversy.

The issue there is that the “last supper” (not a term used in scripture, but rather the title of a painting by da Vinci) was NOT on Holy Thursday. I think that’s part of the issue. It’s been a while since I looked at that.

The larger controvery is whether the “last supper” was a Passover Meal? Now, the synoptic gospels say that it was. But, I seem to recall that the entry for the gospel of John takes up that issue differently.

Of course, this is the basis for a lot of misbehavior in the Church at present, in using potato chips or cookies or whatever for the Eucharist.
there’s also the question of authorship of the books of the Bible. last I heard, the Church does not have an official opinion about the authorship of any of the books of the Bible.

I actually witnessed a priest at Mass reciting the gospel, who took issue with the name of that gospel. He was supposed to say something like “A reading from the gospel of [X]” and he said something like “A reading from the gospel purportedly written by [X]”

So, TNJBC is the basis for a lot of turmoil in the Church. God bless your study.
 
Crumpy said:
I actually witnessed a priest at Mass reciting the gospel, who took issue with the name of that gospel. He was supposed to say something like “A reading from the gospel of [X]” and he said something like “A reading from the gospel purportedly written by [X]”
Click to expand...
At the minor elevation did he say, “This is purportedly the Lamb of God, who takes away the alleged sins of the world”?
 
DianaCC said:
Yes, but you can debate just what exactly that means in their cases. Plus they’re just the editors; the articles were writen by many other people.
Click to expand...
Pardon, please look again. They are authors in their own right, the commentary, not just the editors.
 
Crumpy said:
Pardon, please look again. They are authors in their own right, the commentary, not just the editors.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to argue a matter of fact that can be settled by looking at the table of contents.
 
Exactamundo.

Brown: preface, chapters 66, 67,68,71,72,73,80,81

Fitzmyer: preface, chapters 45,47,51,52,79,82

Yup, don’t have to argue what’s right in the index, alright. It’s right there…and here.
 
I want to purchase this but the price keeps changing on Amazon.

$58 → $56 → $54 → $61.
 
Grumpy said:
If you read the TNJBC entry for the gospel of John, you will find the basis for some controversy.

The issue there is that the “last supper” (not a term used in scripture, but rather the title of a painting by da Vinci) was NOT on Holy Thursday. I think that’s part of the issue. It’s been a while since I looked at that.

The larger controversy is whether the “last supper” was a Passover Meal? Now, the synoptic gospels say that it was. But, I seem to recall that the entry for the gospel of John takes up that issue differently.

Of course, this is the basis for a lot of misbehavior in the Church at present, in using potato chips or cookies or whatever for the Eucharist.
there’s also the question of authorship of the books of the Bible. last I heard, the Church does not have an official opinion about the authorship of any of the books of the Bible.

I actually witnessed a priest at Mass reciting the gospel, who took issue with the name of that gospel. He was supposed to say something like “A reading from the gospel of [X]” and he said something like “A reading from the gospel purportedly written by [X]”

So, TNJBC is the basis for a lot of turmoil in the Church. God bless your study.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m somewhat surprised by those who say there are inconsistencies in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Personally I don’t own TNJBC. I have the hard-cover edition of The Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1968 (Prentice-Hall Publishers International).

This Forum isn’t the only Catholic Forum Online that speaks about some inconsistencies in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary which at the moment has me somewhat confused. Is there a full explanation of what all these inconsistencies entail?

I use The Jerome Biblical Commentary and often the Haydock Biblical Commentary Online.
 
centurionguard said:
I guess I’m somewhat surprised by those who say there are inconsistencies in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Personally I don’t own TNJBC. I have the hard-cover edition of The Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1968 (Prentice-Hall Publishers International).

This Forum isn’t the only Catholic Forum Online that speaks about some inconsistencies in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary which at the moment has me somewhat confused. Is there a full explanation of what all these inconsistencies entail?

I use The Jerome Biblical Commentary and often the Haydock Biblical Commentary Online.
Click to expand...
Since there are multiple contributors we would expect inconsistencies.
 
DianaCC said:
I bought a copy so that I would be familiar with the standard liberal positions.
Click to expand...
I wary of latent liberalism too, but Fitzmyer’s article “Pauline Theology” (chap. 82) is outstanding.
 
I agree. I’m not that well read – the Catechism, for example. So, I can’t say how much better TNJBC might be (in some respects, like Pauline theology) than the Catechism. Certainly their focus is different.

It illustrates one of my own principles of bible study. I can study and reach a certain level of understanding and say to myself “that’s pretty good.” But, I am always open to something better that might come along.

In that vein, I’m waiting with anticipation for the Old Testament version of the Ignatius Study Bible, for its commentaries on the Torah, specifically, but for all the study points about all the OT books.

I’ve felt too disappointed to keep TNJBC at arms length, for ready reference. Its always somewhere, in a pile of books, if I really want to get at it.
 
where i can find a free pdf of new jerome biblical commentary
thanks:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top