S
Scottish_Monk
Guest
What do some of you think of the one-volume New Jerome Biblical Commentary?
…Scottish Monk
…Scottish Monk
- Status
T
triumphguy
Guest
It’s big!
It covers every scripture but obviously not in great depth, but it’s a start.
It covers every scripture but obviously not in great depth, but it’s a start.
P
Pilgrim1701
Guest
I use it. But I’ve only use ‘Intro’s to’ before, and they were fairly weak (except Browns intro to the New Testament). I know (I can’t speak for all but) some Trads dislike it.
To me, and I’m not the expert, its a good piece of scholarly, biblical scholarship endorsed by VII and all, inspired by the reforms in biblical scholarship of Pius XII.
To me, and I’m not the expert, its a good piece of scholarly, biblical scholarship endorsed by VII and all, inspired by the reforms in biblical scholarship of Pius XII.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
I’ve heard it heavily uses the historical-critical method. Therefore, I would never recommend it.
P
Pilgrim1701
Guest
Even the Pope utilises the historical-critical method, albeit with qualifications, principally that he trusts the sources, does not seek to diminish the deity of Jesus etc
R
Richard320
Guest
It’s exceedingly scholarly and dry. I own one and haven’t cracked it in several years. It looks impressive on the shelf, though.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
A lot of the time, the historical-critical method goes way too far. It’s fine to use in moderation, but sometimes it goes too far and doubts the authenticity and inspiration of Scripture.
P
Pilgrim1701
Guest
So you recapitulated what I originally said
Z
Zenkai
Guest
Haha, mostly.So you recapitulated what I originally said
P
patrick457
Guest
The term ‘historical criticism’ (aka ‘historical-critical method’ or ‘higher criticism’) is a very broad one, I must point out. Which discipline do you mean? Source criticism? Form criticism? Redaction criticism? Tradition history? or Radical criticism?
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Absolutely. I was called “narrow-minded” by some of my acquaintances when I pointed this out, and was told that I wasn’t a Bible scholar and hence shouldn’t comment on my betters
. But the fact is that everything is dangerous when carried to excess, even Biblical scholarship. It’s quite possible to be orthodox while using scholarly methods (see the introduction to the Synoptic Gospels in the Bible de Jerusalem, which combines the deposit of tradition with modern scholarship to explain how the Greek version of the Gospel of St. Matthew came about), but the New Jerome (St. Jerome, pray for us!!) carries it way too far, at least in my opinion. You’re better off with the notes to the Jerusalem Bible.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Exactly, which is why I recommend not using it and invest the money in something better like the Ignatius Study Bible. I remember years ago I purchased the JBC thinking it was based upon St. Jerome’s commentaries, and was I ever disappointed! In my opinion, if you name a commentary after somebody it should reflect that person’s works.
C
chad_joseph
Guest
not good at all. very skeptical of the bible and not truly catholic in many areas. don’t let the imprimatur fool you either. it was not given by a bishop but by the editors of this so-called bible commentary itself. look to the navarre bible or scott hahn’s study bible. then you will be safe. God bless you.
C
chad_joseph
Guest
very true. that is very misleading to many people.
C
chad_joseph
Guest
i agree totally with you. may i also add that all biblical scholarship is ultimately subject to the teaching authority of the church, the magisterium. so says dei verbum of vatican council 2. that is your and my betters.Absolutely. I was called “narrow-minded” by some of my acquaintances when I pointed this out, and was told that I wasn’t a Bible scholar and hence shouldn’t comment on my betters
J
johnnyjones
Guest
The most widely used Catholic commentary is probably the Jerome Biblical Commentary, now in a 2nd edition. There is also a summary version of it. This commentary is the work of well-known Catholic Biblical scholars and is filled with articles on historical, archaeological, linguistic and other subjects useful for understanding the background of the Scriptures. The JBC is, therefore, a valuable resource for those seeking such information. However, the textual commentaries use primarily the historical-critical method, and thus must be read with discernment. The Church approves of the use of this method for the purpose of understanding the historical and literary foundations of the text (see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11-13), but finds it an incomplete method apart from the Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, that is, in accordance with what God has revealed in toto, as taught by the Magisterium.
C
chad_joseph
Guest
hi pilgrim. biblical scholarship is endorsed by V2 and Pius12 however that being said, it must be subject ultimately to the teaching authority of the church says dei verbum of vatican council 2. this commentary however goes way beyond that. there are also many things in there that undermine church teaching which automatically places it under the heading of bad “scholarship”. and don’t let the imprimatur fool you please. it was not given by a bishop but by the editors themselves. the navarre bible is actually a true product of vatican2. it was commisioned i believe by the founder of opus dei st. jose marie escriva. just want to help you. don’t want you to be mislead in any way. God bless and keep you.
P
patrick457
Guest
Guys, I’m just very curious about what is problematic with the NJBC. Can anyone provide a sample, so to speak?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I know there are a few things that are a little troublesome–for example, as I recall there’s a reference to the troublesome Council of Jamnia
But usually I note serious questions or even outright condemnations from Catholics–which has always seemed odd to me since the authors are/were pretty moderate and mainstream in terms of Catholic biblical scholarship.I guess until now I’ve just chalked this all up to internecine squabbles but I agree that it would be interesting to find out what exactly people find so objectionable–with some page numbers.
P
patrick457
Guest
Just my opinion, but the thing is, people like Fr. Raymond Brown (I see him as a co-author here) are so ‘in the middle’, so to speak, that they don’t really please everyone. Those with more conservative leanings think them to be too liberal, and those who are leaning to the ‘left’ find them too conservative. Case in point: Brown’s ideas were once criticized by more conservative colleague Fr. Richard Gilsdorf. He was then also attacked by Geza Vermes (one who is definitely on the ‘liberal’ side of historical Jesus scholarship) as being “the primary example of the position of having your cake and eating it.” The common ‘liberal’ charge against Brown was that he was too eager to secure an Imprimatur for his works that he was excessively cautious.I know there are a few things that are a little troublesome–for example, as I recall there’s a reference to the troublesome Council of Jamnia
So I guess it really boils down to how you define ‘moderate’. Personally I do find some of his ideas (at least the ones I heard of) to be a bit ‘out there’; I guess I’m a bit more right-leaning than he was.
- Status